When an alien may be deported

Title

Language

English

Source

The Lawyers Journal XXVII (9) September 30, 1962

Year

1962

Subject

Deportation -- Philippines

Philippines -- Bureau of Immigration

Immigration Act of 1940

Rights

In Copyright - Educational Use Permitted

Abstract

[Since the deportation of Henry Stonehill and Robert Brooks and the recent filing of deportation proceedings against Bob Stewart, owner of the Republic Broadcasting Station, public curiosity has been aroused regarding the meaning, nature and implications of deportation. The popular concept is that deportation merely involves the sending back of an undesirable alien to the country of his origin or to the country where he was born or of which he is a citizen or subject. This is not necessarily so for there are other alternatives. A deportee may also be sent to the foreign port at which he resided prior to his residence in the Philippines.]

Fulltext

WHEN A N ALIEN MAY BE DEPORTED Since the deportation of 1 -l:nry Stonehill and Robert B ~·(oks und the 1·ec:?nt filing of <lepol"tation procce<lings aguinst Bob Stewart, owner of the Republic Bl'oadcasting Station, 1 mhlic ..:uricsity has been arouse<! regarding the meaning, irnturc and i111plicati-ms or deportation. . The JJOJlUl:ir concept is that dcpo1·btio11 merely involvi!<: the sending back of a11 undesirable alien to the country of his 0t·igin or to the country where he was boru or of which he is a citizen or subject. This is not necessarily so for there are other alternatives. A deportee may also be sent to the foreign po1t at which he resided prior t o his residence in the Philippi1ws. Another populrtr concept is that all < leportation proceeding-<; partake of the same nature. Deporlat.ion procccdi1~gs, how~\1er, arc of two types. The first type of deportation proceeding is governed by the P hilippine Imrtiigration Act of 194-0 as a mended, the second type, by the Revised Administrativt' Code. Authority to deport unde1· the first type is vested in the Bureau of Immigl'ation and the proceedings are undertaken by the Bureau's Board of Special Inquiry. On the other hand, authority to deport under the second type lies in the President, the proceedings being undertaken by the Deportation Board of the Department of Justice . . (The deportation of Stonehill and Brooks and the c!eportation procee(li'lgs against Stewart fall under the second ty1 )e,} The grounds for deportation under the first ty1 )e of which there are thirteen, arc found in Section 37 d the Immigration Act. On the other hand, there arc ''no hard and fast rules in detcrmin· ing who are undcsirnble aliens" under the second typ1• of deportation. The following arc the grounds for dcportalior, under the first t~'pe: I. Ent•y to the country "by means of false and mislea-1ing statements or without inspection and admission by the immig ration authorities.'' 2. Entry although not lawfully admissible. 3. Conviction for a violation of the law governing prohibited drugs. 4. Conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude. 5. Practice of prostitution, connection with the management of a house of prostitution, or being a procu\'er. 6. Becoming a public charge. 7. Violation of any condition of admission as a non-immigrant. 8. Belief in or advocacy of the overthrow of the government by force; disbelief in or opposition to organized government; advocacy of assault or assassination of public officials; unlawful destruction of property; aff1liation with any organization teaching such doctrines. 9. (a} Personatlon of another individual while applying for an immgrntion document or assuming a fictitious name to evade the immigration Jaws. (b) Issuing or disposing of an immigration document to an unauthorized person. (c) Knowingly obtaining, accepting or using a false immigration document. (d} Entry to the country without inspection and admission by immigration officials, or by fraudulent representation or wilful concealment of a material fact. (e) Posing as a P hilippine citizen in order to evade immigration laws and requirements. (f} Making false statements undei' oath. (g} Departure from the country without an immigration clearance certificate. (h} Attempt or conspiracy wilh another to commit any of the foregoing acts. (i) Bringing in, concealing, or harbori11rr ineligible aliens. 10. Conviction of having violaled the P hilippine Registration Act of 1941. 11. Engaging in profiteerin~, hoarding 01· bbckmarketing. 12. Conviction of any offense penalized under the Revised Natu1·alization Laws 01· any law relati ng to the acquisition of Philippine citizenship. 