IN my previous column, I discussed the case of a legitimate businessman who had sought the help of the Manila city government against harassment from some officials from the Bureau of Immigration (BI).
Now, that businessman has filed criminal and administrative charges against the said immigration officials before the Office of the Ombudsman for grave misconduct, grave abuse of authority, conduct unbecoming of a public servant, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
The complainant, who does not want his name published, had sought the help of the Manila city government based on constant pronouncements of Mayor Honey Lacuna that the Manila local government will always protect its business owners from any harassment as the city promotes the ease of doing business to lure investors, in order to help the city pay the P17.8 billion left behind by the administration of Isko Moreno.
Soon as the case was referred to me by the mayor, I immediately assigned lawyers to check on the veracity of the complaint.
In brief, the businessman claimed that no less than BI deputy commissioner Daniel Laogan texted and invited him to a meeting at a coffee shop where he told the complainant to settle a debt he owed to a friend of his (Laogan’s). Laogan, according to the complaint, told the businessman that if he would offer P10 million for his problem to go away, he (Laogan) mght just give it a thought.
The complainant said Laogan then handed him a complaint of a certan Edwin Co for collection of money. The complainant said he does not know Co and therefore did not owe him anything.
Granting for the sake of argument that the complaint was real, is collection of money covered by the powers of the BI? Since when has BI become a collection agency?
According to our lawyers, the businessman concerned did not violate any immigration law based on the complaint. As such, it should have been dismissed outright.
Instead, what the BI did, through Laogan and three others, was to issue a charge sheet against the businessman for being an ‘undesirable alien’ and then include his name in the watchlist order, with threats of deportation. The proof of undesirability is the filing of criminal information in court and in the case at hand, there no such case filed against the complainant.
Under the law, undesirable aliens are those who violated the immigration law -Section 37(a) of Commonwealth Act 613 or Philippine Immigration Law… and deportation must be based on said ground, not on ‘unstated grounds’ (charge sheet).”
The BI also cannot use Administrative Code (Sec. 69, Act 2711) to deport because only the President can use that. To use that law is abuse of power.
It is also notable that the complainant is a holder of a special investor’s residence visa or SIRV, a visa which is granted by the BI by means of investment. It is a special non-immigrant visa that entitles the holder to reside in the Philippines temporarily, for as long as required qualifications are met and investments continue to exist.
The complainant, as a holder of such visa, also happens to pay his taxes to the city religiously.
Pending the outcome of the complaint he filed against the said BI officials, we are hoping that the Office of the Ombudsman will find a preventive suspension to be in order, so that they will not be able to use their posititon to intimidate or harass the businessman during the pendency of the case he filed against them before the Office of the Ombudsman.
It will also prevent the said BI officials from possibly tampering or destroying evidence in their possession and from influencing witnesses against the hapless complainant who is desperately hoping that he gets justice, so that other businessmen like him will not experience the same ordeal.
