G.R. No. L-23846 September 9, 1977
GO TEK, petitioner-appellee, vs. DEPORTATION BOARD, respondent-appellant.

FACTS

The Deportation Board filed a complaint against Go Tek, a Chinese alien, alleging he was an intelligence officer of an alleged guerilla unit and was found in possession of fake dollar checks, constituting a violation of Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code and rendering him an undesirable alien. The Board sought a recommendation for his deportation. Go Tek moved to dismiss, arguing the complaint was premature due to a pending criminal case for the same alleged violation before the Manila Fiscal’s Office. He contended the Board lacked jurisdiction, citing an obiter dictum in Qua Chee Gan vs. Deportation Board that deportation must be based on grounds specified by law. The Board denied his motion, asserting a conviction is not a prerequisite for deportation proceedings and that its function is merely investigatory and recommendatory to the President.
Go Tek then filed a prohibition action with the Court of First Instance of Manila to restrain the Board. The trial court granted the writ, agreeing with Go Tek that mere possession of forged checks was not a statutory ground for deportation under the Immigration Act and that a prior conviction was necessary under Section 37(a)(3) for crimes involving moral turpitude. The Deportation Board appealed directly to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Deportation Board has jurisdiction to investigate an alien for deportation based on alleged acts not explicitly enumerated in Section 37 of the Immigration Law and prior to any criminal conviction for those acts.

RULING

Yes, the Deportation Board has jurisdiction. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision. The legal logic is anchored on the plenary and inherent power of the state, exercised through the President, to deport undesirable aliens. This executive power is derived from Section 69 of the Revised Administrative Code, which authorizes the Chief Executive, after investigation, to deport aliens whose presence is inimical to public interest. This authority is broader and distinct from the specific grounds listed in Section 37 of the Immigration Law, which governs deportation by the Commissioner of Immigration. The Court clarified that the obiter dictum in the Qua Chee Gan case was inapplicable, as that case dealt with the constitutionality of arrest warrants issued by the Board, not the scope of deportable grounds.
The Court emphasized that deportation is a political and administrative act, not a criminal penalty. Consequently, a prior criminal conviction is not a jurisdictional prerequisite. The Board’s role is investigatory and fact-finding, submitting recommendations to the President, who is the sole and exclusive judge of the sufficiency of evidence and the necessity of deportation based on the undesirability of the alien’s residence. The charge against Go Tek was therefore not premature. The Court dissolved the injunction and remanded the case to the Deportation Board for further proceedings.