G.R. No. 166199 ; April 24, 2009
THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY and THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION, Petitioners, vs. CHRISTOPHER KORUGA, Respondent.

FACTS

In August 2001, the Bureau of Immigration (BI) Commissioner received an anonymous letter requesting the deportation of Christopher Koruga, an American national, for being an undesirable alien. The letter alleged he was found guilty of Violation of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act in Washington, USA, for attempted possession of cocaine in 1983. Based on a Summary of Information, a Mission Order was issued, leading to Koruga’s arrest on September 17, 2001. He was charged before the Board of Special Inquiry for violating Section 37(a)(4) of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940, as amended. The BI’s Board of Commissioners (BOC) rendered a Judgment on February 11, 2002, ordering his deportation. Koruga’s motion for reconsideration was denied. He appealed to the Office of the President, which referred the case to the Department of Justice (DOJ). The DOJ Secretary dismissed the appeal on April 1, 2003. Koruga then filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA set aside the DOJ Resolution and the BOC Judgment, dismissing the deportation case. The CA held there was no valid ground for deportation, finding that Koruga was not convicted or sentenced for a drug law violation, as the U.S. court had dismissed the case, and that the law referred to in Section 37(a)(4) pertains to Philippine drug laws, not foreign ones. The petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

1. Whether the exclusive authority of the BOC over deportation proceedings bars judicial review.
2. Whether there is a valid and legal ground for the deportation of respondent under Section 37(a)(4) of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940.

RULING

1. No, the exclusive authority of the BOC does not bar judicial review. While the BI has exclusive authority and jurisdiction over deportation proceedings, the Constitution vests the power of judicial review in the Supreme Court and lower courts. The courts may review and resolve questions of whether such judgment was made with grave abuse of discretion, i.e., if it is contrary to the Constitution, law, or jurisprudence, or executed whimsically, capriciously, or arbitrarily. The filing of a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the CA to assail a deportation order on the ground of grave abuse of discretion is permitted.
2. No, there is no valid and legal ground for the deportation of respondent under Section 37(a)(4). The provision requires that an alien be “convicted and sentenced for a violation of the law governing prohibited drugs.” The Court interpreted “the law” to refer to Philippine law, specifically Republic Act No. 6425 (the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) at the time, not foreign drug laws. Furthermore, the evidence presented did not establish that Koruga was convicted and sentenced. The documents from the U.S. Embassy indicated the case against him was “dismissed,” and there was no showing of a final judgment of conviction. The BI’s reliance on the alleged dismissal “after fulfilling the conditions for his probation” was insufficient, as no court order or judgment demonstrating a conviction was presented. Therefore, the BI and DOJ acted with grave abuse of discretion in ordering deportation based on unsubstantiated allegations.