Ponente: Reyes, J.B.L., J.
FACTS
On June 25, 1961, Pedro Gatchalian, a minor, arrived at the Manila International Airport aboard a Cathay Pacific Airways plane, together with four other persons supposedly his father (Jose Gatchalian), an aunt and two brothers, and sought entry as Filipino citizen. Not satisfied with his papers, the immigration officer referred the case of Pedro Gatchalian to the Board of Special Inquiry (BSI).
After due hearing, the BSI rendered a decision admitting Pedro Gatchalian and seven others, as Filipino citizens. Submitted to the individual members of the Board of Commissioners, the decision was marked "noted" by Commissioners Talabis and De la Rosa on July 14 and 26, 1961, respectively, while Commissioner Galang voted to "exclude" the persons subject of the decision, on August 21, 1961.
Subsequently, Pedro Gatchalian was issued Identification Certificate No. 16132 by the immigration authorities, attesting to his admission as citizen of the Philippines as per decision of the BSI dated July 6, 1961.
In 1962, the Secretary of Justice issued Memorandum Order No. 9, directing the Immigration Commissioners to review all cases where entry was allowed on the ground that the entrant was a citizen of the Philippines.
Pedro Gatchalian's case was reviewed and later reversed by the BSI, which ordered his exclusion for being improperly documented. But although the warrant for his exclusion was issued in July 1962, Pedro Gatchalian was taken into custody by the immigration authorities only on June 6, 1965.
In July 1965, Macario Arocha, on behalf of Pedro Gatchalian, petitioned the CFI of Manila for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that the detention of Gatchalian, a Filipino, by the Immigration Commissioner was violative of Gatchalian's constitutional rights. Immigration officials countered that the exclusion order was issued pursuant to the decision of the Board of Commissioner dated July 6, 1962, finding Pedro Gatchalian to have failed in proving the allegation that he is a Filipino citizen.
During the trial, the issues in controversy centered on the actual date of rendition of the Commissioners' decision reversing that of the BSI’s. Although the decision was dated July 6, 1962 (or exactly a year after the promulgation of the original decision on July 6, 1961), Arocha was contending that the decision was in fact originally dated July 20, 1962, which date was erased and superimposed with another figure to read July 6, 1962 so that the decision would still fall within the one-year prescription period. Immigration officials admitted that the date was indeed edited, but noted that the erasures were made to correct clerical mistakes.
CFI MANILA RULING: The decision of reversal of the Board of Commissioners was antedated and issued beyond the prescribed one-year period. As such, the original decision of the BSI, admitting the Philippine citizenship of Pedro Gatchalian, had already become final. Gatchalian was ordered to be immediately released from detention.
Hence, the instant petition by Martiniano Vivo in his capacity as Commissioner of Immigration.
RULING
Petition granted. CFI Manila ruling reversed and set aside.
Whether the decision of the Board of Commissioners reversing the decision of BSI re: citizenship of Pedro Gatchalian, was antedated and promulgated beyond the one-year prescription period. – NO.
Pursuant to Section 27 (b) of CA 613, as amended by RA 503, the decision of the BSI shall become final unless reversed on appeal by the Board of Commissioners, or in the absence of an appeal, unless reversed by the Board of Commissioners after a review by it, motu proprio, of the entire proceedings within one year from the promulgation of the said decision.
In the instant case, the BSI decision declaring Pedro Gatchalian a Filipino was rendered on July 6, 1961. Therefore, this decision would have been final on July 7, 1962.
While it is true that the date on the Board of Commissioners' decision reversing the original BSI decision on Pedro Gatchalian's Filipino citizenship was changed from July 20, 1962 to July 6, 1962, such correction does not suffice to convict the three members of the Board of Immigration Commissioners of maliciously antedating their decision, considering the presumption of regularity in official actuations, and the serious implications of the charge, which amounts to no less than a falsification of official documents. Such an offense cannot be lightly inferred, but must be clearly proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Based on the pieces of evidence presented, it would appear that the Board of Commissioners' reversal of the BSI decision was indeed made on July 6, 1962. The notification to Gatchalian’s counsel that such decision was rendered and the warrant of exclusion all bore the date July 6, 1962, or within one year from the reviewed decision of the BSI. More importantly, the official minutes of the Board's proceedings clearly showed that the resolution to exclude was adopted on July 6, 1962. It must be noted that the operative date of the Commissioners' action is that when the resolution of exclusion was voted and adopted by them as a Board, regardless of the date when the decision in extenso was prepared, written and signed.
