Domingo Vs Scheer

DOMINGO VS. SCHEER clearance and a new passport.
Scheer
eventually filed an Urgent Motion for
FACTS: Reconsideration stating that his right
This is a petition for review under to due process was violated, for there
Rule 45, of the decision of the Court of was no notice or chance to be heard
Appeals granting the respondent’s before the issuance of the deportation
petition for certiorari and prohibition order. Eventually the criminal case for
annulling the order of arrest issued by physical injuries against the
petitioner, and permanently enjoining respondent was dismissed, and he was
her from deporting the respondent issued a passport. He informed
from the Philippines. The appellate Commissioner Verceles about this
court reversed the Summary matter and reiterated the cancellation
Deportation Order of the Board of of the order, but the Commissioner did
Commissioners. not respond. Thereafter
Respondent Scheer is a native Commissioner Domingo assumed
of Germany, who was eventually office and on June 6, 2002, she
granted a permanent resident status ordered the apprehension of the
in the Philippines. He eventually respondent who was held in custody
married here and started a family as awaiting deportation. Shocked,
well as a business in Palawan. Vice respondent sought remedy with the
Consul Hippelein informed the CA, during the hearing of which the
Philippine Ambassador to Germany Solicitor General suggested that the
that the respondent had police respondent leave the country first
records and financial liabilities in then just re-apply. A decision was
Germany. The DFA receive from the reached in favor of Scheer,
German Embassy in Manila that the permanently enjoining Domingo from
respondent is wanted in Germany, and continuing the deportation, thus this
requested to turn over his German petition.
passport to the Embassy. Thereafter
BOC issued a Summary Deportation ISSUE:
Order dated September 27, 1997. It Is the power of the President to
was stated that the deportation shall determine whether an alien may be
be held in abeyance pending deported from the Philippines subject
respondent’s case and he shall remain to judicial review?
in the custody of the bureau. In issuing
this the BOC relied on the statements HELD:
of the German Vice Consul on the Yes. The authority to exclude or expel
speculation that it is improbable that aliens by a power affecting
the respondent will be issued a new international relation is vested in the
passport, the warrant of arrest for political department of the
insurance fraud and alleged illegal government, and is to be regulated by
activities in Palawan. Respondent the treaty or by an act of Congress,
nevertheless stayed in the Philippines and to be executed by executive
after airing his side to then BID authority, except insofar as the judicial
Commissioner Verceles, the latter department has been authorized by
giving him time to apply for a treaty or by statute, or is required by
the Constitution to intervene. Article VIII, Section 1 of the
Although the courts are without Constitution has vested judicial power
power to directly decide matters over in the Supreme Court and the lower
which full discretionary authority has courts such as the Court of Appeals, as
been delegated to the legislative or established by law. Although the
executive branch, the court may courts are without power to directly
resolve questions of whether or not decide matters over which full
such judgement has been made with discretionary authority has been
the Board of Commissioners acted delegated to the legislative or
with grave abuse of discretion in executive branch of the government
causing Scheer’s arrest and detention. and are not empowered to execute
Indeed, it deprived him of due process absolutely their own judgment from
in issuing the order to deportation that of Congress or of the President,
without even conducting a summary the Court may look into and resolve
hearing. The BOC merely concluded questions of whether or not such
that Scheer was involved in “illegal judgment has been made with grave
activities in Palawan” without abuse of discretion, when the act of
affording him the right to be heard. the legislative or executive
department violates the law or the
The settled rule is that the authority to Constitution. In Harvy Bridges v. I.F.
exclude or expel aliens by a power Wixon, the United States Federal
affecting international relation is Supreme Court reversed an Order of
vested in the political department of Deportation made by the Attorney
the government, and is to be regulated General for insufficiency of evidence
by treaty or by an act of Congress, and and for improper admission of
to be executed by the executive evidence. In Nging v. Nagh,the United
authority according to the regulations States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit
so established, except in so far as the Court) held that conclusions of
judicial department has been administrative offices on the issues of
authorized by treaty or by statute, or facts are invulnerable in courts unless
is required by the Constitution to when they are not rendered by fair-
intervene. The judicial department minded men; hence, are arbitrary. In
cannot properly express an opinion Toon v. Stump, the Court ruled that
upon the wisdom or the justice of the courts may supervise the actions of
measures executed by Congress in the the administrative offices authorized
exercise of the power conferred on it, to deport aliens and reverse their
by statute or as required by the rulings when there is no evidence to
Constitution. Congress may, by sustain them. When acts or omissions
statute, allow the decision or order of of a quasi-judicial agency are involved,
the Immigration Commissioner or the a petition for certiorari or prohibition
BOC to be reviewed by the President may be filed in the Court of Appeals as
of the Philippines or by the courts, on provided by law or by the Rules of
the grounds and in the manner Court, as amended.
prescribed by law.
In this case, the respondent alleges
that the petitioner acted arbitrarily,
contrary to law and with grave abuse
of discretion in causing his arrest and
detention at a time when his Urgent
Motion for Reconsideration of the
BOCs Summary Deportation Order
had yet to be resolved. There was no
factual or legal basis for his
deportation considering that he was a
documented alien and a law-abiding
citizen; the respondent, thus, prayed
for a writ of mandamus to compel the
petitioner, the Chairperson of the BOC,
to resolve the said motion. The
petition before the CA did not involve
the act or power of the President of
the Philippines to deport or exclude
an alien from the country. This being
so, the petition necessarily did not call
for a substitution of the Presidents
discretion on the matter of the
deportation of the respondent with
that of the judgment of the CA.

Domingo Vs Scheer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Domingo Vs Scheer

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Domingo Vs Scheer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DOMINGO VS. SCHEER clearance and a new passport.

You might also like