G.R. No. L-20267 October 31, 1969
GAW LAM, ETC., ET AL., petitioners-appellants, vs. HON. AGAPITO CONCHU, in his capacity as Acting Commissioner of Immigration, respondent-appellee.

FACTS

Petitioner Gaw Lam, a Chinese national, came to the Philippines in 1940, later naturalized as a Filipino citizen in 1961. His wife and four children entered the Philippines on September 8, 1961, as temporary visitors under Section 9(a) of the Immigration Act of 1940, supported by an affidavit stating they would stay only for three months and not change their status, and a cash bond posted by Gaw Lam. Despite this, they requested a change of status to special non-immigrants. The Secretary of Foreign Affairs, in a 1st Indorsement dated October 27, 1961, approved the request. The Undersecretary of Justice, in a 2nd Indorsement dated November 6, 1961, also approved an extension of stay until September 22, 1963, but imposed conditions: securing re-entry permits to Hongkong valid two months beyond their extended stay and maintaining their cash bonds. These conditions were not complied with; instead, a request for a change of category was made, which was apparently denied by the Commissioner of Immigration. When the Acting Commissioner of Immigration was about to deport the wife and children upon the expiration of their temporary stay permit on March 30, 1962, and possibly confiscate the cash bond, Gaw Lam and his family filed a petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction in the Court of First Instance of Manila, alleging lack of jurisdiction by the Commissioner. The lower court issued a preliminary injunction but later dismissed the petition upon the Solicitor General’s motion to dismiss. Petitioners appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance correctly dismissed the petition for prohibition, thereby upholding the Commissioner of Immigration’s authority to order deportation despite prior indorsements from the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Undersecretary of Justice.

RULING

Yes, the order of dismissal is affirmed. The Supreme Court held that under Commonwealth Act No. 613 (the Philippine Immigration Act), the Commissioner of Immigration is the administrative head charged with administering laws relating to alien immigration. The Secretary of Foreign Affairs is not authorized to admit aliens for temporary stay or extend their authorized period of stay; such power is vested in the Commissioner of Immigration, and ultimately, the President of the Philippines under Section 47. The Court cited Ang Liong v. The Commissioner of Immigration, which established that the Secretary of Foreign Affairs lacks such authority. It noted that the Secretaries of Foreign Affairs and Justice had subsequently adopted a “hands-off policy,” recognizing that a prior Cabinet resolution granting them concurrent jurisdiction was without legal effect. Furthermore, the conditions imposed by the Undersecretary of Justice for the extension were not complied with. Since there was no patent abuse of discretion or lack of jurisdiction by the Commissioner of Immigration, the lower court correctly refrained from issuing the writ of prohibition. The proper remedy for petitioners was to exhaust administrative remedies by appealing to the President, as the matter falls within the exclusive province of the Executive Department.