GR 31067; (September, 1929) (Digest)
March 9, 2026GR 31244; (September, 1929) (Digest)
March 9, 2026G.R. No. 31150, September 10, 1929
GETTY MONITZ DE MILLER, petitioner-appellant, vs. THE INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, respondent-appellee.
FACTS
Getty Monitz de Miller, an alien, was deported from the Philippine Islands on October 6, 1928, by order of the Governor-General. The deportation was based on an investigation under Section 69 of the Administrative Code, which found her to be an undesirable alien due to her bad conduct and two convictions for violating Philippine laws. On January 7, 1929, she attempted to re-enter the country via Manila. A Board of Special Inquiry investigated her upon arrival. During the investigation, she admitted to her prior deportation, convictions, and imprisonment, and stated she had no passport. The Board recommended her exclusion as an undesirable alien who had been deported and lacked the necessary passport, and further recommended that the vessel that brought her be required to return her to her port of origin. The Insular Collector of Customs approved this recommendation. Miller filed a petition for habeas corpus with the Court of First Instance of Manila, which was denied. She appealed this decision.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of First Instance erred in denying the petition for habeas corpus and in upholding the detention and exclusion of Getty Monitz de Miller by the Collector of Customs.
RULING
No, the Court of First Instance did not err. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision. The Court held that Miller, having been legally deported by order of the Governor-General after a proper investigation, had no right to return to the Philippine Islands unless that deportation order was vacated by the Governor-General. The actions of the Collector of Customs in detaining her for the purpose of returning her to the port from which she came were merely in execution of that valid deportation order. Therefore, her detention was legal, and the writ of habeas corpus was properly denied. The appeal was dismissed, with costs against the appellant.
This is AI Generated. Powered by Armztrong.
