G.R. No. L-9430. June 29, 1957.
Emilio Suntay y Aguinaldo, petitioner, vs. The People of the Philippines, The Honorable Nicasio Yatco, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Quezon City Branch V, and The Honorable Carlos P. Garcia, as Secretary for Foreign Affairs, respondents.

FACTS

On June 26, 1954, a verified complaint for acts of lasciviousness was filed against Emilio Suntay by the father of Alicia Nubla, a minor. After investigation, an Assistant City Attorney recommended dismissal on December 15, 1954. The complainant’s attorney objected to this dismissal on December 23, 1954. On January 10, 1955, Suntay was granted a passport and left for the United States on January 20, 1955. On January 31, 1955, the offended girl subscribed to a complaint for seduction, which was filed in court after preliminary investigation. On February 9, 1955, the private prosecutor filed a motion for an order directing government agencies to take steps to bring Suntay back to the Philippines. The court granted this motion on February 10, 1955. On March 7, 1955, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs cabled instructions to cancel Suntay’s passport and compel his return, considering his presence abroad detrimental to the government’s interest. This order was not implemented pending judicial resolution. Suntay’s counsel requested reconsideration from the Secretary and filed a motion for reconsideration in court, both of which were denied. Suntay then filed this petition for certiorari to annul the court’s order and for prohibition to enjoin the Secretary from cancelling his passport without a hearing.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of First Instance acted in excess of its jurisdiction by ordering the Department of Foreign Affairs to take steps to bring the accused back to the Philippines.
2. Whether the Secretary of Foreign Affairs can cancel a passport without a prior hearing, consistent with due process.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition.
1. On the court’s order: The respondent court’s order directing the Department of Foreign Affairs “to take proper steps” to bring the accused back was not beyond or in excess of its jurisdiction. Under Section 6, Rule 124 of the Rules of Court, a court with conferred jurisdiction may employ all auxiliary writs and processes necessary to carry it into effect. The court did not specify the steps to be taken and did not itself order the cancellation of the passport.
2. On passport cancellation without a hearing: The Secretary of Foreign Affairs has discretionary authority, under Executive Order No. 1, series of 1946, to withdraw or cancel a passport. This discretion is not to be exercised whimsically. In this case, where the passport holder is facing a criminal charge and left the country, the Secretary’s action was a sound exercise of discretion to prevent a miscarriage of justice. Due process does not necessarily require a hearing when discretion is exercised upon an undisputed fact, such as the filing of a serious criminal charge. The absence of a hearing does not render the action whimsical, capricious, or a violation of constitutional due process. The cited American cases are distinguishable as they involved revocations based on vague reasons of “best interest,” unlike the clear factual scenario here.