STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION

CASTILLO, E.G.

GR NO. 137571 SEPT 21, 2000

PETITIONER: TUNG CHIN HUI

RESPONDENT: RUFUS RODRIGUEZ, COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION AND DEPORTATION (BID)

PANGANIBAN, J.:

I. FACTS
Hui, a Taiwanese citizen, after acquiring a visa from the PH Embassy in Singapore, went to the Philippines. ON
Nov 15, 1998, he was arrested by the police and was turned over to the BID. Nov 25, 1998, BID Board found
Hui guilty of possessing a tampered passport and ordered his summary deportation.

On Dec 11, 1998, Hui then filed with the RTC a petition for Habeas Corpus on ground of illegal detention
which the Respondents countered with a Return of Writ. The RTC on Jan 7, 1999, granted Hui’s petition and
order his release from custody. Respondents filed a MR but was denied by the RTC in an order dated Jan 29,
1999.

Respondents received the judgement dated Jan 29 1999 on Feb 11 1999 as evidenced by the receipt thereof,
which the Respondents filed a Notice of Appeal that was received by the RTC on Feb 16, 1999. Hui contended
that the NoA had been filed beyond the 48-hour reglementary period for filing appeals in habeas corpus
cases.

RTC granted the NoA. Hui filed a MR arguing that the NoA referred to the Jan 29 order denying the MR which
the RTC denied.

Hence this petition raising pure questions of law. The SC issued a TRO directing the Respondents to cease and
desist from deporting Hui.
II. ISSUE
 Whether or not the reglementary period to appeal habeas corpus cases is still 48 hours form notice of
judgment
III. RULING - WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED and the assailed Order AFFIRMED. The Temporary
Restraining Order issued by the Court is hereby immediately LIFTED.
 No. It is a well-settled rule of statutory construction that provisions of an old law that were not reproduced in
the revision thereof covering the same subject are deemed repealed and discarded.
Hui’s contention that stare decisis should be applied following the cases of Saulo v. Cruz, Garcia v. Echiverri
and Elepante v. Madayag had been resolved pre-1997 Rules of Court. Accordingly the Court cannot apply the
alleged precedents as the present case occurred when the 1997 Revised Rules of Court was already in effect.

Hui v. Rodriguez