MEJOFF VS.

DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

FACTS:

Petitioner: Boris Mejoff, a Russian national brought to the Philippines as a secret operative by the Japanese during the Japanese Occupation

Yet another petition for habeas corpus (i.e. this was not the first case filed by Mejoff)

First petition denied by SC on July 30, 1949

[Now that we’re done with that, let’s go back to the story…]

Upon the liberation of the Philippines, Mejoff was arrested as a spy by the US Army Counter-Intelligence Corps

The People’s Court ordered Mejoff’s release, but the Deportation Board then found out that he had no travel documents and referred the
matter to the immigration authorities

The Immigration Board declared Mejoff an illegal alien, having illegally entered the Philippines in 1944, without inspection or admission by
immigration officials, and ordered that he be deported to Russia come the first available transport

Mejoff was then under custody, having been arrested on March 18, 1948

Repeated failures to ship Mejoff to Russia

Mejoff was moved to Bilibid where he has been confined for give or take two years; “no ship or country would take him”, says the decision

ISSUE:

WON Mejoff should be released from prison pending his deportation

RULING:

The protection against deprivation of liberty without due process of law, and except for crimes committed against the laws of the land, is not
limited to Philippine citizens but extends to all residents, except enemy aliens, regardless of nationality

Sec. 3, Art. II of the 1935 Constitution “adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the Nation,” which
means that the incorporation doctrine holds sway here

The Universal Declaration Of Human Rights proclaims the right to life and liberty and all other fundamental rights as applied to all human
beings, stating that “all human beings are born free and equal in degree and rights” (Art. 1); that “everyone is entitled to all the rights and
freedom set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion,
nationality or social origin, property, birth, or other status” (Art. 2); that “every one has the right to an effective remedy by the competent
national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the Constitution or by law” (Art. 8); that “no one shall be subjected
to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile” (Art. 9 ), etc.

The writ of habeas corpus will issue commanding the respondents to release the petitioner from custody upon these terms: that the petitioner
shall be placed under reasonable surveillance c/o the immigration authorities or their agents in such form and manner as may be deemed
adequate to insure that he keep peace and be available when the Government is ready to deport him
HEAD MONEY CASES EDYE V. ROBERTSON 112 U.S. 580 (1884)

Facts:

In 1882 the Congress passed an act providing that a duty of fifty cents should be collected for each and every passenger who was not a citizen
of the United States, coming from a foreign port to any port within the United States. Individuals and steamship companies brought suit against
the collector of customs at New York, Mr. WH Robertson, for the recovery of the sums of money collected. The act was challenge on the
grounds that it violated numerous treaties of the US government with friendly nations.

Issue:

WON the act is void because of the conflict with the treaty.

Ruling:

A treaty is a compact between independent nations, which depends for its enforcement upon the interest and honor of the governments that
are parties to a treaty. Treaties that regulate the mutual rights of citizens and subjects of the contracting nations are in the same category as
acts of Congress. When these rights are of such a nature as to be enforced by a court of justice, the court resorts to the treaty as it would to a
statute. However, a constitution gives a treaty no superiority over an act on congress. In short, so far as a treaty made by the United States with
any foreign nation can become the subject of judicial cognizance in the courts of this country, it is subject to such acts as Congress may pass for
its enforcement, modification, or repeal.

WHITNEY V. ROBERTSON, 124 U.S. 190, 8 S. CT. 456, 31 L. ED. 386, 1888 U.S. LEXIS 1852 (U.S. JAN. 9, 1888)

Brief Fact Summary. The claim which Whitney (P) brought before the court was that a treaty between the U.S and the Dominican Republic
guaranteed that no higher duty would be assessed on goods from the Dominican Republic than was assessed on goods from any other country
and that duties had been wrongfully assessed on his sugar imports.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. Where a treaty and an act of legislation conflict, the one last in date will control.

Facts. The claim which Whitney (P) brought before the court was that a treaty between the U.S and the Dominican Republic guaranteed that no
higher duty would be assessed on goods from the Dominican Republic than was assessed on goods from any other country and that duties had
been wrongfully assessed on his sugar imports.

Issue. Where a treaty and an act of legislation conflict, will the one last in date control?

Held. (Field, J.). Yes. The one with a later date will control where a treaty and an act of legislation conflict. The act of congress under which the
duties were collected was passed after the treaty and therefore is controlling. Affirmed.

Discussion. A later inconsistent statute does not abrogate or repeal a treaty. The treaty still exists as an international obligation although the
terms of the treaty may not be enforceable.