MORANO VS VIVO

February 01, 2014

ESTEBAN MORANO, CHAN SAU WAH and FU YAN FUN vs. HON. MARTINIANO VIVO

G.R. No. L-22196             June 30, 1967

Facts:

Chan Sau Wah, a Chinese citizen, together with her minor son in her first marriage, Fuyan
Fun arrived in the Philippines to visit her cousin. they are permitted only into
the Philippines under a temporary visitor's visa for two months and after they posted a cash
bond of 4,000. afterwards, Chan married Esteban Morano, native Filipino citizen. to prolong
their stay in the Philippines, chan and Fu obtained several extension. The
last extension expired on September 10, 1962.

In a letter, the commissioner of Immigration ordered Chan and Fu to leave the country on or
before September 10 with a warning that upon failure so to do, he will issue a warrant for their
arrest and will cause the confiscation of their bond.

Instead of leaving the country they petitioned the court of first instance for mandamus to
compel the commissioner of immigration to cancel petitioners' alien certificate of registration,
prohibition to stop the issuance of warrant of arrest and preliminary injunction to restrain the
confiscation of their cash bond.

Issue:
Whether or not the commissioner of immigration can issue warrant of arrest

Ruling:

The Supreme Court held that Section 1 (3), Article III [Bill of Rights] of the Constitution, to wit:
(3) The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but
upon probable cause, to be determined by the judge after examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing
the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

They say that the Constitution limits to judges the authority to issue warrants of arrest and
that the legislative delegation of such power to the Commissioner of Immigration is thus
violative of the Bill of Rights.

Section 1 (3), Article III of the Constitution, we perceive, does not require judicial intervention
in the execution of a final order of deportation issued in accordance with law. The
constitutional limitation contemplates an order of arrest in the exercise of judicial power4 as a
step preliminary or incidental to prosecution or proceedings for a given offense or
administrative action, not as a measure indispensable to carry out a valid decision by a
competent official, such as a legal order of deportation, issued by the Commissioner of
Immigration, in pursuance of a valid legislation.

In consequence, the constitutional guarantee set forth in Section 1 (3), Article III of the
Constitution aforesaid, requiring that the issue of probable cause be determined by a judge,
does not extend to deportation proceedings