G.R. No. L-20239; February 29, 1964
THE DEPORTATION BOARD, MAGNO S. GATMAITAN as Chairman, ARTURO A. ALAFRIZ and MANUEL V. REYES as Members, petitioners, vs. HON. GUILLERMO S. SANTOS, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XI and ROBERT LA RUE STEWART, respondents.

FACTS

On August 17, 1962, Robert La Rue Stewart, an American citizen, was charged before the Deportation Board as an undesirable alien, with the specific allegation that he violated the Revised Election Code by aiding candidates and influencing the 1961 elections. Stewart moved for the dismissal of this electioneering charge before the Board, but the Chairman denied his motion. Consequently, Stewart filed a petition for prohibition with the Court of First Instance of Manila, seeking to restrain the Deportation Board from proceeding with the electioneering aspect of the case. He argued that under Section 185 of the Revised Election Code, jurisdiction over such a charge against a foreigner is vested in the courts, with deportation being an additional penalty only after a judicial conviction. He claimed the Board acted without authority and prayed for a preliminary injunction to prevent irreparable injury pending the court’s resolution.
The Deportation Board, while not contesting the lower court’s jurisdiction to hear the prohibition case, opposed the injunction. It contended that the President’s inherent power to deport undesirable aliens could not be diminished by Section 185 of the Election Code, and thus the Board retained jurisdiction to investigate the charge. Despite this opposition, the lower court issued a writ of preliminary injunction on September 4, 1962, enjoining the Board from proceeding with the electioneering investigation. The Board’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition for certiorari and prohibition to nullify the injunction.

ISSUE

Whether the lower court gravely abused its discretion in issuing the writ of preliminary injunction pending its determination of the Deportation Board’s jurisdiction to investigate the electioneering charges against Stewart.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic is anchored on the provisional nature of a preliminary injunction and the substantive legal question requiring judicial determination. The Court clarified that a preliminary injunction is a proper ancillary remedy in a prohibition suit to preserve the status quo and prevent the main action from being rendered ineffective. Its issuance is not automatic but depends on whether the petitioner is not indubitably entitled to the principal relief sought.
Here, the core issue presented to the lower court was a genuine legal controversy: whether the investigation and potential deportation for an election offense under Section 185 of the Revised Election Code falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts, as it prescribes deportation as an additional penalty after judicial conviction, or whether the Deportation Board, as an executive agent, possesses concurrent or prior authority. The Court noted its recent ruling in Qua Chee Gan v. Deportation Board, which suggested that deportation grounds are typically defined by statute, implying legislative intent could limit executive discretion. Therefore, at that preliminary stage, it could not be definitively said that Stewart was unquestionably not entitled to the relief of prohibition. Since the substantive jurisdictional issue required a full hearing on the merits, the lower court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing the injunction to maintain the parties’ positions until a final resolution. The writ was a preservative measure, not a prejudgment of the merits.