REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION
MANILA

IN RE: Deportation Case Against:

D.C. No. JHM/LD-18-06/07-191
CA 613, Section 37(a)(7) &
Undesirability
FOX PATRICIA ANNE
DOB: 07 March 1947 B.L.O. No. JHM/BOC-18-233
Passport No. M9317573 W.L.O. No. JTJ/BOC-18-191
Australian (AUS) national D.O. No. JHM/BOC -18- 189
Female,
Respondent.
X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

============================

RESPONDENT, through counsel, respectfully states that:

I. PREFATORY STATEMENT

1. The Respondent, a 72-year-old, fragile Australian nun,

who has worked in the country as a missionary for more than twenty-
seven (27) years, has been declared an undesirable alien by the
Honorable Office and is on the verge of being deported from the
country. Her sin – professing social justice, respect for human rights,
and immersing with the poor, the oppressed and the marginalized. In
a country that supposedly respects and promotes human rights and
the well-being of its people, no amount of ratiocination - that allegedly
the nun joined political rallies of cause-oriented groups – could justify
such a move, for such runs counter to the principle supposedly
espoused by the government.

2. Reading the Resolution of the Honorable Office would

readily show that it is based on one primordial consideration - the
false and unfounded statement of the President that the Respondent
is supposedly foul-mouthed who has criticized the policies of the
Duterte administration even when there is no evidence to support his
claim. As the President has already spoken and has already made
his intentions clear to deport the Respondent seemingly at all cost,
 Motion for Reconsideration
Fox, Patricia Anne, Deportation
Page 2! of !25
_________________________________

the latter could and has reasonably concluded, which conclusion is

proven correct by the issuance of the challenged Resolution, that the
Honorable Office could never be and has never been objective in
resolving the case.

3. Further, the Honorable Office has entirely based its

Resolution on the report of an intelligence officer which report
supposedly detailed the acts or conducts which made the
Respondent an undesirable alien even when said acts or conducts
were not put into proper context and even when she had been doing
those acts for the past 27 years. Some of those acts were even
performed during the administration of past President s. Yet, the
Respondent was not sanctioned including when she got involved in
the Hacienda Luisita controversy at the time of a President whose
family owns the said agricultural estate.

4. Ostensibly, the Resolution of the Honorable Office is not

based on the merits of the case as it failed to resolve, or even
discuss, the fundamental issues raised by the Respondent that her
acts were in done in the exercise of Constitutionally and universally
recognized and protected rights to freedom of expression and
assembly, and free exercise of religious freedom.

5. Be that as it may, the Respondent files this motion still

hoping that the Honorable Office would be objective enough and
consider her arguments, not the public pronouncements of President
and resolve this motion and the case on the merits.

II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

6. On July 19, 2018, the Respondent, through counsel,

received a copy of the Order dated July 19, 2018 wherein it ordered
her deportation and the inclusion of her name in the Blacklist. The
dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

"WHEREFORE, we find FOX PATRICIA ANNE,

Australian national, in violation of the limitations and
conditions of CA 613, Section 9 (g) missionary visa and
undesirable under Act 2711, Section 69 and ORDER her
deportation to Australia, subject to her submission of all
appropriate clearances and the inclusion of her name in
the BI's Blacklist, thus barring her re-entry into the
country.
“x x x xxx xxx
 Motion for Reconsideration
Fox, Patricia Anne, Deportation
Page 3! of !25
_________________________________

“SO ORDERED”

III. GROUNDS OF THE MOTION

7. With all due respect, the Respondent humbly begs the

kind indulgence of this Honorable Office and seeks a reconsideration
of its Resolution dated July 19, 2018 based on the following grounds:

a. The basis of the Order is purely speculative as it is

merely based on the unsubstantiated report of a certain
Intel Agent Melody Penelope B. Gonzales; and

b. The activities allegedly committed by the

Respondent are not illegal but a valid exercise of her right
to free speech and peaceful assembly, guaranteed and
protected by the 1987 Constitution and International Law.

c. The alleged "political activities" are consistent with

her mission by which her missionary visa was granted to
her in the first place; and

d. The statement in the Resolution that since the

President has already made manifest his intention, the
Honorable Office has no choice but to abide by it shows
that it has already prejudged the case.

IV. ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSION

The basis of the Order is purely

speculative as it is merely based on
the unsubstantiated report of a
certain Intel Agent Melody Penelope
B. Gonzales

8. With all due respect, this Honorable Office relied mostly

on report of Intelligence Agent Melody Penelope B. Gonzales to
justify the deportation of the Respondent. In the report, Agent
Gonzales relied on various photographs, downloaded mostly from the
internet and social media sites particularly Facebook, and concluded
that the Respondent is engaged in illegal activities and that she
allegedly violated the terms of her Missionary Visa. This Honorable
Office, in effect, swallowed hook, line and sinker Agent Gonzales
 Motion for Reconsideration
Fox, Patricia Anne, Deportation
Page 4! of !25
_________________________________

conclusion and on that basis, ordered the deportation of the

Respondent.

9. It must be stated, however, that the place, context and

even the sources of the photographs, as well as the other information
contained therein, were not duly established as required by the Rules
of Evidence. Technically, the statements contained in such report are
hearsay and mere allegations of wrongdoing and cannot be made a
basis for the deportation of the Respondent.

