7/27/2019 Inre Dick.docx

1/2

G.R. No. L-13862 April 15, 1918In re R. McCULLOCH DICK

CARSON, J.:

DOCTRINE: In the very nature of things the right of the Chief Executive to

exercise his lawful powers without the interference of the court must give way, sofar that may be necessary to secure a full, fair, and final adjudication by thecourts of a question as to the legality and existence of powers which he assumesto exercise.

FACTS: The petitioner, R. McCulloch Dick is the proprietor and editor of Free Press, a weeklynewspaper of considerable circulation in the Philippines, seeking judicial relief through Habeas

Corpus with prayer for stay of execution of deportation proceeding, pending petition for certiorarifiled before the US Supreme Court; the Petitioner having been found to be an undesirable alien.

The petitioner (who, by virtue of the suspending order remained in the custody of the court) wasreleased from the technical custody of our sheriff, and set at liberty upon his filing an approved

bond in the sum of P2,000 which under the exceptional circumstances of the case, wasconditioned not merely upon his remaining within the jurisdiction of the court and subject to its

order at all times pending the proceedings looking to the review of our judgment, but also uponhis keeping the peace.

The controversy stem forth from one issue of the newspaper containing matter well calculated to

create and foment racial prejudices and differences, highly detrimental to the general welfare andgood order of the Island when the Government was then recruiting and organizing native troopsdestined to the serve of the United States in the present war (The United States having entered

the WW1 in 1917).

The Solicitor-General, in behalf of the Governor General, moves that the court to revoke itsorders providing for a stay of execution of its judgment pending proceedings looking to a review

of the judgment by the Supreme Court of the United States and to remand the petitioner to thecustody of the chief of police of the city of Manila, so that the order of deportation may beexecuted forthwith. The Solicitor-General prays for an order vacating these orders on the ground

that we have no jurisdiction to issue such orders.

ISSUE: Whether or not, the Supreme Court of the Philippines has jurisdiction to order the stay ofexecution pending resolution by the Supreme Court of the United States, from final orders of the

Governor General under the powers vested by the Administrative Code.

HELD: Yes. We are satisfied that under the law and the settled practice of this court, we have

jurisdiction to withhold the order remanding the petitioner for deportation for a period of timesufficient to give him a suitable opportunity to apply for a writ of certiorari from the SupremeCourt of the United States.

Ratio:

Since the enactment by Congress of the Amendments to the Judicial Code which require litigantsin this court, seeking review of our judgment by the supreme court of the United States, to

institute proceedings to that end by filing an application for a writ of certiorari in the clerk'soffice of the Supreme Court of the United States, we have adopted the practice of temporarilystaying or suspending the execution of our judgments, when timely application is made therefor.

7/27/2019 Inre Dick.docx

2/2

While, the Solicitor-General contends that this court having declared, upon full consideration of

law and the facts, that the Governor- General is vested with power to deport the petitioner, wehave no power, under our own rulings, to interfere with or to control his action in the premises. Itis equally true that by entering upon the inquiry as to whether the Governor-General was lawfullyclothed with power to deport the petitioner, we recognized the power and duty of the court to

adjudicate the question raised by the petitioner. Under the law, to have the body of the petitionerbrought before us in habeas corpus proceedings, and placed at our disposal pending the finaldisposition of the question thus submitted for adjudication.

While we entertain no doubt as to our jurisdiction, we are also impressed with the representations

of the Solicitor-General as to the impropriety of maintaining the order letting him to bail, due tothe objection of the chief Executive, who is primarily charged with maintenance of the peace,

good order, and safety in the Philippines. As the Solicitor-General says, the petitioner is anundesirable alien. The Governor-General in the lawful exercise of his authority under section 69of the Administrative Code, has so declared; and this court has expressly held that we are not at

liberty reexamine or to controvert the sufficiency of the evidence on which he based hisconclusions. It would seem to be a flagrant abuse of our discretion to turn him loose upon the

community in the face of the insistent objection of the Chief Executive.

The most that the petitioner is entitled to demand, as of right, is that under the transcendentauthority of its writ of habeas corpus, this court should stay the course of the deportation

proceedings, and if necessary take him into the custody of the court itself.

While we should and must deny the motion of the Solicitor-General to vacate our order stayingthe execution of our judgment and to turn the petitioner over to the chief of police for deportationforthwith, we would not be justified in maintaining in force the order letting the petitioner to bail,

over the well-founded objection of the Chief Executive who is primarily charged with theconservation of the peace, safety and good order of the Islands.

Fallo:

Accordingly, we will entertain a new or an amended motion by the Solicitor-General to take thepetitioner into the immediate custody of the court, to cancel the bond upon which he is now atlarge, and thereafter to turn him over to the custody of the chief of police of the city of Manila.The motion of the Solicitor-General, in the form in which it has been submitted, should be and is

hereby denied.