Sei sulla pagina 1di 1

SECRETARY OF JUSTICE VS.

CHRISTOPHER KORUGA
G.R. No. 166199 - APRIL 24, 2009 HELD

FACTS  The Supreme Court ruled against Koruga.

 BI Commissioner Andrea Domingo received an anonymous letter  Respondent was charged with violation of Section 37(a) (4) of the
requesting the deportation of respondent as an undesirable alien, for Philippine Immigration Act of 1940, as amended.1
having been found guilty for attempted possession of cocaine under
the Uniform Controlled Substances Act in the State of Washington.  Respondent contends that the use of the definite article “the”
immediately preceding the phrase “law on prohibited drugs” means
 Koruga was arrested and charged before the Board of Special that the ONLY law covered is the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972.
Inquiry (BSI) for violation of Section 37(a)(4) of the Philippine (And not other drug laws, like the Washington law in this case.)
Immigration Act of 1940, as amended, declaring him an undesirable
alien or public burden.  Koruga is incorrect. If his interpretation of the law is allowed, it
would create a situation where only aliens convicted of Philippine
 BOC ordered the deportation of respondent, the DOJ denied prohibited drugs law would be deported, while aliens convicted of
Koruga’s appeal. The CA reversed the decision stating that there foreign prohibited drugs laws would be allowed entry in the country.
was no valid and legal ground for the deportation of respondent
since there was no violation of Section 37(a)(4) of the Philippine  Indubitably, Section 37(a)(4) should be given a reasonable
Immigration Act of 1940, as amended, because: interpretation, not one which defeats the very purpose for which the
law was passed.
o Respondent was not convicted or sentenced for a violation
of the law on prohibited drugs since the U.S. Court  Moreover, since Section 37(a)(4) makes no distinction between a
dismissed the case. foreign prohibited drugs law and the Philippine prohibited drugs
law, neither should this Court. Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos
o That even if respondent was convicted and sentenced distinguere debemos.
for the alleged offense, his deportation under Section
37(a)(4) is improper, since the prohibited drugs law  Thus, Section 37(a)(4) should apply to those convicted of all
referred to therein refers not to a foreign drugs law but prohibited drugs laws, whether local or foreign.
to the Philippine drugs law. (IMPORTANT)
PETITION GRANTED
ISSUE

WON there is a valid and legal ground for the deportation of Koruga? YES.

1“Sec. 37. (a) The following aliens shall be arrested upon the warrant of the Commissioner of (4) Any alien who is convicted and sentenced for a violation of the law governing prohibited drugs;
Immigration or of any other officer designated by him for the purpose and deported upon the warrant
of the Commissioner of Immigration after a determination by the Board of Commissioners of the
existence of the ground for deportation as charged against the alien.

Potrebbero piacerti anche