10. Agent Gonzales has the burden of showing that the

activities participated by the Respondent are anti-government
activities or protest actions against the policies of the government
which would be acts aliens are not allowed to be involved in. But
Agent Gonzales had not overcome that burden. And the acts referred
to by her report are acts of advocacies which the Respondent, as a
religious and missionary at that, has constantly been engaged to in
her 27 years in the country.

11. In Florencio Moralez, Jr. vs. Ombudsman Conchita

Carpio-Morales, et al.1, it was held that:

“On which party has the burden to prove

allegations in a complaint before the Office of the
Ombudsman, the Court has ruled:

“The basic rule is that mere allegation is

not evidence and is not equivalent to proof.
Charges based on mere suspicion and
speculation likewise cannot be given credence.
When the complainant relies on mere
conjectures and suppositions, and fails to
substantiate his allegations, the complaint must
be dismissed for lack of merit.”

12. To date, the contents of the Report of Agent Gonzales are

still raw intelligence report, which has not yet been verified. In fact,
the basis of the Report is far from being “intelligence report”. The still
photographs were obviously taken from Facebook accounts, and are
publicly known. A facial examination of these still photographs does
not reveal any wrongdoing on the part of the Respondent. Thus, as of
this time, the allegations against the Respondent have not yet been

1 G.R. No. 208086, July 27, 2016.

 Motion for Reconsideration
Fox, Patricia Anne, Deportation
Page 5! of !25
_________________________________

substantiated. The rule on this matter is has already been clarified by

the Supreme Court when it held that “(t)ha the deportation of aliens
should not be based on mere speculation or a mere product of
procrastinations x x x.” (Please see: Commissioner Andrea D.
Domingo, et al. vs. Herbert Markus Emil Scheer2).

13. The use of an unverified report as basis for a deportation

proceeding should not be taken lightly, because due process
requirement dictates that the Respondent should be deported based
on grounds defined under the Immigration Law and based on
substantial evidence. Considering the adverse effect of a deportation,
the same should not be carried out arbitrarily. In Domingo vs.
Scheer3 it was held that:

“Although a deportation proceeding does not

partake of the nature of a criminal action, however,
considering that it is a harsh and extraordinary
administrative proceeding affecting the freedom and
liberty of a person, the constitutional right of such person
to due process should not be denied. Thus, the provisions
of the Rules of Court of the Philippines particularly on
criminal procedure are applicable to deportation
proceedings.”

14. The Supreme Court further held that4:

“Arrest, detention and deportation orders of aliens

should not be enforced blindly and indiscriminately,
without regard to facts and circumstances that will render
the same unjust, unfair or illegal. x x x.

“The deportation of an alien is not intended as a

punishment or penalty. But in a real sense, it
is. In Bridges v. Wixon, Mr. Justice Murphy declared that
the impact of deportation upon the life of an alien is often
as great if not greater than the imposition of a criminal
sentence. In dealing with deportation, there is no
justifiable reason for disregarding the democratic and
human tenets of our legal system and descending to the
practices of despotism.”
2 G.R. No. 154745, January 29, 2004.
3 Supra.
4 Ibid.
 Motion for Reconsideration
Fox, Patricia Anne, Deportation
Page 6! of !25
_________________________________

15. It must be stated further that deportation statutes and

proceedings, “must be construed in favor of the alien”, since although
it is not in the nature of a penal sanction, “in severity it surpasses all
but the most Draconian criminal penalties.”5 With all the more reason
should this Honorable Office exercise prudence and careful
evaluation of the pieces of evidence presented in deportation
proceedings as its consequences have far-reaching and destructive
effects on the foreigners within Philippine territory for legitimate
purposes.

16. Thus, with all due respect, the information provided by

Agent Gonzales are insufficient as bases to order the deportation of
the Respondent. Respondent submits that in administrative
proceedings, the quantum of proof necessary for a finding of guilt is
substantial evidence, or such evidence that a reasonable mind may
accept as adequate to support a conclusion. However, in Concerned
Citizen vs Maria Concepcion M. Divina, 6 it was held that
“[a]ccusation is not synonymous with guilt. This brings to fore the
application of the age-old but familiar rule that he who alleges a fact
has the burden of proving it for mere allegation is not evidence.
Reliance on mere allegation, conjectures and suppositions will leave
an administrative complaint with no leg to stand on.”

The activities allegedly committed by

the Respondent are not illegal but a
valid exercise of her right to free
speech and peaceful assembly,
guaranteed and protected by the
1987 Constitution and International
Law.

17. Do foreigners, especially missionaries, have the right to

freedom of expression and assembly in the country? This is one of
the fundamental issues that was not resolved by the Honorable
Office. The importance of this issue could not be brushed aside as it
would defeat the argument that the Respondent has violated the
conditions of her visa. The question that needs to be resolved
therefore is whether there is merit to the argument of the Respondent
that she is protected by the right to freedom of expression and
assembly and whether the acts she has performed are within the

5John Winston Ono Lennon v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 527 F.2d
187 (2d Cir. 1975), October 7, 1975.
6 A.M. No. P-07-2369, November 16, 2011.
 Motion for Reconsideration
Fox, Patricia Anne, Deportation
Page 7! of !25
_________________________________

context and exercise of that right. Respondent submit that even if she
is a foreigner, she is entitled to such rights and the acts she has done
are in the exercise of such right.

