G.R. No. L-46212; January 17, 1939
HO TYA, represented by his father Ho Sih Tiak, petitioner, vs. ANGEL MARAVE, ET AL., as president and members of the Board of Special Inquiry of Cebu, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Ho Tya sought admission into the Philippines as the son of a Chinese merchant. During the hearing before the Board of Special Inquiry in Cebu, the Board refused to receive any evidence to prove his father’s merchant status, citing a standing order from the Department of Labor (Administrative Order No. 5). The Board’s resolution stated that only the Secretary of Labor was authorized to decide applications for merchant endorsements, and such evidence should be presented directly to the Secretary, with family members’ cases held in abeyance pending approval. Ho Tya filed a petition for mandamus to compel the Board to receive his evidence, alleging abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

Whether the Department of Labor, through its administrative orders, could validly deprive the Board of Special Inquiry of its statutory power to receive evidence and determine the right of an alien to enter the Philippines, specifically on the issue of merchant status.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court granted the petition for mandamus. The Board of Special Inquiry is a creation of the Act of Congress of February 5, 1917, which vested it with the original authority to determine an alien’s right to land, including the power to receive and hear evidence on facts establishing that right. The Department of Labor’s “executive supervision” under Commonwealth Act No. 139 does not include the power to alter or amend the Act of Congress by stripping the Board of this fundamental authority. The Board’s refusal to receive evidence was an abuse of discretion. The Court also held that the remedies of appeal or habeas corpus were not available as there was no final decision on the merits. Mandamus was the proper and speedy remedy. The Board was ordered to receive and hear the petitioner’s evidence.

AI Generated by Armztrong.