Jao Quim Cho v. Collector of Customs
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The appellant, Jao Quim Cho, an eighteen-year-old minor, is the son of a Chinese merchant residing in the Philippine Islands. His father had temporarily gone to China due to sickness. The appellant had previously resided in the Philippine Islands with his parents and was admitted as the minor son of a resident Chinese merchant. In 1911, he returned to China for a visit with the intention of returning. Before leaving, he was informed by the collector of customs that a certificate was not necessary for him as a minor. Procedural History: The Collector of Customs of Cebu denied the appellant entry. A petition for a writ of habeas corpus was filed, and the Court of First Instance of Cebu confirmed the decision of the customs department and ordered the appellant's deportation. The appellant appealed this decision. The Petition: The appellant sought to enter the Philippine Islands as the minor son of a resident Chinese merchant, asserting his right to re-entry after a temporary absence.
Issue(s)
Whether a minor son of a resident Chinese merchant, who was legally admitted into the Philippine Islands and temporarily departed, may be denied re-entry. Whether the denial of entry by the Collector of Customs constituted an abuse of authority.
Ruling
The judgment of the lower court ordering the appellant's deportation is revoked, and the appellant is ordered to be permitted to enter the Philippine Islands.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of re-entry for a minor son of a resident Chinese merchant: The Court held that a minor child of a resident Chinese merchant, who has been legally admitted into the Philippine Islands, is permitted to enter the territory of the United States without a "section six certificate." The appellant was still a minor, his father was a resident Chinese merchant, and at the time the appellant sought entry, his father was temporarily absent with the intention of returning. The Court reasoned that the appellant having been legally admitted without the necessity of a "section six certificate," he stands on the same footing as any other alien who may enter the Philippine Islands. The fact that his father, who had a right to return and remain, was temporarily absent did not negate the appellant's right to re-enter. The Court cited several cases, including United States vs. Tan Chuy Ho and United States vs. Li Sui Wun, to support the principle that once lawfully admitted, a Chinese person may come and go freely, a privilege extended to the wife and minor children of a resident Chinese merchant. On the issue of abuse of authority: The Court found that if the proof adduced shows that the appellant had a right to enter the Philippine Islands, it was an abuse of authority, power, and discretion for the department of customs to refuse him that right. The Court concluded that the uncontradicted proof clearly showed the appellant was entitled to enter the territory of the United States. The Chinese Exclusion Law cannot be invoked to keep out persons who have a right to enter or to prevent actual bona fide residents from entering. Applying the principle from Ang Eng Chong vs. Collector of Customs, the Court stated that it is an abuse of authority for the Insular Collector of Customs to apply the exclusion law to such persons.
Main Doctrine
A minor son of a resident Chinese merchant, who was legally admitted into the Philippine Islands and subsequently departed temporarily with the intention of returning, retains the right to re-enter, and the denial of such entry by the Collector of Customs constitutes an abuse of authority.