18. Thus, in People vs. Chan Fook7, involving a Chinese

national, the Philippine Supreme Court held that:

“That foreigners in the Philippines are entitled to the

benefits of the individual rights secured by the Philippine
Bill is undeniable. In the case of Kepner vs. U. S. (195 U.
S., 100), the Supreme Court said:

When Congress came to pass the Act of

July 1, 1902, it enacted, almost in the
language of the President 's instructions, the
Bill of Rights of our Constitution. In view of the
expressed declarations of the President ,
followed by the action of Congress, both
adopting, with little alternation, the provisions
of the Bill of Rights, there would seem to be
no room for argument that in this form it was
intended to carry to the Philippine Islands
those principles of our government which the
President declared to be established as rules
of law for the maintenance of individual
freedom, at the same time expressing regret
that the inhabitants of the Islands had not
therefore enjoyed their benefit.

And according to the principles underlying the

Constitution, as extended to the Philippine Islands by the
President's instructions to the Commission and by the
Philippine Bill, foreigners are entitled to the protection of
their life, liberty, and property. In the case of Yick Wo vs.
Hopkins (118 U. S., 356, 369), Justice Matthews says:

The Fourteenth Amendment to the

Constitution is not confined to the protection of
citizens. It says: "Nor shall any State deprive
any person of life, liberty, or properly without
due process of law; nor deny to any person
within its jurisdiction the equal protection of
the laws." These provisions are universal in

7 G.R. No. L-16968, October 6, 1921.

 Motion for Reconsideration
Fox, Patricia Anne, Deportation
Page 8! of !25
_________________________________

their application to all persons within the

territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any
differences of race, of color, or of nationality;
and the equal protection of the laws is a
pledge of the protection of equal laws.

19. In her Report, Agent Gonzales attached various

photographs where the Respondent is shown holding a microphone
and speaking before a press conference for the workers of Coca Cola
company while in another photograph, she is shown holding a
placard stating, “Free all Political Prisoners”. There is also a picture of
her while visiting political prisoners.

20. The photographs, as well as the other information

included in the Report, do not show that the Respondent was
violating the law or violating the terms of her Missionary Visa. These
photographs show that she participated in public forums. Public
forums, including rallies, are venues for the exercise of free
expression.

21. Under the Constitution, the law and prevailing

jurisprudence in the Philippines, the right to free expression and to
peaceably assemble are given utmost respect and deference and
may only be curtailed if it is shown that there is a “grave and
imminent danger” of a “substantive evil” to “public order, public safety,
public convenience, public morals or public health. If Filipino citizens
may only be restricted from exercising their rights to freedom of
expression and to peaceably assemble where there is clear and
present danger, the same is also applicable to foreigners like the
Respondent.

22. In Francisco Chavez vs. Raul M. Gonzales8 , the

Supreme Court provided a historical basis for the primacy of the
freedom of expression, and held that:

“In the Philippines, the primacy and high esteem

accorded freedom of expression is a fundamental
postulate of our constitutional system. This right was
elevated to constitutional status in the 1935, the 1973 and
the 1987 Constitutions, reflecting our own lesson of
history, both political and legal, that freedom of speech is
an indispensable condition for nearly every other form of
freedom. Moreover, our history shows that the struggle to

8 G.R. No. 168338, February 15, 2008.

 Motion for Reconsideration
Fox, Patricia Anne, Deportation
Page 9! of !25
_________________________________

protect the freedom of speech, expression and the press

was, at bottom, the struggle for the indispensable
preconditions for the exercise of other freedoms. For it is
only when the people have unbridled access to
information and the press that they will be capable of
rendering enlightened judgments. In the oft-quoted words
of Thomas Jefferson, we cannot both be free and
ignorant.”

23. The Bill of Rights recognizes freedom of expression and

to peaceably assemble. The Bill of Rights does not distinguish
between a foreigner or a citizen, a permanent resident or a sojourner.
It applies to all who are physically within the Philippine territory and
under the government’s jurisdiction. In Domingo vs. Scheer9 , the
Supreme Court, citing Mr. Justice Murphy’s concurring opinion in
Bridges v. Wixon, held:

“The Bill of Rights belongs to them as well as to all

citizens. It protects them as long as they reside within the
boundaries of our land. It protects them in the exercise of
the great individual rights necessary to a sound political
and economic democracy.”

24. International law further bolsters this recognized precept

on the nature and coverage of basic human rights. The applicability of
these international precepts in our jurisdiction, especially those
relating to the exercise and protection of the civil and political rights of
aliens, has already been affirmed by the Supreme Court.

25. The Respondent invites the Honorable Office to look into

the following provisions of international law and the corresponding
Comments of the United Nations Human Rights Committee on the
same to underscore the universal application of human rights to every
person, hence, justify a reversal of the Deportation Order.

a. Articles 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of

Human Rights which provides that:

“Article19.

“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and

expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions

9 G.R. No. 154745. January 29, 2004.

 Motion for Reconsideration
Fox, Patricia Anne, Deportation
Page 10
! of !25
_________________________________

without interference and to seek, receive and impart

information and ideas through any media and regardless
of frontiers.

“Article20.

“(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful

assembly and association.

