Marianne L.

Lalwani 1 Administrative Law

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-9430 EMILIO SUNTA vs. T"E PEOPLE O# T"E P"ILIPPINES, T"E "ONORA$LE NICASIO ATCO, %& Ju'(e o) *+e Cou,* o) #-,&* In&*%n.e o) R-/%0, 1ue/on C-*2 $,%n.+ 3, %n' T"E "ONORA$LE CARLOS P. GARCIA, %& Se.,e*%,2 )o, #o,e-(n A))%-,&, Respondents. PA!ILLA, J.4 This is a petition for a writ of certiorari to annul an order of the Court of First nstance of !ue"on Cit# directin$ % . . . the National Bureau of nvesti$ation and the &epart'ent of Forei$n Affairs for the' to ta(e proper steps in order that the accused, E'ilio )unta# # A$uinaldo, who is alle$ed to be in the *nited )tates, 'a# be brou$ht bac( to the Philippines, so that he 'a# be dealt with in accordance with law, +E,hibit &and of prohibition to en.oin the )ecretar# for Forei$n Affairs fro' cancellin$ the petitioner/s passport without previous hearin$. 0n 12 3une 4567, &r. Antonio Nubla, father of Alicia Nubla, a 'inor of 42 #ears, filed a verified co'plaint a$ainst E'ilio )unta# in the 0ffice of the Cit# Attorne# of !ue"on Cit#, as follows8 0n or about 3une 14, 4567, the accused too( Alicia Nubla fro' )t. Paul/s Colle$es in !ue"on Cit# with lewd desi$n and too( her to so'ewhere near the *.P. co'pound in &ili'an, !ue"on Cit# and was then able to have carnal (nowled$e of her. Alicia Nubla is a 'inor of 42 #ears. 0n 46 &ece'ber 4567, after an investi$ation, an Assistant Cit# Attorne# reco''ended to the Cit# Attorne# of !ue"on Cit# that the co'plaint be dis'issed for lac( of 'erit. 0n 19 &ece'ber 4567 attorne# for the co'plainant addressed a letter to the Cit# Attorne# of !ue"on Cit# wherein he too( e,ception to the reco''endation of the Assistant Cit# Attorne# referred to and ur$ed that a co'plaint for seduction be filed a$ainst the herein petitioner. 0n 4: 3anuar# 4566 the petitioner applied for and was $ranted a passport b# the &epart'ent of Forei$n Affairs +No. 65;4 <A954;7=-. 0n 1: 3anuar# 4566 the petitioner left the Philippines for )an Francisco, California, *.).A., where he is at present enrolled in school. 0n 94 3anuar# 4566 the offended $irl subscribed and swore to a co'plaint char$in$ the petitioner with seduction which was filed in the Court of First nstance of !ue"on Cit# after preli'inar# investi$ation had been conducted +cri'. case No. !%4652, E,hibit B-. 0n 5 Februar# 4566 the private prosecutor filed a 'otion pra#in$ the Court to issue an order >directin$ such $overn'ent a$encies as 'a# be concerned, particularl# the National Bureau of nvesti$ation and the &epart'ent of Forei$n Affairs, for the purpose of havin$ the accused brou$ht bac( to the Philippines so that he 'a# be dealt with in accordance with law.> +E,hibit C.- 0n 4: Februar# 4566 the Court $ranted the 'otion +E,hibit &-. 0n ? March 4566 the respondent )ecretar# cabled the A'bassador to the *nited )tates instructin$ hi' to order the Consul @eneral in )an Francisco to cancel the passport issued to the petitioner and to co'pel hi' to return to the Philippines to answer the cri'inal char$es a$ainst hi'. >The E'bass# was li(ewise directed to 'a(e representation with the )tate &epart'ent that E'ilio )unta#/s presence outside the Philippines is considered detri'ental to the best interest of this @overn'ent, that his passport has been withdrawn, and that he is not considered under the protection of the Philippines while abroad.> +E,hibit E.- Aowever, this order was not i'ple'ented or carried out in view of the co''ence'ent of this proceedin$s in order that the issues raised 'a# be .udiciall# resolved. 0n 6 3ul# 4566 counsel for the petitioner wrote to the respondent )ecretar# reBuestin$ that the action ta(en b# hi' be reconsidered +E,hibit F-, and filed in the cri'inal case a 'otion pra#in$ that the respondent Court reconsider its order of 4: Februar# 4566 +E,hibit @-. 0n ? 3ul# 4566 the respondent )ecretar# denied counsel/s reBuest +E,hibit Aand on 46 3ul# 4566 the Court denied the 'otion for reconsideration +E,hibit -. Aence this petition. The petitioner contends that as the order of the respondent Court directin$ the &epart'ent of Forei$n Affairs >to ta(e proper steps in order that the> petitioner >'a# be brou$ht bac( to the Philippines, so that he 'a# be brou$ht bac( to the Philippines, so that he 'a# default with in accordance with law,> 'a# be carried out onl# >throu$h the cancellation of his passport,> the said order is ille$al because >while a Court 'a# review the action of the )ecretar# of Forei$n Affairs in cancellin$ a passport and $rant relief when the )ecretar#/s discretion is abused, the court cannot, in the first instance, ta(e the discretionar# power awa# fro' the )ecretar# and itself order a passport to be cancelled.> The petitioner contends that as the order of the respondent Court directin$ the depart'ent of Forei$n Affairs >to ta(e proper steps in order that the> petitioner >'a# be brou$ht bac( to the Philippines, so that he 'a# be dealt with in accordance with law,> 'a# be carried out onl# >throu$h the cancellation of his passport,> the said order is ille$al because /while a Court 'a# review the action of the AGUINAL!O, Petitioner, June 29, 1957

