Aliens gagged and denied right of appeal to the courts
Media
Part of The American Chamber of Commerce Journal
- Title
- Aliens gagged and denied right of appeal to the courts
- Language
- English
- Source
- The American Chamber of Commerce Journal Volume XXVIII (No. 8) August 1952
- Year
- 1952
- Rights
-
- Fulltext
- ‘‘Dear Sir: “We are considering the publication of an editorial on the new fees being charged in the Bureau of Immigration under the Immigra tion Act and the Alien Registration Act as recently amended. The editorial we have in mind would naturally be critical and we realize that it would probably not make pleasant reading for you (although, to be sure, you are not responsible for the laws it is your duty to exe cute). Nevertheless we feel that we may count on your assistance in avoiding errors of fact, as you would rightly object to them and we, ourselves, have no desire to make things appear worse than they are. “May we ask, therefore, that you be so kind as to go over the attached few pages of the draft and check them for any possible error and also for possible omissions? We would greatly appreciate your assistance. It goes without saying that we do not have in mind to criticize, directly, either your Bureau or yourself. “Very sincerely yours, etc.” We were favored with the following very prompt and informative reply: "Sir: “This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter of July 25, 1952, requesting correction of the draft of your proposed editorial on the new immigration fees which were approved recently by Congress. It has been duly corrected as requested. "Your editorial will certainly place the question of increase in fees in a very unfavorable light. As you will mention in that article the cost of the journey,—the costs of the photographs required for identi fication not paid to us, railroad fare, hotel expenses, sea or air trans portation, new clothing suitable to the Philippine climate and the loss and expense usually entailed in breaking up a household and setting it up again many thousand miles away, together with the immigration fees, a false impression is necessarily created by your proposed editorial which might serve to discourage the travel of Americans to the Philip pines. Nevertheless, we thank you for any constructive criticism as it is your right to make, and we are only explaining to justify our recom mendation to Congress. “Incidentally, we wish to mention the fact that as of April 30, 1952, we have the following number of aliens in the Philippines: (1) Chinese.......................................................... 145,720 (21 Americans ................................................... 11,754 (3) Spaniards....................................................... 2,421 (4) British............................................................ 1,065 (5) Indians........................................................... 1,545 (6) Germans........................................................ 511 (7) Belgians......................................................... 288 (8) Other nationalities...................................... 2,262 Total.......................................................... 165,976 “Naturally, all of the 165,976 aliens are affected by the two amended acts of legislation. When we recommended the approval by Congress of ourTevised immigration fees, we had no intention to adversely affect any American, or any alien for that matter, but it was only our inten tion to follow the recommendation of the Bell Mission which came to the Philippines a few years ago recommending the increase of govern ment income so as to meet the expenses of our Government due to our necessary public services incidental to our independence. We thought of recommending exemption to Americans, Filipino-Americans, and Missionaries from the increase in fees, but since this would have consti tuted class legislation, we decided that we could not legally do 'it. “For permanent residents no increase in immigration fees has been provided with the exception of the annual report fee which was increased from P0.50 to P10.00 in view of the importance of the ser vice performed. The head tax was also increased from P16.00 to P25.00. “With respect to aliens who came under pre-arranged employ ment, the following information is given: “In 1946, only 3 came; 1947—173; 1948—207; 1949—196; 1950— 200; 1951—288; and 1952—160; or a total of 1,227 arrivals from 1946 to 1952. Practically all of these paid the old rate of fee of P20.00. Very few, therefore, came in even under the old rate. The increased rate of P80.00 for pre-arranged employees is applicable to all nationa lities. “Again we want to state that in recommending the increased rates, we were only guided by the recommendation of the Bell Mission as stated above, as we need funds for public education, public health, peace and order, economic development, and other necessary activities. Whatever increase is made out of the two amendatory legislations, will go to help meet the expenses of the Government. "It should not be forgotten that even in the United States which has plenty of government funds, its Congress has deemed it fit to in crease the rate of taxation and fees; so is also the tendency of other governments throughout the world. “Very sincerely yours, "Vicente de la Cruz “Commissioner of Immigration." tn reply to this letter of the Com/nissioner, we should 