“(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an

association.

b. Articles 2 (1), 19 (1) and (2) and 21 of the

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which also
provide that:

“Article 2

“1. Each State Party to the present Covenant

undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals
within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights
recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of
any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion,
political or other opinion, national or social origin,
property, birth or other status.

“x x x xxx x x x.

“Article 19

“1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions

without interference.

“2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of

expression; this right shall include freedom to seek,
receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds,
regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in
the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

“x x x xx x x .”

“Article 21
 Motion for Reconsideration
Fox, Patricia Anne, Deportation
Page !11 of !25
_________________________________

“The right of peaceful assembly shall be recognized.

No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right
other than those imposed in conformity with the law and
which are necessary in a democratic society in the
interests of national security or public safety, public order
(ordre public), the protection of public health or morals or
the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

c. Article 5 (2b and 2c) of the United Nations

Declaration on the Human Rights of Individuals who are not
Nationals of the Country in which They Live, which state that:

“Article 5. (2b and 2c)

“Subject to such restrictions as are prescribed by
law and which are necessary in a democratic society to
protect national security, public safety, public order, public
health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and
which are consistent with the other rights recognized in
the relevant international instruments and those set forth
in this Declaration, aliens shall enjoy the following rights:

“x x x xxx xxx

“(b) The right to freedom of expression;

“(c) The right to peaceful assembly;

“x x x xxx x x x.”

d. General Comment No. 15 (1986) and General

Comment No. 31 (2004) of the United Nations Human Rights
Committee (UNHRC) interpreting Section 2 of the ICCPR on
the coverage of the rights and guarantees enumerated therein,
which provides that:

“10. x x x. As indicated in General Comment 15

adopted at the twenty-seventh session (1986), the
enjoyment of Covenant rights is not limited to citizens of
State Parties but must also be available to all
individuals, regardless of nationality or
statelessness, such as asylum seekers, refugees,
migrant workers and other persons, who may find
 Motion for Reconsideration
Fox, Patricia Anne, Deportation
Page 12
! of !25
_________________________________

themselves in the territory or subject to the jurisdiction of

the State Party. x x x.” (emphasis supplied)

26. Clearly, the rights to freedom of expression and to

peaceably assemble are available not just to citizens but even to
foreigners such as the Respondent. It must be noted that the
Respondent has been a missionary in the Philippines for the last
twenty-seven years, and has lived with, and served the, marginalized
sectors of the Philippine society. Her years of stay in the Philippines,
and the nature of her missionary work show that she has established
“substantial connection” with the Philippines and the Filipino people
This “substantial connection” removed any doubt that she is indeed
entitled to the same constitutional guarantees and protection afforded
to the citizens of the Philippines, specially the right to free expression
and to peaceably assemble, and the right to due process of law.

27. Being entitled to exercise freedom of expression, her

exercise of such constitutionally guaranteed right may only be
restricted or curtailed on two recognized grounds that are elucidated
in General Comment No. 10 (1983) and General Comment No. 34
(2011) of the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC)
interpreting Section 21 of the ICCPR on the right to peaceably
assemble, citing the 1984 Siracausa Principles, which further clarifies
the allowable restrictions in the recognition and exercise of the
aforementioned right that include: (1) respect of the rights and
reputations of others; and (2) the protection of national security or of
public order . . . or of public health or morals. To reiterate, paragraphs
22, 29, 30, 31 and 34 of the Siracausa Principles provide that:

“22. The expression ‘public order (ordre public)’ as

used in the Covenant may be defined as the sum of rules
which ensure the functioning of society or the set of
fundamental principles on which society is founded.
Respect for human rights is part of public order (ordre
public).”

“29. National security may be invoked to justify

measures limiting certain rights only when they are taken
to protect the existence of the nation or its territorial
integrity or political independence against force or threat
of force.

“30. National security cannot be invoked as a

reason for imposing limitations to prevent merely local or
relatively isolated threats to law and order.
 Motion for Reconsideration
Fox, Patricia Anne, Deportation
Page 13
! of !25
_________________________________

“31. National security cannot be used as a pretext

for imposing vague or arbitrary limitations and may only
be invoked when there exists adequate safeguards and
effective remedies against abuse.

“33. Public safety means protection against danger

to the safety of persons, to their life or physical integrity,
or serious damage to their property.

“34. The need to protect public safety can justify

limitations provided by law. It cannot be used for imposing
vague or arbitrary limitations and may only be invoked
when there exist adequate safeguards and effective
remedies against abuse.”

28. Again, these grounds, as interpreted above, refer to

serious and imminent threat to public order, public safety, public
health and to national security. These interpretations based on the
Siracausa Principles conform with the prevailing interpretations of the
same restrictions provided for under Philippine laws on the right to
free expression and to peaceably assemble, where the “clear and
present danger rule is being applied.

