PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW CASE DIGEST

1. MEJOFF vs. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

G.R. No. L-4254 [90 Phil. 70] 26 September 1951

MEJOFF vs. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

Ponente: Tuazon, J.

FACTS:

Boris Mejoff, a Russian, was captured as a Japanese spy by the US Army Counter Intelligence
Corps on March 18, 1948. He was turned over to the Phil Commonwealth Government for
appropriate disposition. His case was decided on by the Board of Commissioners of Immigration
who declared him as an illegal alien. The Board ordered his immediate deportation. In the
meantime, he was placed in prison awaiting the ship that will take him back home to Russia. Two
Russian boats have been requested to bring him back to Russia but the masters refused as they
had no authority to do so. Two years passed and Mejoff is still under detention awaiting the ship
that will take him home.

This case is a petition for habeas corpus. However, the respondent held that the Mejoff should stay
in temporary detention as it is a necessary step in the process of exclusion or expulsion of
undesirable aliens. It further states that is has the right to do so for a reasonable length of time.

ISSUE: Whether or not Mejoff should be released from prison awaiting his deportation.

RULING:

The Supreme Court decided that Mejoff be released from custody but be placed under reasonable
surveillance of the immigration authorities to insure that he keep peace and be available when the
Government is ready to deport him. In the doctrine of incorporation, the Philippines in its
constitution adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of
Nations. Also, the Philippines has joined the United Nations in its Resolution entitled “Universal
Declaration of Human Rights” in proclaiming that life and liberty and all other fundamental rights
shall be applied to all human beings. The contention that he remains a threat of to the security of
the country is unfounded as Japan and the US or the Phils are no longer at war.

ISSUE: Whether or not an alien’s prolonged detention is unlawful.

RULING:

Petitioner’s entry here in the Philippines was not illegal since he was brought here by the armed
force of the then de facto government.

The Philippines adopts “the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of
the Nation. ” Thus, in view of this principle the resolution entitled “Universal Declaration of Human
Rights” approved by the general assembly of the United Nations , Philippines is a member. This
provides the right to life and liberty and all other fundamental rights as applied to all human beings
proclaimed without any distinction.

It has been said that the petitioner was engaged in subversive activities. If the only purpose of the
detention is to eliminate danger, government is not impotent to deal or prevent any threat. The
prolonged detention of herein petitioner is not the only way of government’s keeping our country
safe and peaceful.

The writ will issue commanding the respondent to release the petitioner from custody upon terms.
The petitioner shall be placed under surveillance of the immigration authorities and insure that he
keep peace and be available when the Government is ready to deport him.
No cost will be charged.

PRINCIPLES:

ALIENS; DEPORTATION; HABEAS CORPUS. —A foreign national, not enemy, against whom no
criminal charges have been formally made or judicial order issued, may not indefinitely be kept in
detention. He also has the right to life and liberty and all other fundamental rights as applied to
human beings, as proclaimed in the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" approved by the
General Assembly of the United Nations, of which the Philippines is a member. The theory on which
the court is given power to act is that the warrant for his deportation, which was not executed, is
functus officio and the alien is being held without any authority of law (U. S. vs. Nichols, 47 Fed.
Sup., 201). The possibility that he might join or aid disloyal elements if turned out at large does
not justify prolonged detention, the remedy in that case being to impose conditions in the order of
release and exact bail in a reasonable amount with sufficient sureties. Mejoff vs. Director of Prisons,
90 Phil. 70, No. L-4254 September 26, 1951

Page 1 of 1