1 like only to observe, very respectfully, that a bureau of immigration is not generally organized as an entity charged with the function of collecting government revenues, as is a bureau of internal revenue or a bureau of customs. It seems to us that the distinction between govern ment taxes and government fees is being lost sight of. The costs of government are met by the levying of taxes, which are paid by everyone. Government fees are generally paid for certain services which directly benefit only those who pay the fees and these are generally just high enough to cover the cost cf administration. Alliens Gagged and Denied Right of Appeal to the Courts Republic Act No. 749, amending the Philippine Im migration Act of 1940, commented upon in another editorial in this issue of the Journal, besides increasing various fees charged by the Bureau of Immigration in con nection with aliens entering and leaving the country, contains a number of provisions which im press us as not only extremely dangerous but as definitely unconstitutional. One of these is the following: “Sec. 7. Section forty of the same Act, is hereby amended to read as follows: . . . “ (d) The Commissioner of Immigration may, in the exercise of his sound discretion, deny the release under bond of any detained alien who is the subject of exclusion or deportation proceedings, and the filing of any action before a court of justice seeking relief from any order, resolution, or decision rendered by immigration officials in con nection .with the exclusion or deportation proceedings shall not divest the Commissioner of Immigration of the power granted him under this section.” The explanatory note prefixed to the original Bill explained the purpose of this provision as follows: “Under Section 7, it is stressed that the discretionary power of the Commissioner of Immigration to permit the release under bond of an alien subject of exclusion or deportation proceedings is not subject to review or interference by the courts. . .” Can the right of appeal to the courts be thus denied to anyone, and can the authority of the courts be thus limited? We do not believe so. There is another provision in the Act which gives broad scope to the most flagrant abuse, particularly in con nection with the protection of the authority given the Commissioner of Immigration by the provision just re ferred to. It runs: “Sec. 5. The following grounds for deportation are hereby added to, as paragraphs (14). . . of, subsection (a) of section thirty-seven, of the same Act, as amended. . . to read as follows: “(14). Any alien who makes a public and malicious or libelous imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause dis honor, discredit, or contempt of the person of the President or VicePresident of the Philippines, or the members of the Congress of the Philippines without prejudice to whatever action, civil or criminal, the offended party may file against said alien. . .” This provision renders the Act a most dangerous gag law which can have no conceivable place among the laws of a democratic country such as the Philippines has for some considerable period of years been believed to be. It is true that the provision applies “only to aliens”, but it denies them the right even to protest against the very discriminations which this same Act, in its other provisions, heaps upon them. Are the rights of free speech and press under the Constitution to be reserved exclusively to Philippine nationals? If this should meet with general acquiescence among them, then they themselves will in time be inevitably stripped of these same rights, for they can not be preserved by those who fail to recognize the necessity of their universality. It is not possible to maintain democracy undemocratically. Those who undermine it surely dig a pit for themselves. The American "Alien and Sedition Acts".—"The troubles with France (during the administration of John Adamsl, which for the moment had increased the strength of the Federalists and had enabled them to win their last political victory in the congressional elections of 1798-1799, was in the end to prove their undoing. Taking advantage of the war furore and the temporary weakening of the Republicans, they pushed through Congress in 1798 four acts known collectively as the alien and sedition acts. A Naturalization Act lengthened the period of resid ence necessary for citizenship from 5 to 14 years, while two alien acts gave the President the power to expel from the country nliens judged dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States and in tirfie of war to expel or restrain aliens as he deemed wise. The alien acts were both enforced, but the accompanying Sedition Act, which made it a crime under penalty of fine or imprisonment to write or pub lish ‘any false, scandalous, or malicious' statement condemning the President or either house of Congress or bringing them into ‘contempt or disrepute’, was en forced. War might have given a partial excuse for some of this legislation, but the 296 Philippine Better Roads Association, Inc. By P. J. Dayrit Executive Secretary and Legal Counsel THE Philippine Motor Association, principally through its President, Mr. Benito Legarda, is credited with much of the spade work that initiated the Better Roads movement in the Philippines. The first organization meeting of the Philippine Better Roads Association was held in the Manila