13. Defrauding his creditor by absconding or alienation of properties to prevent them from being attached or executed. What arc t he grounds for deportation umler the second type? As we have already mentioned, thei·e arc ';no hard and fast rules in determining who arc undesirable aliens" under the second type of deportation. Howeve1·, the case of a German pa!'ish priest by the na me of George Koschinski who is fac-ing deportation a fter having allegedly torn the F ilipino flag may be cited. A Swiss was charged with deportation for uttering words ag:tinst an Indian minister to the PhilippinC's. T his Swiss utte1·etl something which is likely to disturb the good relations between Indian and Philippine g-overnments. Othe1 grounds for deportation arc the following: 1. Ta:-.: evasion under the special Jaw called Republic Act 10!)3. 2. Violation of the gambling law. 3. Violation of the OJ>ium law. 4. Violation of the usury law. 5. Smuggling. G. Prostitution. 7. Conviction of crimes involving moral turpitude. Ii will be noted that the last two mentioned grounds for deportation are the same as those found in Section 37 of the Immigiation Act. Although a deportation case has already been filed in the Bureau of lmmii:ration, the same may be filed with the Deportation Board. Ilow docs the Bo:ird conduct deportation proceedings? An alien may be charged before the Deportation B0ard on complaint of anybody or by the board itself, .motn proprio. Upon receipt of the complaint, the Office of ihe Special Prosecutor of the board conducts an investigation of the case. If satisfied that there is a Prima faci.~ case against the respondent, the Special P rosecutor files charges which corresponds to the information filed by the fiscal in criminal cases. A warrant of a!'l'<'st signed by the Chail'man of the board is then issued for the arl'est of respondent. As soon as the respondent is a1TCsted, he may file n petition for bail. Thereafter the case may be set for trial, 011 its merits, before thP boa rd. Trial proceeds as in the ordina1·y court of justice where the prosecuting officer of the government first intro<luces his evidence to be followed by the respondent. As soon as the hearing of the case is terminated, the case is considered submitted to the board, which will then prepare its report and recommendations to the President of the Philippines. The Deportation Board is the aud1orized agent of th~ President to conduct investigations and make recommendations for deportation to the P resident. T he board was created by E xecutive Order No. 33 of !\lay 20, 193G. This has been amended by various E xecutive Orders, the latest amendment being Executive Order No. 455, which determines the pr,esent composition of the board. Three members compose the present board, namely, Undersecretary of lJuslice 1\Iagno S. Gatmaitan, Solicitor Genernl Arturo Alafriz, aml Col. Manuel Reyes, the authorized representative of t he Secretary of National Defense. Aside from its prima •·y function of hearing deportation cases, the Deportation Board can also inquire into and decide questions of citizenship. In such cases, if the respondent does not agree with the findings of the board, he can always bring the matter to t he court in order that the question of his citizenship may be determined. Whenever doubt exists, the doubt is always resolved in favor of the government and against the alien. When can an undesirable alien not be deported? Alt.hough a deporbtion order has been issued against an un(Continued 1iext page) , September 30, 19G2 LAWYERS JOURNAL Page 250 UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT Advance Opinion EMI L HECK, Petitioner, FRANK J. PAT E, Warden - US -, 6 L ed 2d 948, 81 S Ct - [No. 181) Argued April 19, 1961. Decided May 12, 19Ul. SUi\li\IA R Y Under circumstances detailed in headnote 4, infra, an accuscc! confessed to and was convicted of murder in a state court, and w11s sentenced to a UJ9-ycar prison term. Severn! years later, lhe accused filed a petition for habeas corpus in the United States District. Court for the Northern District. of Illinois, asserting that he was denied due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment by the admission into evidence at the tr ial of his allcgN!ly coerced confession. The writ issued, but after reviewing the circumstances su!'l'ounding the confession, the District Colirt ordered the writ quashed. (172 F Supp 734.) The Cou1·t of Appeals fer the Seventh Circuit affirmed. (274 F2nd 250.) On certiornri, the Supremc Court vacated the ju<lgment~ "'r the District Coul't and the Court or A1>1>eals and remanded the case to the District Cou1-t. In an 01>inion by S'r EWART, J ., ex• pressing the view of six members or the Court, it was hel<I that under the circumstances the confession was coe1·ced und that its admission into evidence at the state trial violated the due JH'OC<.'SS clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. DOUGLAS, J .. joined by WHITTAKER, J ., dissented on the ground that the confession was not coerced. Constitutio11al Low Sec. 840..1 - <fuc J>roccs,q - i11vofo11tary confes:;ion. 1. The quest.ion whether there has been :; violation of the due process clause <if th<' Fourteenth Amendment by the intl'oduction of an involuntary confession into evidence is one which it i!l the ultimate responsibility of the United States Suprrme Court to determine. Evidence Sec. 682 - confc:s~ion - cocYcion. 