Marianne L. Lalwani 2 Administrative Law

)ecretar# of Forei$n Affairs in cancellin$ a passport and $rant relief when the )ecretar#/s discretion is abused, the court cannot, in the first instance, ta(e the discretionar# power awa# fro' the )ecretar# and itself order a passport to be cancelled.> The petitioner further contends that while the )ecretar# for Forei$n Affairs has discretion in the cancellation of passports, >such discretion cannot be e,ercised until after hearin$,> because the ri$ht to travel or sta# abroad is a personal libert# within the 'eanin$ and protection of the Constitution and hence he cannot be deprived of such libert# without due process of law. The petitioner/s contention cannot be sustained. The petitioner is char$ed with seduction. And the order of the respondent Court directin$ the &epart'ent of Forei$n Affairs >to ta(e proper steps in order that the accused . . . 'a# be brou$ht bac( to the Philippines, so that he 'a# be dealt with in accordance with law,> is not be#ond or in e,cess of its .urisdiction. Chen b# law .urisdiction is conferred on a court or .udicial officer, all au,iliar# writs, processes and other 'eans necessar# to carr# it into effect 'a# be e'plo#ed b# such court or officerD and if the procedure to be followed in the e,ercise of such .urisdiction is not specificall# pointed out b# these rules, an# suitable process or 'ode of proceedin$ 'a# be adopted which appears 'ost confor'able to the spirit of said rules. +)ection 2, Rule 417.Moreover, the respondent Court did not specif# what step the respondent )ecretar# 'ust ta(e to co'pel the petitioner to return to the Philippines to answer the cri'inal char$e preferred a$ainst hi'. )ection 16, E,ecutive 0rder No. 4, series of 4572, 71 0ff. @a", 47::, prescribin$ rules and re$ulations for the $rant and issuance of passports, provides that % The )ecretar# of Forei$n Affairs as well as all# diplo'atic or consular officer dul# authori"ed b# hi', is authorized, in his discretion, to refuse to issue a passport for use onl# in certain countries, to withdraw or cancel a passport already issued, and to withdraw a passport for the purpose its validit# or use in certain countries. +E'phasis supplied.True, the discretion $ranted, to the )ecretar# for Forei$n Affairs to withdraw or cancel a passport alread# issued 'a# not be e,ercised at whi'. But here the petitioner was hailed to Court to answer a cri'inal char$e for seduction and althou$h at first all Assistant Cit# Attorne# reco''ended the dis'issal of the co'plaint previousl# subscribed and sworn to b# the father of the offended $irl, #et the petitioner (new that no final action had been ta(en b# the Cit# Attorne# of !ue"on Cit# as the case was still under stud#. And as the )olicitor @eneral puts it, >Ais suddenl# leavin$ the countr# in such a convenient ti'e, can reasonabl# be interpreted to 'ean as a deliberate atte'ption his part to flee fro' .ustice, and, therefore, he cannot now be heard to co'plain if the stron$ ar' of the law should .oin to$ether to brin$ hi' bac( to .ustice.> n issuin$ the order in Buestion, the respondent )ecretar# was convinced that a 'iscarria$e of .ustice would result b# his inaction and as he issued it in the e,ercise of his sound discretion, he cannot be en.oined fro' carr#in$ it out. Counsel for the petitioner insists that his client should have been $ranted a >Buasi%.udicial hearin$> b# the respondent )ecretar# before withdrawin$ or cancellin$ the passport issued to hi'. Aearin$ would have been proper and necessar# if the reason for the withdrawal or cancellation of the passport were not clear but doubtful. But where the holder of a passport is facin$ a cri'inal a char$e in our courts and left the countr# to evade cri'inal prosecution, the )ecretar# for Forei$n Affairs, in the e,ercise of his discretion to revo(e a passport alread# issued, cannot be held to have acted whi'sicall# or capriciousl# in withdrawin$ and cancellin$ such passport. &ue process does not necessaril# 'ean or reBuire a hearin$. Chen discretion is e,ercised b# an officer vested with it upon an undisputed fact, such as the filin$ of a serious cri'inal char$e a$ainst the passport holder, hearin$ 'a#be dispensed with b# such officer as a prereBuisite to the cancellation of his passportD lac( of such hearin$ does not violate the due process of law clause of the ConstitutionD and the e,ercise of the discretion vested in hi' cannot be dee'ed whi'sical and capricious of because of the absence of such hearin$. f hearin$ should alwa#s be held in order to co'pl# with the due process of clause of the Constitution, then a writ of preli'inar# in.unction issued ex parte would be violative of the said clause. n the cases of Bauer vs. Acheson, 4:2 F. )upp. 776D Nathan, vs. Dulles, 415 F. )upp. 564D and Schachtman vs. Dulles No. 417:2, 19 3une 4566, all decided b# the )tates Court of Appeals for the district of Colu'bia, cited b# the petitioner, the revocation of a passport alread# issued or refusal to issue a passport applied for, was on the va$ue reason that the continued possession or the issuance thereof would be contrar# to the best interest of the *nited )tates. The petition is denied, with costs a$ainst the petitioner. Paras, C. ., Ben!zon, "ontemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista An!elo, #a$rador, Reyes, .B.#., %ndencia and &elix, ., concur.