Hotel on September 21, 1951, and on the 29th of the following month, a meeting of the members took place in the same hotel at which the following men were elected to serve until the annual meeting held on January 28 of this year. President......... Vice-Presiden t. Treasurer......... Secretary.......... Jose P. Marcelo Cirilo Paredes Roy Davis David SyCip After the recent annual meeting, the present Board was constituted as follows: R. J. Monical, Caltex (Philippines), Inc. M. E. Holt, Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. Roy Davis, Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. of the Philippines John D. Coon, International Harvester Co. of Philippines B. G. Brandt, Luzon Stevedoring Co. Jose P. Marcelo, Marcelo Rubber & Latex Products Cirilo Paredes, Nalatroa David SyCip, Northern Motors, Inc. Eduardo Melian, San Miguel Brewery Pete Syquia, Rizal Motors, Inc. J. A. Parrish, Standard Vacuum Oil Co. Mr. Marcelo was elected President while Mr. Monical was elected Vice-President, Mr. Davis, Treasurer, and Mr. SyCip, Secretary. r\NE of the outstanding developments in 1951 was the increasing trend among governments to welcome the cooperation of industry and business in highway planning and construction. Despite the worldwide surge in roadbuilding, tem porarily aided by large expenditures of the United States for this purpose in Europe, Africa, Asia, and Central Amer ica, there remains the almost universal difficulty of insuf ficient funds for highways. This prevents both effective planning and adequately stabilized programming of high way development. This and other problems impeding the extension and improvement of highway systems and the unrestricted use of highway transportation can be solved more readily by government and industry working together. The na tional good-roads associations affiliated with the Inter national Road Federation (IRF) have intensified their efforts to bring about such teamwork. This unity of interests holds the hope of an accelerated highway development and more rapid social and economic progress as a conse quence. *t|he Chilean Association, for instance, received official recognition for its contribution to highway development in a national decree, and the President of the Association was made a member of the Council of Ways and Communications, giving him a voice in the planning and coordination of all the communications of the country. (Comparable recognition had been given earlier to the IRF’s Brazilian associate). One of the outstanding achievements of the Association was its successful campaign for an anti-diversion clause in a law concerning gasoline and oil levies. The Bolivian Association worked for an official routing of the Pan-American Highway in Bolivia. The Government recently established such a routing, this forming the backbone of the future national highway development in the country. The Peruvian Association in 1951 successfully concluded a campaign for a six-year highway-development program and for government adoption of the contract system in highway construction. Among the many other activities of this Association is a drive for the creation of a national highway council, to be composed of government and private enterprise representatives, which would decide highway policy. The Ecuadorian Association has been administering a limited program involving the expenditure of approxi mately $1,000,000 yearly for highway improvements and maintenance. The Indian Association, while promoting a rural road-program, has worked against nationalization of high way transportation and is campaigning for a separate budget for the national road system, with a central board in charge of all revenues raised from road users. It is con stantly working for the removal of present discriminatory measures hampering the development of road transporta tion,—for example, the present excessive taxation and the restrictions preventing long-distance haulage. The Belgian Association is working for the creation of a road fund to provide the necessary continuity required for an improved road system. In addition, this group is undertaking the publication in French of outstanding technical manuals published abroad. The British Association, which represents more than 200,000 various business and industrial interests, is leading campaigns for an increased highway budget and for correction of traffic bottlenecks. The Association im plements its campaigns with films, pamphlets, books, and radio programs and is carrying out an intensive educational program in the schools. The Canadian Association, in addition to supporting the Trans-Canadian Highway project, is developing a national roads-research institute with the cooperation of government, industrial, and educational leaders. The Spanish Association has five specialized sec tions: Technical, Construction, Manufacturers and Dis tributors of Equipment, Road Users, and Education. All work closely with the government authorities. The French Association was instrumental in the removal of gasoline rationing in France. Comparable activities are being carried out by the many other associate national members of the IRF. Each association strives to have its national government define and establish a long-range highway program; to assure the necessary financing for the construction, maintenance, and operation of such a program; and to obtain public support for these aims.