2. The question whether a confession wns coerced depends upon whether the defendant's will was overborne at the time he confessed, for if such was the case, his confession cannot be del'med the Jlroduct of a rational intellect and a free will. Evidc,1ce Sec. 682 - confession - coercion. 3. In resolving the question whether a confession was coe1·ced, physical mistreatment is but one circumstance, albeit a circumstance which by itself weighs heavily; other circumstances may WHEN AN ALIEN . .'. (Co11tin11ed frm1i 1,age 259) desirable alien, it may be difficult or impossible to execute the order. For instance, if the said alien is "stateless," meaning he is "a man without a country," he cannot be depo1·ted. In such a case, he should be released from imprisonment, provided, however, that he posts the necessary bond and submits himself to reas011abl<' surveilance of the immigration authorities. Such a pei·son is entitled to release from imprisonment because of the theory that "after a reasonable length of time and in default of specific charges placed against him other than that. he is undesirable alien, a vagrant, or the like, the deportation order becomes fimct11s officio (cannot be executed or made effective) fo1· lack of ability to execute it and there is no authority for ful'ther ir,ca1·ee?·ation." In almost all cases, the cost of deportation is shouldered by the government. However, when deportation pi ocecdings are instituted within five years after the alien's entry, except when the reason for depoi·tation arises subsequent to his c.>ntr~·. Section 39 combine to 1 n·oduce an effect just as impellingly coercive as the delibernte use of the third degree. Evidence Sec. 685 - confessio11 - coercion - inlcrroyatiun. 4. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. is violated by the admission into evidence in a state murder J>rosccution of confessions obtained from the accused, a J9-ye::n-old youth of subnormal Intelligence and without previous experienre with the police, who was, for all practical purposes, held incommunicado for the four days preceding his first confession, during which time he was subjected daily to G- or 7-hom· stretches of relentless and incessant inter rogation, and was intennittently placed 011 1mblic exhibition in police "show-ups," where during the entire period he was physically weakened and in intense pain, and without adequate food, without counsel, and without t he assistance of family or friends . Co11J1titntio11al L.aw Sec. 840.S; Courts Sec. 766 - d11.~ vroce-ss - confes.<Jion - vrece<lents. 5. The determination of whether !lie confession of an accusetl was coerced, so as to render ils admission into evidence in a state criminal trial a violation of the due process clause of the F ourteenth Amendment, requires more than a mere color-matching of Appeul mu/ £y1·or Sec. 16b'9 - 1·cmt111d - for 1·e-trial - lwbells coi·pus - coerced confc;;sion. G. When vacating judgments of a Court of AJJpeals and a District Comt denying a state prisoner's application for habeas co1pus in a coel'ced confession case, the United States Supreme Court will remand the case lo the District Court with ~irections to the Distl"ict Court to enter such orders as a rc appropriate and consistent with the Su1 >reme Court's opinion, al!owing the state a reasonable time in which to re-try the prisoner. A P PEARANCES OF COUNSEL Do1111/d Pn9e Mot>r-~ argued the cause for pctiti011c1". IVillfom C. Wi11es argued the cause for respondent. (Co11ti1111ecl next page) of the PhilipJline lmmgrntion Act of 1940 as amended provides that the cost of deportation from the port of dcpotiation shall be at the expense of the owner or owners of the vessel by which the alien came. In case that is •not practicable, the J."'OVel"llment foots the bill. A procedure similar to deportation is exclusion. Should an alien brought to the P hilippines be excluded, be would be sent back immediately to the country from where he came, on the same vessel that fias brought him, and in accommodations of the same class by which he arrived. The owner or owners of such vessel is 1·equired to shoulder the expense of his l'eturn. In the event that the said vessel has left and if it should not be possible to return the alien within a reasonable t ime by means of another vessel owned by t he same interests, the government may pay the cost of 1·cturn and later charge it against 11'e owner, agent, or consignee of the vessel. Contrnry to popular belief, Jeportation proceedings are not criminal in nature and t herefore deportation 'is not a J>unishment. Page 260 LAWYERS JOURNAL September 30. 1962

pages

259-260

Media