29. In this case, the Respondent is accused of having

participated in public forums, as shown in the photographs, and is
also being alleged to have attended rallies. In those occasions, the
Respondent may have held banners calling to “stop the killings”
especially of the farmers and indigenous people, “to respect human
rights”, “to resume peace talks”, “to implement genuine agrarian
reform”, “to ban destructive mining”, “to respect workers’ security of
tenure and provide them decent humane wages, or “to protect the
OFWs” among others. Those were the basis for penalizing her, and
what triggered the deportation proceedings against her. But those
activities are manifestations of the right to freedom of expression and
assembly to which the Respondent is entitled to. Those calls or
activities are not political or partisan activities but simply to help
promote and protect the rights of the poor and the needy which the
government is also duty-bound and obligated to do. They are also
consistent and in accordance with the representation that the
Respondent and the Sisters of Our Lady of Sion made in the
application for change of admission status, and application for
extension of stay and support here in the country,
 Motion for Reconsideration
Fox, Patricia Anne, Deportation
Page 14
! of !25
_________________________________

30. To reiterate, when the Respondent joins rallies and fact-

finding missions and similar activities, she is not violating the law. She
is merely exercising her right, and she can do so whether the same is
part of her missionary work or not, since such right is guaranteed and
protected by the Constitution. She is afforded the same protection
enjoyed by Filipino citizens.

31. Clearly, the Government is restricting and curtailing

without any factual and legal basis the exercise of Respondent’s
rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly guaranteed
and protected, not only by the Constitution but also by the UDHR and
the ICCPR, if the Deportation Order stands, finding her an
undesirable alien unfit to stay further in Philippine territory. She is
being punished for the exercise of the rights guaranteed and
protected by the Constitution to all people, citizen or not, sojourning in
the Philippines. It is an attack and retaliation for expressing and
asserting her valid and legal beliefs and advocacies as a missionary
nun. These deserve protection and not punishment.

32. To restrict and curtail the Respondent’s constitutional right

under such flimsy and unsubstantiated grounds is like sanctioning a
Draconian measure that can be utilized by the State to suppress
dissent and criticisms. This is uncalled for specially for a Government
that claims itself to be a “democratic and a republican state”.

There no basis in the conclusion of

this Honorable Office that the
Respondent committed acts or
participated in activities that were
beyond those spelled out in the grant
of her Missionary Visa.

33. Essentially, the challenged Resolution, if not reversed and

set aside, would curtail the acts of the Respondent which were done
pursuant to her religious belief and aspiration. And that would unduly
give the Honorable Office the right to define what a religious
missionary like herein Respondent can do or cannot do, or ought to
do and not to do even when that is already outside the scope of it
authority and mandate and in violation of Section 5, Article III, of the
Philippine Constitution which prohibits the government to impair the
free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship. Said
provision of the Constitution provides:

“SECTION 5. No law shall be made respecting an

establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
 Motion for Reconsideration
Fox, Patricia Anne, Deportation
Page 15
! of !25
_________________________________

thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious

profession and worship, without discrimination or
preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test
shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.”
(Emphasis and underlining supplied)

34. It must be noted that the rights enshrined in the Bill of

Rights including the right to religious freedom and worship is
available to all, both foreigner and Filipino citizen alike. This has been
the consistent ruling of the Philippine Supreme Court since early
1920 up to the advent of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.

35. The Honorable Office should also look on the charism

and mission of the Sister of our Lady of Sion to see that the acts done
by the Respondent were consistent therewith and were not violations
of the representations it and she has made when she applied for
religious visa. This has been extensively discussed in the Counter-
Affidavit of the Respondent.

36. After understanding the charism and mission of

Respondent’s congregation’s, one can definitely say that the
Respondent did not participate in any political or partisan activity but
express her sentiments to help promote and protect the rights of the
poor and the needy.

37. Thus, while it may be true that in several occasions, the

Respondent was seen participating in activities which were made the
basis for the complaints against her, she most respectfully submits
that there is nothing wrong with that. The call to stop the killings, to
free political prisoners, and the like are universal calls not limited by
territorial jurisdiction or the place where one is domiciled. In fact, for
the past twenty-seven (27) years, the Respondent has not been cited
for violation of any law, rule or regulation, for or by giving solidarity
messages or holding banners or placards bearing those calls. It is
only now, after the almost twenty-seven (27) years of rendering
apostolate and missionary work to the poor and the needy that she
was accused of violating the Philippine Immigration Law and called
an undesirable alien.

38. It must be noted that the Respondent is a religious

missionary, and NOT a simple technical expert. As a missionary, she
is expected to live in solidarity with the people they serve and to
identify with their struggles.
 Motion for Reconsideration
Fox, Patricia Anne, Deportation
Page 16
! of !25
_________________________________

39. The Respondent maintains that she did not violate the
terms and conditions of her missionary visa since the documents
submitted by the Bureau of Immigration, through Agent Penelope
Gonzales, did not show that the Respondent was engaged in anti-
government activities but are CONSISTENT with her missionary work
of promoting peace, social justice and human rights; that, therefore,
would not make her an undesirable alien for her work was much
desired by the people she served --the farmers, the indigenous
people, the workers, the poor and the marginalized.

40. With all due respect, the assailed Resolution also

effectively delimits the scope of Respondent's mission as part of the
congregation of the Sisters of Our Lady of Sion when it mentioned
that Respondent should only be doing trainings with the farmers for
sustainable agriculture as allegedly reflected in a 2014 Certification
as among the requirements for the application for missionary visa.
This also unnecessarily encroaches upon the very nature of the
charism and purpose of the congregation of the Sisters of Our Lady
of Sion which is a violation of religious freedom.

