Bisschop Case Digest
2
De Bisschop vs. Galang | Reyes, J.B.L. FACTS George de Bisschop (Bisschop), an American citizen, was allowed to stay in the country until 1 August 1959 as a prearranged employee of the Bissmag Production, Inc. (Bissmag), of which he is president and general manager. He applied for extension of stay with the Bureau of Immigration, in a letter dated 10 July 1959. However, this application was denied by the Commissioner of Immigration – in view of damaging reports of Immigration Officer Benjamin De Mesa to the effect that Bissmag is a gambling front and that Bisschop is suspected of tax evasion – in a communication of 10 September 1959 and Bisschop was advised that he should depart within 5 days. Bisschop’s counsel requested a copy of the decision. The legal officer of the Bureau of Immigration replied that, where the result of an application for extension is a denial, no formal decision, order, or resolution is promulgated by the Board for reasons of practicability and expediency. Bisschop then filed this petition for prohibition. The TC granted the petitioni, ordering the Board to refrain from arresting Bisschop and that it should first conduct formal hearings. ISSUES/HELD Are the Commissioners of Immigration required to conduct formal hearings on all applications for extension of stay of aliens? – NO. Do the Commissioners need to promulgate written decisions in such cases? – NO. RATIONALE 1 st issue Since CA 613 (Philippine Immigration Act of 1940) is silent as to the procedure to be followed in these cases, the Court is inclined to uphold the argument that courts have no jurisdiction to review the purely administrative practice of immigration authorities of not granting formal hearings in certain cases as the circumstances may warrant, for reasons of practicability and expediency. This would not violate due process because the letter instructing Bisschop to depart is a mere formality, a preliminary step. o The requirement to leave before the start of deportation proceedings is only an advice to the party that unless he departs voluntarily, the State will be compelled to take steps for his expulsion. Furthermore, a day in court is not a matter of right in administrative proceedings. o Due process of law is not necessarily judicial process; much of the process by means of which the government is carried on, and the order of society maintained, is purely executive or administrative, which is as much due process of law. o A day in court is matter of right only in judicial proceedings and not necessarily in Page 1 of 2
-
Upload
iane-sagsagat -
Category
Documents
-
view
4 -
download
1
description
Biscchop case digest
Transcript of Bisschop Case Digest
De Bisschop vs. Galang | Reyes, J.B.L.
FACTS George de Bisschop (Bisschop), an American citizen, was
allowed to stay in the country until 1 August 1959 as a prearranged employee of the Bissmag Production, Inc. (Bissmag), of which he is president and general manager.
He applied for extension of stay with the Bureau of Immigration, in a letter dated 10 July 1959.
However, this application was denied by the Commissioner of Immigration – in view of damaging reports of Immigration Officer Benjamin De Mesa to the effect that Bissmag is a gambling front and that Bisschop is suspected of tax evasion – in a communication of 10 September 1959 and Bisschop was advised that he should depart within 5 days.
Bisschop’s counsel requested a copy of the decision. The legal officer of the Bureau of Immigration replied
that, where the result of an application for extension is a denial, no formal decision, order, or resolution is promulgated by the Board for reasons of practicability and expediency.
Bisschop then filed this petition for prohibition. The TC granted the petitioni, ordering the Board to
refrain from arresting Bisschop and that it should first conduct formal hearings.
ISSUES/HELD Are the Commissioners of Immigration required to
conduct formal hearings on all applications for extension of stay of aliens? – NO.
Do the Commissioners need to promulgate written decisions in such cases? – NO.
RATIONALE1st issue Since CA 613 (Philippine Immigration Act of 1940) is
silent as to the procedure to be followed in these cases,
the Court is inclined to uphold the argument that courts have no jurisdiction to review the purely administrative practice of immigration authorities of not granting formal hearings in certain cases as the circumstances may warrant, for reasons of practicability and expediency.
This would not violate due process because the letter instructing Bisschop to depart is a mere formality, a preliminary step.o The requirement to leave before the start of
deportation proceedings is only an advice to the party that unless he departs voluntarily, the State will be compelled to take steps for his expulsion.
Furthermore, a day in court is not a matter of right in administrative proceedings.o Due process of law is not necessarily judicial
process; much of the process by means of which the government is carried on, and the order of society maintained, is purely executive or administrative, which is as much due process of law.
o A day in court is matter of right only in judicial proceedings and not necessarily in administrative proceedings.
2nd issue The use of the word “decision” in Sec. 81 of the
Immigration Act refers to the number of “votes” necessary to constitute the decision of the Board and not to a written decision.
Were the intention of the lawmaker otherwise, it would have expressly stated it because the law, in fact, enumerates when a written decision is necessary.
Finally…. Prohibition may not be granted because there is another
plain, speedy and adequate remedy available to Bisschop in the form of habeas corpus.
1 “…in any case coming before the Board of Commissioners, the decision of any two members shall prevail.”
Page 1 of 2
Prohibition is, after all, not favored by the courts and will only be granted in cases of extreme necessity.
Page 2 of 2
