G.R. No. 242957 , February 28, 2023.
THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION AND THE JAIL WARDEN, BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION DETENTION CENTER, PETITIONERS, VS. YUAN WENLE, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

The Bureau of Immigration’s (BI) Board of Commissioners issued a Summary Deportation Order (SDO) against respondent Yuan Wenle on July 26, 2018, pursuant to a letter from the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China seeking assistance for his arrest for alleged crimes in China. Wenle was arrested by BI immigration officers on August 22, 2018. Wenle filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 16. The RTC granted the petition and declared the SDO null and void, reasoning that it was issued without affording Wenle due process, particularly in relation to Rule 9 of the BI’s Omnibus Rules of Procedure. The Office of the Solicitor General, on behalf of the BI Board, filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari to assail the RTC Resolution.

ISSUE

The primary issue is the correctness of the RTC Resolution granting the writ of habeas corpus, which hinges on whether Wenle’s detention by the BI pursuant to the SDO was lawful and complied with due process.

RULING

Justice Singh, in a Separate Concurring Opinion, agrees with the ponencia’s result to nullify the RTC Resolution and deny the habeas corpus petition, finding Wenle’s detention lawful. However, Justice Singh expresses that the ponencia’s extensive guidelines for determining the validity of administrative warrants issued by non-judicial agencies are obiter dictum and an advisory opinion, as the constitutional permissibility of such warrants was not an issue directly raised by the parties in this case. The case specifically concerns the BI’s power in deportation proceedings, not a broad challenge to non-judicial warrants. Justice Singh notes that the due process clause of the Constitution extends its protection to foreigners in the Philippines, and the BI’s own Omnibus Rules require deportation proceedings to be conducted subject to due process. Citing Qua Chee Gan v. Deportation Board, Justice Singh highlights the historical doubt about whether any authority other than a judge can order an arrest for administrative investigations under the Constitution. This doubt was later addressed in Salazar v. Achacoso, which recognized the President’s exceptional power to arrest and deport aliens as an inherent state power related to foreign affairs. While viewing the ponencia’s guidelines as academic in this context, Justice Singh offers them for scholarly discussion, implying agreement with the underlying principle that any administrative deprivation of liberty must be strictly scrutinized for due process compliance.