The alterations observed by the CFI of Manila are susceptible of the explanation that the date July 20 was originally placed by the stenographer or typist because it was then that the reasoned and extended decision was typewritten in final form, but that it was corrected to July 6, the date it was voted, because the decision in extenso must relate back to the day the resolution to exclude was actually adopted. Necessarily, the extended opinion had to be posterior to the day when the Commissioners voted and resolved to reverse the findings of the BSI. The Secretary's certificate shows that the Board of Immigration Commissioners acted upon not less than eight immigration cases (including that of Pedro Gatchalian's) on July 6, 1962; and it was of course impracticable to prepare and sign fully reasoned decisions in all these cases on the same day.
Furthermore, it would have been senseless for the Board of Immigration Commissioners to have taken a vote and decided the Gatchalian cases on July 20 (and there is no evidence that they ever did so), because the Commissioners were familiar with the law and knew that such a decision would be useless, as the period of review had already lapsed since July 6.
Whether the fact that the original 1961 BSI decision was marked "Noted" by two of the three Commissioners meant the decision was confirmed by the Board of Commissioners and had therefore become non-reviewable. – NO.
Even disregarding the ambiguity of the term "Noted", the former Immigration Commissioners appeared to have acted individually in this particular instance and not as a Board. This was shown by the different dates affixed to their signatures (see FACTS) that they did not actually meet to discuss and vote on the case.
Individual action by members of a board plainly renders nugatory the purpose of its constitution as a Board. The Legislature organized the Board of Commissioners precisely in order that they should deliberate collectively and in order that their views and ideas should be exchanged and examined before reaching a conclusion.
And second, pursuant to Memorandum Order No. 9 of the Secretary of Justice, all decisions purporting to have been rendered by the Board of Commissioners on appeal from or on review motu proprio of decisions of the Board of Special Inquiry, are set aside. This nullification included the 1961 BSI decision.
Whether Pedro Gatchalian's claim that he was not given an opportunity to be heard by the Board of Commissioners renders the reversal of the 1961 BSI decision null and void. – NO.
In reality, the right to representation by counsel before the Immigration Commissioners is only granted by the Immigration Law in cases of appeal by the alien from an adverse decision of the BSI.
Arocha, in representation of Pedro Gatchalian, failed to deny the findings of the Immigration Commissioners that Pedro Gatchalian gained entry on the strength of a forged cablegram, purportedly signed by the former Secretary of Foreign Affairs Felixberto Serrano, and apparently authorizing Gatchalian's documentation as a Filipino. Such failure to deny imports admission of its truth by Gatchalian, and established that his entry was indeed irregular. Too, neither Arocha nor Gatchalian appealed the decision of the Commissioners of Immigration to the Department Head.
Whether Pedro Gatchalian's release from detention was proper. – NO.
The enforcement of the order to release Pedro Gatchalian was in plain violation of section 15, Revised Rule 102, and in patent excess of CFI of Manila's jurisdiction.
Sec. 15. When prisoner discharged if no appeal — When the court or judge has examined into the cause of caption and restraint of the prisoner, and is satisfied that he is unlawfully imprisoned or restrained, he shall forthwith order his discharge from confinement, but such discharge shall not be effective until a copy of the order has been served on the officer or person detaining the prisoner. If the officer or person detaining the prisoner does not desire to appeal, the prisoner shall be forthwith released.
As applied in the instant case, the Immigration Commissioner actually interposed an appeal, which should have prevented Pedro Gatchalian's release from detention. Despite the timely appeal, though, Gatchalian was still released.
DOCTRINE
The mere fact of a retyping of dates on the face of documents, without further evidence of record, does not suffice to impute malice to the concerned officials, considering the presumption of regularity in official actuations, and the serious implications of the charge, which amounts to no less than a falsification of official documents. Such an offense cannot be lightly inferred, but must be clearly proved beyond reasonable doubt.