Sei sulla pagina 1di 3

Report by: Falsis, Kashmere V.

International Law

Public

G.R. No. 82544 / June 28, 1988


In the matter of the petition for Habeas Corpus of: Andrew Harvey, John
Sherman and Adriaan Van Del Elshout (petitioners)
VS.
Honorable Commissioner Miriam Defensor-Santiago, Commission on
Immigration and Deportation

A petition for Habeas Corpus was submitted by American Nationals Andrew


Harvey and John Sherman and a Dutch National named Adriaan Van Elshout to the
Supreme Court.
The case started when the petitioners were apprehended on February 1988 in their
residences by the agents of Commission on Immigration and Deportation (CID) by
virtue of a mission order issues by respondent Commissioner Miriam DefensorSantiago.
Petitioners are detained at the CID Detention Center.
They were among the twenty-two (22) suspected alien pedophiles who were
apprehended after three months of close surveillance by CID agents in Pagsanjan,
Laguna.
Two (2) days after they were apprehended, 17 of the 22 arrested aliens opted for
self-deportation and have left the country. One was released for lack of evidence,
another was charged not for being a pedophile but for working without valid
working visa.
The three remained to face deportation.
Seized during petitioners apprehension were the following:

Rolls of photo negatives


Photos of the suspected child prostitutes
Posters & other literatures advertising child prostitutes.

OPERATION REPORT of CID Agents :

According to the Operation Report on the two (2) American Nationals that Mr.
Harvey was found together with two (2) young boys while Mr. Sherman was found
with two (2) naked boys inside his room.
As for the Dutch National Mr. Elshout, he was with two (2) children ages 14 & 16
who were living with him and was under his care for quite some time.
On March 4, deportation proceeding were instituted against petitioners for being
undesirable aliens.
On March 7, Warrants of Arrest were issued by respondents against the foreign
nationals for violation of the Immigration Act and Section 69 of the Administrative
Code.
A trial commenced against the petitioners on the same date.
On March 14, petitioners Urgent Petition for Release Under bong alleging that their
health was seriously affected by their continuous detention. But when medical
experts performed an examination, it was found out that they were healthy.
On March 22, 1988, petitioners filed a Petition for Bail which the respondent
denied considering the certification by the CID physician that they were healthy.
Instead the respondent ordered the petitioners to be transferred to a less congested
detention cell but it was deferred due to the difficulty of transferring them to and
from CID where the trial is on-going.
On April 4, 1988, Mr. Harvey an American National filed a motion that he had
agreed to a self-deportation and praying to be provisionally released for at last 15
days and placed under the custody of his lawyer before he voluntarily departs from
the country.
On April 7, 1988, the Board of Special Inquiry (BSI) allowed the provisional release
of five (5) days only under certain conditions.
However, when Mr. Harvey filed the motion to request the provisional release, the
three (3) of them already filed the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.
PETITIONERS QUESTION THE VALIDITY ON THEIR DETENTION ON THE
FOLLOWING GROUNDS:
1.) There is NO PROVISION in the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940 nor under
Revised Administration Code, which gives the Commissioner authority to arrest and
detain the petitioners.
2.) Respondent violated the Constitution in the prohibition of unreasonable searches
and seizures since the CID agents were NOT CLOTHED with valid Warrants of
arrest, search and seizures as required by the said provision.

3.) Confidential information made to the CID agents and their suspicion of the
activities of the petitioners coupled with other suspected pedophiles, are NOT
VALID LEGAL GROUNDS for their arrest and detention unless they are caught in
the act.
They also allege that being a pedophile is not punishable by any Philippine Law nor
it is a crime to be a pedophile.
The Court rejects the petitioners contentions and upheld respondents
official acts ably defended by the Solicitor General.
1.) The arrest of the petitioners was based on probable cause determined after
close surveillance for three (3) months during which period their activities were
monitored.
The existence of probable cause justified the arrest and the seizure of the photo
negatives, photographs and posters without warrant. Those articles were seized as
an incident to a lawful arrest and, are therefore, admissible in evidence.
Even assuming that their arrests were invalid, warrants of arrest were issued
resulting for the restraint against their persons to be legal.
2.) Section 37 of the Immigration Law, empowers the Commissioner of Immigration
to issue warrants for the arrest of overstaying aliens is constitutional.
The arrest is a stop preliminary to the deportation of the aliens who had violated the
condition of their stay in this country.
In addition to this, the denial by the respondent Commissioner of petitioners
release on bail was justified because the right to bail is not a matter of right but a
matter of discretion on the part of the Commissioner of Immigration and
Deportation.
Petition is dismissed and the writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED.

Potrebbero piacerti anche