GR 153454; (July, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 153454 ; July 7, 2004
Agus Dwikarna, petitioner, vs. Hon. Andrea D. Domingo, Commissioner, Bureau of Immigration, et al., respondents.
FACTS
On March 13, 2002, Indonesian national Agus Dwikarna and two companions were apprehended at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport after security screening found C-4 plastic explosives and detonating cords in their luggage. A criminal information for violation of P.D. 1866 (illegal possession of explosives) was filed against them in the Pasay City Regional Trial Court. Separately, the Bureau of Immigration (BI) filed a deportation charge against them for being undesirable aliens under the Philippine Immigration Act.
The trial court granted bail in the criminal case but conditioned the release on the absence of other legal causes for confinement. The BI, however, ordered their detention pending the deportation proceedings. Dwikarna filed a petition for habeas corpus before the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing illegal restraint of liberty. The CA dismissed the petition, ruling that the supervening deportation charge constituted a valid legal ground for his continued detention. Dwikarna then elevated the case to the Supreme Court via certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for habeas corpus and in upholding Dwikarna’s continued detention by immigration authorities despite the grant of bail in the criminal case.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA’s dismissal. The legal logic is anchored on the distinct nature and purpose of criminal proceedings and deportation proceedings. Habeas corpus secures release from unlawful confinement, but detention is lawful if based on a valid process. Here, the grant of bail in Criminal Case No. 02-0576 pertained only to the criminal charge under P.D. 1866.
The separate deportation case under the Philippine Immigration Act provided an independent and valid legal ground for Dwikarna’s continued detention. The BI’s warrant of arrest and the pending deportation charges constituted lawful authority to detain him as an undesirable alien. The Court emphasized that the constitutional right to bail does not extend to deportation proceedings, which are administrative in character. Furthermore, under Section 37(a) of the Immigration Act, an alien subject to deportation may be detained without bail at the discretion of the Commissioner. Therefore, Dwikarna’s detention by the BI was legal and justified irrespective of the bail granted in the criminal case, rendering the petition for habeas corpus unavailing.