41. To reiterate, the charism of the Sisters of Our Lady Sion

to which Respondent belongs to is based on a biblical spirituality. It is
not defined by activity alone, nor is it limited to a specific task.
Wherever they are, they must become involved in the situation in
which they live to promote and protect the universally recognized
rights of the people. They describe it as reminding the church that her
roots are in Judaism and working for the promises of a world of
justice, peace and love, first promised to the Jewish people for all.
The congregation has threefold commitment: to the church, to the
Jewish people, and to a world of justice, peace and love. Whatever
task they are engaged in, they are called to integrate in some way
these three dimensions our apostolic commitment.

42. It was in 1991 when Respondent volunteered to be sent

to the Philippines after their 1986 congregational chapter, where they
were called upon to see the world through the eyes of the poor and
one of the decisions was to explore an immersion in Asia where they
had no presence and where the majority of the world's population
lives.

43. Respondent have joined, gatherings or assemblies of

farmers, indigenous peoples and other oppressed sectors who
demand that their rights to land and resources be granted and
respected; or workers in their demand for humane and just wages,
security of tenure, and humane conditions of work, but those are not
 Motion for Reconsideration
Fox, Patricia Anne, Deportation
Page 17
! of !25
_________________________________

political or partisan activities for or against the government but simply

to help promote and protect the rights and causes of the poor and the
needy. Respondent submits that there is absolutely no necessity to
disclose to this Honorable Office something that is required to be
done by anyone, foreigner or not, and that is to do what is good, right
and just anywhere we may be. Respondent’s activities are consistent
and in accordance with the representation that Respondent and the
Sisters of Our Lady of Sion made in the application for change of
admission status, and application for extension of stay and support,
to help the poor and the needy.

44. In those occasions, Respondent may have held banners

calling to “stop the killings” especially of the farmers and indigenous
people, “to respect human rights”, “to resume peace talks”, “to
implement genuine agrarian reform”, “to ban destructive mining”, “to
respect workers’ security of tenure and provide them decent humane
wages, or “to protect the OFWs” among others.

45. But Respondent submits that there is nothing wrong or

illegal with that, for those are universal calls directed to everyone not
just the government. And those calls are not limited by territorial
jurisdiction or the place where one is domiciled. Clearly, these calls
are everybody's concerns, more so of the religious missionaries like
Respondent and her congregation who work with and for the poor
and the marginalized contrary to the definition by this Honorable
Office of Sr. Fox’s missionary work, arguing that these activities are
purely political issues.

46. In addition, joining or participating in activities that calls

for implementation of social justice and respect for human rights are
part and parcel of her missionary work. In contrast, sitting idly,
keeping one’s silence, doing nothing, when injustice and oppression
is happening directly in one’s eyes, is repugnant to the social
doctrines and teaching of the church for salvation and liberation to the
poor and powerless.

47. Moreover, even the Philippine Constitution declares that

“[t]he State shall promote social justice in all phases of national
development”, and “[t]he State values the dignity of every human
person and guarantees full respect for human rights.”
48. Thus, Respondent's acts of promoting social justice,
human rights and peace articulated and expressed through
participating in activities or assemblies are not only consistent with
her congregation’s charism and mission but also with the Philippine
 Motion for Reconsideration
Fox, Patricia Anne, Deportation
Page 18
! of !25
_________________________________

Constitution and international human rights instruments signed and

ratified by the Philippine government.

49. Finally, her participation in activities organized by other

organizations like KARAPATAN, Unyon ng Mangagawa sa Agrilultura
and similar non-religious organization are covered within her mandate
as a Missionary. Likewise, her participation in these activities, and
even membership in these organizations, if in fact she is a member,
are not illegal, since these are constitutionally guaranteed right under
the right to expression and to freedom of association.

The statement in the Resolution that

since the President has already made
manifest his intention, the Honorable
Office has no choice but to abide by it
shows that it has already prejudged the
case.

50. In the Resolution, the Honorable Office has essentially

stated that since the President has already spoken, the officials of
the Honorable Office, under the doctrine of qualified political agency
or alter ego principle, have to abide by the statement of the President.
With due respect, that is wrong. To sanction that argument would be
to state that decisions should be based on the public pronouncement
of the President irrespective of the merits of the case and the
arguments of the parties. That would also violate the cardinal
principle of administrative due process which was first declared in the
landmark case of Ang Tibay vs. CIR.10

51. In the Ang Tibay case, the Supreme Court said that there
are primary rights which must be respected even in administrative
proceedings like this case and they are:

(1) The first of these rights is the right to a hearing,

which includes the right of the party interested or affected
to present his own case and submit evidence in support
thereof. In the language of Chief Hughes, in Morgan v.
U.S., 304 U.S. 1, 58 S. Ct. 773, 999, 82 Law. ed. 1129,
"the liberty and property of the citizen shall be protected
by the rudimentary requirements of fair play.

10 G.R. No. L-46496, February 27, 1940.

 Motion for Reconsideration
Fox, Patricia Anne, Deportation
Page 19
! of !25
_________________________________

(2) Not only must the party be given an opportunity

to present his case and to adduce evidence tending to
establish the rights which he asserts but the tribunal must
consider the evidence presented. (Chief Justice Hughes
in Morgan v. U.S. 298 U.S. 468, 56 S. Ct. 906, 80 law. ed.
1288.) In the language of this court in Edwards vs.
McCoy, 22 Phil., 598, "the right to adduce evidence,
without the corresponding duty on the part of the board to
consider it, is vain. Such right is conspicuously futile if the
person or persons to whom the evidence is presented can
thrust it aside without notice or consideration."

