Gan Bun Cho v. Insular Collector of Customs
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The plaintiff, Gan Bun Cho, arrived at the port of Manila on November 11, 1912, on the steamship Taisang, seeking permission to enter the Philippine Islands. He presented a "section six certificate," issued by Chinese officials and countersigned by a United States consul, which permitted his entry. Procedural History: Subsequently, the plaintiff applied to the Insular Collector of Customs for a certificate of residence under section 7 of Act No. 702. The Collector denied this application, reasoning that section 7 did not apply to Chinese individuals who had entered under a "section six certificate." On April 12, 1913, the plaintiff filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the Court of First Instance of Manila to compel the issuance of the certificate. The Court of First Instance granted the writ. The Petition: The defendant, the Insular Collector of Customs, appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance, assigning as error the lower court's order to issue the certificate of residence and to award costs.
Issue(s)
Whether the Insular Collector of Customs has a duty to issue a certificate of residence under section 7 of Act No. 702 to a Chinese person who entered the Philippine Islands under a "section six certificate." Whether section 7 of Act No. 702 was adopted without authority on the part of the Philippine Commission. Whether a "section six certificate" grants a right to permanent residence in the territory of the United States.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the lower court, denying the plaintiff's petition for a writ of mandamus. The Court held that the Insular Collector of Customs is not obligated to issue the certificate of residence provided for in section 7 of Act No. 702 to individuals who entered the Philippine Islands under a "section six certificate."
Ratio Decidendi
On the duty to issue a certificate of residence under section 7 of Act No. 702: The Court agreed with the contention of the Attorney-General that it was not the intention of the Philippine Commission to provide a certificate of residence under section 7 of Act No. 702 to Chinese persons who entered the Philippine Islands under a "section six certificate." While the Court did not definitively rule on whether the plaintiff, under his "section six certificate," was permitted to remain permanently in the territory of the United States, it was sufficient for the present case to state that he was not entitled to the certificate of residence provided for in section 7. The "section six certificate" was intended to facilitate the entrance of a certain class of Chinese persons permitted to enter under treaty, not to grant permanent residence. The certificate of residence under section 7, however, was interpreted as permitting permanent residence. Therefore, issuing the section 7 certificate to someone with a section six certificate would grant a right to permanent residence contrary to the intent of the Act of Congress. On the authority of the Philippine Commission to adopt section 7 of Act No. 702: The Attorney-General contended that section 7 was adopted without authority by the Philippine Commission. The Court did not explicitly rule on this contention but proceeded to interpret the application of section 7 based on the nature of the certificates involved. The Court's decision hinges on the distinction between the rights conferred by the "section six certificate" and the "certificate of residence" under section 7, rather than a direct ruling on the Commission's authority to enact section 7 itself. On whether a "section six certificate" grants a right to permanent residence: The Court noted that the question of the length of time a Chinese person may remain in the territory of the United States under a "section six certificate" had not been directly decided by Federal courts. However, it cited dicta indicating that such certificates permit Chinese persons to enter and abide therein during their pleasure. The Court acknowledged that if a Chinese person is rightfully admitted, they may remain even if they later cease to belong to the class they belonged to at entry. The "section six certificate" was not intended as a restriction on the right to enter but as evidence of that right. The Court stated that Chinese persons holding such certificates are allowed to come and go at their own free will and accord, with no specified time limit mentioned in any case called to their attention.
Main Doctrine
A Chinese person entering the Philippine Islands under a "section six certificate" is not entitled to a certificate of residence under section 7 of Act No. 702, as the latter certificate provides for permanent residence, which is distinct from the temporary right of entry granted by the former.