Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 178 views

    2 Director of Prisons vs. Ang Cho Kio

    Uploaded by

    A M I R A
    The Court of Appeals was asked to review Ang Cho Kio's habeas corpus petition challenging his imprisonment, not any aspect of his original sentence. The recommitment of Ang Cho Kio to prison was an exercise of the President's administrative power to do so under the Revised Administrative Code, and the courts should not interfere with the President's exercise of executive power. Philippine courts' power in this area is limited to making recommendations to the Chief Executive in specific circumstances outlined in the Revised Penal Code, none of which applied in this case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    2 Director of Prisons vs. Ang Cho Kio

    Uploaded by

    A M I R A
    178 views1 page
    The Court of Appeals was asked to review Ang Cho Kio's habeas corpus petition challenging his imprisonment, not any aspect of his original sentence. The recommitment of Ang Cho Kio to prison was an exercise of the President's administrative power to do so under the Revised Administrative Code, and the courts should not interfere with the President's exercise of executive power. Philippine courts' power in this area is limited to making recommendations to the Chief Executive in specific circumstances outlined in the Revised Penal Code, none of which applied in this case.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Court of Appeals was asked to review Ang Cho Kio's habeas corpus petition challenging his imprisonment, not any aspect of his original sentence. The recommitment of Ang Cho Kio to prison was an exercise of the President's administrative power to do so under the Revised Administrative Code, and the courts should not interfere with the President's exercise of executive power. Philippine courts' power in this area is limited to making recommendations to the Chief Executive in specific circumstances outlined in the Revised Penal Code, none of which applied in this case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    178 views1 page

    2 Director of Prisons vs. Ang Cho Kio

    Uploaded by

    A M I R A
    The Court of Appeals was asked to review Ang Cho Kio's habeas corpus petition challenging his imprisonment, not any aspect of his original sentence. The recommitment of Ang Cho Kio to prison was an exercise of the President's administrative power to do so under the Revised Administrative Code, and the courts should not interfere with the President's exercise of executive power. Philippine courts' power in this area is limited to making recommendations to the Chief Executive in specific circumstances outlined in the Revised Penal Code, none of which applied in this case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    Court of Appeals was not called upon to review any sentence

    Director of Prisons vs. Ang Cho Kio imposed upon Ang Cho Kio.
    G.R. No.L-30001, June 23, 1970
    The recommitment to prison of Ang Cho Kio was done in
    FACTS: the exercise by the President of the Philippines of his power
    pursuant to the provision of Section 64 of the Revised
    Respondent Ang Cho Kio aka Ang Ming Huy had been Administrative Code, and the courts should not interfere with the
    charged, tried and convicted of various offenses committed in the exercise of that power.
    Philippines and was sentenced to suffer penalties. He filed a
    petition for habeas corpus which the Court of First Instance of Rizal The recommendatory power of the courts in this jurisdiction
    denied. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision but are limited to those expressly provided in the law — and such law
    recommended that Ang may be allowed to leave the country on the is the provision of Section 5 of the Revised Penal Code as
    first available transportation abroad. follows:

    The Solicitor General filed a motion for reconsideration Whenever a court has knowledge of any act which it
    praying for the deletion of the recommendation. The Solicitor may deem proper to repress and which is not
    General maintains that the recommendation is not a part of the punishable by law, it shall render the proper decision,
    decision and was uncalled for; that it gives the decision a political and shall report to the Chief Executive, through the
    complexion, because courts are not empowered to make such a Department of Justice, the reasons which induce the
    recommendation, nor is it inherent or incidental in the court to believe that said act should be made the
    exercise of judicial powers. He also contends that allowing subject of penal legislation.
    convicted aliens to leave the country is an act of the state
    exercises solely in the discretion of the Chief Executive. It is In the same way the court shall submit to the Chief
    urged that the act of sending an undesirable alien out of the Executive, through the Department of Justice such
    country is political in character, and the courts should not interfere statement as may be deemed proper, without
    with, nor attempt to influence, the political acts of the President. suspending the execution of the sentence, when a
    strict enforcement of the provisions of this Code would
    ISSUE: result in the imposition of a clearly excessive penalty,
    taking into consideration the degree of malice and the
    Whether or not he courts of justice may interfere in the injury caused by the offense.
    exercise by the President, thru his Executive Secretary, of his
    administrative power of recommitment. The Court of Appeals was not called upon to review any
    sentence that was imposed on Ang Cho Kio. It was simply called
    RULING: upon to determine whether Ang Cho Kio was illegally confined, or
    not, in the insular penitentiary under the Director of Prisons.
    NO.

    The only question to be resolved by the Court of Appeals


    was whether, or not, the Court of First Instance of Rizal, had rightly
    dismissed the petition of Ang Cho Kio for habeas corpus. The

    You might also like