(3) "While the duty to deliberate does not impose

the obligation to decide right, it does imply a necessity
which cannot be disregarded, namely, that of having
something to support it is a nullity, a place when directly
attached." (Edwards vs. McCoy, supra.) This principle
emanates from the more fundamental is contrary to the
vesting of unlimited power anywhere. Law is both a grant
and a limitation upon power.

(4) Not only must there be some evidence to

support a finding or conclusion (City of Manila vs. Agustin,
G.R. No. 45844, promulgated November 29, 1937, XXXVI
O. G. 1335), but the evidence must be
"substantial." (Washington, Virginia and Maryland Coach
Co. v. national labor Relations Board, 301 U.S. 142, 147,
57 S. Ct. 648, 650, 81 Law. ed. 965.) It means such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind accept as
adequate to support a conclusion." (Appalachian Electric
Power v. National Labor Relations Board, 4 Cir., 93 F. 2d
985, 989; National Labor Relations Board v. Thompson
Products, 6 Cir., 97 F. 2d 13, 15; Ballston-Stillwater
Knitting Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 2 Cir., 98
F. 2d 758, 760.) . . . The statute provides that "the rules of
evidence prevailing in courts of law and equity shall not
be controlling.' The obvious purpose of this and similar
provisions is to free administrative boards from the
compulsion of technical rules so that the mere admission
of matter which would be deemed incompetent inn judicial
proceedings would not invalidate the administrative order.
(Interstate Commerce Commission v. Baird, 194 U.S. 25,
44, 24 S. Ct. 563, 568, 48 Law. ed. 860; Interstate
Commerce Commission v. Louisville and Nashville R. Co.,
227 U.S. 88, 93 33 S. Ct. 185, 187, 57 Law. ed. 431;
United States v. Abilene and Southern Ry. Co. S. Ct. 220,
 Motion for Reconsideration
Fox, Patricia Anne, Deportation
Page 20
! of !25
_________________________________

225, 74 Law. ed. 624.) But this assurance of a desirable

flexibility in administrative procedure does not go far as to
justify orders without a basis in evidence having rational
probative force. Mere uncorroborated hearsay or rumor
does not constitute substantial evidence. (Consolidated
Edison Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 59 S. Ct.
206, 83 Law. ed. No. 4, Adv. Op., p. 131.)"

(5) The decision must be rendered on the evidence

presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the
record and disclosed to the parties affected. (Interstate
Commence Commission vs. L. & N. R. Co., 227 U.S. 88,
33 S. Ct. 185, 57 Law. ed. 431.) Only by confining the
administrative tribunal to the evidence disclosed to the
parties, can the latter be protected in their right to know
and meet the case against them. It should not, however,
detract from their duty actively to see that the law is
enforced, and for that purpose, to use the authorized legal
methods of securing evidence and informing itself of facts
material and relevant to the controversy. Boards of inquiry
may be appointed for the purpose of investigating and
determining the facts in any given case, but their report
a n d d e c i s i o n a r e o n l y a d v i s o r y. ( S e c t i o n 9 ,
Commonwealth Act No. 103.) The Court of Industrial
Relations may refer any industrial or agricultural dispute
or any matter under its consideration or advisement to a
local board of inquiry, a provincial fiscal. a justice of the
peace or any public official in any part of the Philippines
for investigation, report and recommendation, and may
delegate to such board or public official such powers and
functions as the said Court of Industrial Relations may
deem necessary, but such delegation shall not affect the
exercise of the Court itself of any of its powers. (Section
10, ibid.)

(6) The Court of Industrial Relations or any of its

judges, therefore, must act on its or his own independent
consideration of the law and facts of the controversy, and
not simply accept the views of a subordinate in arriving at
a decision. It may be that the volume of work is such that
it is literally Relations personally to decide all
controversies coming before them. In the United States
the difficulty is solved with the enactment of statutory
authority authorizing examiners or other subordinates to
render final decision, with the right to appeal to board or
 Motion for Reconsideration
Fox, Patricia Anne, Deportation
Page 21
! of !25
_________________________________

commission, but in our case there is no such statutory

authority.

(7) The Court of Industrial Relations should, in all

controversial questions, render its decision in such a
manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the
various issues involved, and the reasons for the decision
rendered. The performance of this duty is inseparable
from the authority conferred upon it.

52. In the present case, those fundamental principles have

not been observed. Clearly, the Honorable Office has already
prejudged the case and based its decision on the public
pronouncement of the President for which reason it swallowed hook,
line, and sinker so to speak, the report of Agent Gonzales and
followed her recommendation.

53. Thus, while it may be true that the Honorable Office gave
the Respondent an opportunity to be heard by allowing her to file her
counter-affidavit and memorandum, the same is seen merely as a
formal compliance with the rule but the Honorable Office has already
made a predetermination of the outcome of the case based on the
public pronouncement of the President . Under such a situation, any
explanation or argument of the Respondent would not anymore
matter as the Honorable Office has already decided to follow the
orders of the President.

54. In the same vein, the argument that since the Honorable
Office is under the Office of the President it is duty bound to follow
his order is violative of the principles laid down in Ang Tibay case that
the decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the
hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the
parties affected.

