The concern in allowing authorities or officials of the Executive Branch to issue warrants expose the people’s rights on liberty and privacy to the danger of State abuses. This led to the deletion of the phrase “or such other responsible officer as may be authorized by law,” pertaining to the determination of probable cause for issuance of warrants.
Thus, Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and witnesses he may produce and particularly describing the place to be searched, persons and thngs to be seized. Thus, on 14 March 1990, our Honorable Supreme Court in the en banc case of Salazar v. Hon. Achacoso, G.R. 81510, declared the power of the Secretary of Labor to issue warrants of arrest and seizure in prohibiting illegal recruitment under Article 38 of the Labor Code as unconstitutional since the Secretary not being a judge, may no longer issue such warrants. They must go through judicial process.
The validity of the Summary Deportation Order issued by the Bureau of Immigration on a foreigner upon a letter from the Chinese Embassy and the Habeas Corpus Order of the Regional Trial Court that voided the SDO on the ground that Rule 9 of the Bureau’s Rules of Procedure does not accord due process to aliens were challenged in the 28 February 2024 case of Board of Commissioners – Bureau of Immigration v. Yuan, G.R. 242957 before the Honorable Supreme Court sitting en banc.
In this case, the Chinese Embassy wrote the Bureau of Immigration for assistance to arrest and deport four Chinese as their passports have been cancelled for their involvement in crimes within China’s territory. In 2018, the Bureau of Immigration issued a Charge Sheet tagging them as undocumented foreigners, whose presence in the Philippines posed a risk to public interest. It then issued an SDO that led to the arrest of Yuan, who filed a petition for habeas corpus with the RTC arguing that the SDO is like a warrant of arrest, which only the judge can issue and is thus void. The RTC granted it, voided the SDO and ordered the release of Yuan because the alien’s constitutional right to due process was violated because his visitor visa was extended several times. The government directly filed a petition with the Supreme Court.
Our Honorable Supreme Court ruled on the constitutional validity of an administrative warrant issued by the Bureau of Immigration. In Section 2, Article III, Constitution, only judges and no other, may issue warrants of arrest and search. The exception is the deportation of illegal aliens that the President or Immigration Commissioner may order following a final order of deportation. In this case, a charge sheet was issued by the Bureau ex-parte based on the Chinese Embassy’s letter of their involvement in crimes in China and an SDO was issued to effect respondent’s arrest. In essence, an SDO is essentially a warrant. The principle that only judge of regular courts may issue arrest and search warrants based on probable cause to be determined solely by a judge – does not extend to deportation cases. The framers of our Constitution recognized the need for administrative determination on issues of national security, public safety and health. The entry of aliens in the Philippines affects national security. The visa extended to them is but a privilege, not a right. But, for an administrative warrant to be valid and justified, all of the following conditions must be present and shall be strictly complied with: [1] the evil sought to be prevented by administrative warrant must be imminent; [2] deprivation of right is only temporary; 3] issuing administrative agency must be empowered by law to perform specific implementing acts pursuant to well-defined regulatory purposes; [4] it must be authorized by law to pass upon and make final pronouncement on conflicting rights and obligations of contending parties and the warrants are incidental to or reasonably necessary to perform executive or administrative task; [5] issuance must be based on tangible proof of probable cause and the warrant must not pertain to criminal cases, [6] the person deprived of a right shall be formally charged and not be denied access to a competent counsel of his own choice and [6] filing of verified notice to the RTC for the purpose of issuing a judicial commitment order.
Thus, the RTC’s Habeas Corpus Order was nullified while the Immigration Bureau’s Summary Deportation Order was sustained.