55. In this case, the Honorable Office considered the

statement of the President in resolving this case without even
showing what are the basis of those statements so that the
Respondent could refute them.

56. In the same manner, the Honorable Office apparently did

not act on its or his own independent consideration of the law and
facts of the controversy as it simply based its decision on the public
statement of the President.
 Motion for Reconsideration
Fox, Patricia Anne, Deportation
Page 22
! of !25
_________________________________

57. The Honorable Office may argue that it has also

discussed the basis for the order and that is the report of Agent
Gonzales. To the Respondent, however, it is not the report of Agent
Gonzales that give her away but the statement of the President which
was also duly acknowledged and even stated by the Honorable Office
in the challenged Resolution.

58. But even granting for the sake of argument that the
Resolution was based on the report of Agent Gonzales and not the
public pronouncement of the President , again, the report of Agent
Gonzales failed to provide the proper context of the activities
participated by the Respondent. The report is also based on hearsay
information. Hence, there is no substantial evidence to support the
decision in this case because hearsay information is not evidence.

59. In Consolidated Edison Co. v. National Labor

Relations Board, 59 S. Ct. 206, 83 Law. ed. No. 4, Adv. Op., p.
131, as cited in Ang Tibay case, the Supreme Court said that mere
uncorroborated hearsay or rumor does not constitute substantial
evidence.

60. All told, and based on the foregoing arguments, the

Respondent most respectfully moves for the reconsideration of the
challenged Resolution.

PRAYER

Wherefore, premises considered, the Respondent respectfully

moves that the Order dated 19 July 2018 be RECONSIDERED.

Quezon City, July 23, 2018.

NATIONAL UNION OF PEOPLES’ LAWYERS

Counsel for the Respondent
3/F Erythrina Building #1 Maaralin
Cor. Matatag Streets, Central
District, Quezon City
920-6660
nupl2007@gmail.com

by
 Motion for Reconsideration
Fox, Patricia Anne, Deportation
Page 23
! of !25
_________________________________

EDRE U. OLALIA
IBP No. 021329-1/5/18- RSM
PTR No. 5566292C 1/4/18-Quezon City
Roll of Attorneys No. 36971
MCLE Compliance No. V-0019457-04/22/2016

JULIAN F. OLIVA, JR.

IBP No.021331-1/5/18- RSM
PTR No. 5566290C- 1/4/18- Quezon City
Roll of Attorneys No. 35870
MCLE Compliance No. V-0019459 – 04/22/2016

EPHRAIM B. CORTEZ
IBP No. 021330 – 1/5/18- Isabela
PTR No. 5566291C-1/4/18- Quezon City
Roll of Attorneys No. 41366
MCLE Compliance No. V-0019328-04/22/2016

KATHERINE A. PANGUBAN
IBP No. 020933 – 1/4/18 –RSM
PTR No. 5521596 – 1/4/18 – Quezon City
Roll of Attorneys No. 65486
Admitted to the Bar June 2016

MARIA SOL G. TAULE

IBP No. 021334 – 1/5/18 – Quezon City
PTR No. 5566294C – 1/4/18 – Quezon City
Roll of Attorneys No. 69386
Admitted to the Bar 2017, MCLE not yet required

and
 Motion for Reconsideration
Fox, Patricia Anne, Deportation
Page 24
! of !25
_________________________________

Sentro Para sa Tunay na

Repormang Agraryo (SENTRA)
205 Matatag Mansion
137 Matatag Street, Barangay Central
Quezon City, 1100

By:

JOBERT I. PAHILGA
PTR No. 2932445/03-02-2018/Navotas
IBP No. 034185/03-02-2018/Antique
Roll No. 48289
MCLE V 0023711 Valid Until 4-14-2019

COPY FURNISHED:
INTELLIGENCE DIVISION
Bureau of Immigration
Magallanes Drive, Intramuros
Manila

Republic of the Philippines )

Manila City ) s.s.

VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION
OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING

I, PATRICIA ANNE FOX, of legal age, Australian citizen, with

address c/o National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers 3/F Erythrina
Building #1 Maaralin cor. Matatag Streets Barangay Central District
Quezon City after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law,
hereby depose and state that:

1. I am the Respondent in this case;

2. I have caused the preparation of this Motion for

Reconsideration; have read and understood the contents thereof; and
that the same are true and correct of my personal knowledge and
based on authentic records;
 Motion for Reconsideration
Fox, Patricia Anne, Deportation
Page 25
! of !25
_________________________________

3. I further certify that I have not commenced any other

action or proceedings involving the same case in any other tribunal or
agency; and that to the best of my knowledge, except for the Petition
for Review of Visa Forfeiture No. JHM/BOC-18-183 Order to Leave
JHM/BOC18-01, no such action or proceeding is pending therein.
Furthermore, should I thereafter learn that a similar action or
proceeding has been filed or is pending, I undertake to report such
fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court or agency in which the
original pleading and sworn certification has been filed.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set our hands this 23rd day of

July 2018 at City of Manila.

PATRICIA ANNE FOX

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 23rd day of July

2018 in Manila, affiant personally appeared and as proof of her
i d e n t i t y, e x h i b i t e d t o m e h e r P a s s p o r t w i t h n u m b e r
_______________.

Doc. No. ____;

Page No. ____;
Book No. ____;
Series of 2018