THE DIRECTOR OF PRISONS and THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, petitioners-appellants,

vs.
ANG CHO KIO and THE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents

DOCTRINE: Recommendatory Powers of the Judiciary as limited only to SECTION 5 OF THE RPC.

FACTS:

Respondent Ang Cho Kio has been charged, tried and convicted of various offenses (murder, frustrated
murder, frustrated homicide, grave coercion with murder, illegal possession of explosives and ammunitions, grave
coercion and illegal possession of firearm) committed in the Philippines and was sentenced to life imprisonment
and indemnity. On July 04, 1959 he was granted conditional pardon by President if he voluntarily leaves Philippines
as an undesirable alien and never return, which he accepts. He left for Taipei, Nationalist China on July 28, 1959
BUT came back to Manila on June 26, 1966 under the name, “Ang Ming Huy” for a connecting flight as he holds a
round-trip ticket that ends with returning back to Taipei but, causes for a 72-hour stopover in Manila.

The Immigration authorities authorized his 3-day stay, but on June 28 he and his two friends requested to
the Commissioner of Immigration for a fourteen-day extension. Upon discovering his real identity by inspector
Mariano Cristi of the Immigration Bureau (IB), he was arrested and investigated his presence here in the
Philippines. His violation of the conditional pardon caused for the Exec. Secretary by authority of the President the
he recommitted to prison to serve his unexpired sentence, issuing a Supplemental Order of Recommitment.

Respondent filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus (WHC), and a motion for reconsideration of the
given order. CFI Rizal dismissed his petition and held respondent to be validly recommitted to prison as the Exec.
Secretary under the authority of the President’s order is pursuant of Section 64 of the Revised Administration Code
(RAC). Filing an appeal to the CA, it affirmed CFI’s decision on denying the WHC but the majority opinion of FIVE
JUSTICES OF THE CA (Villamor, Rodriguez, Cañizares, Nolasco and Mojica) contained a recommendation that
respondent be “sent out at once from this country and that he be allowed to leave Muntinlupa Prisons under
guard only when he has been booked for outward flight at the Manila International Airport by the first available
transportation so as to avoid the possibility of any further violation of his conditional pardon.”

ISSUE:

1. WON the Courts may interfere with the President’s Supplemental Order of Recommitment.
2. WON the majority of the special division of five justices of the CA erred in making a recommendation
to allow respondent to have this country on the first available transportation abroad.

RULING:

1. NO. Jurisprudence reiterates the power of the Executive Chief in exercising his power of
recommitment, as stated under Section 64 of the RAC. The court states that he “may determine,
alone and by himself, whether the condition attached to a pardon given by him has been violated;
and in the exercise of this prerogative, the courts may not interfere, however erroneous the
findings may be.”

Hence, the CFI’s ruling of dismissing the writ of habeas corpus is also valid as it affirms to the decision of
the President in recommitting the respondent.

2. YES. Altho the Solicitor General maintains that the recommendation given was NOT part of the
decision but was only a majority and private opinion of the five justices. Nevertheless, the Court
believes that the better practice should be that the decision of a court should contain only opinion
that is relevant to the question that is before the court for decision.
 More importantly, it should be clear that the judiciary is not empowered to make such a
recommendation nor is it inherent or incidental in the exercise of judicial powers; that there is no law
which gives the court the authority to recommend to the President the voluntary departure of an
undesirable alien who is lawfully committed to jail; that the deportation of aliens sentenced by the courts
for violation of the laws of the land, and even the act of merely allowing such convicted aliens to
voluntarily leave the country, is an act of state exercised solely in the discretion of the Chief Executive.

The recommendatory power of the courts in this jurisdiction are limited to those expressly provided in
the law and such law is the provision of Section 5 of the Revised Penal Code, as follows: 

"Whenever a court has knowledge of any act which it may deem proper to repress and which is
not punishable by law, it shall render the proper decision, and shall report to the Chief Executive,
through the Department of Justice, the reasons which induce the court to believe that said act
should be made the subject of penal legislation. 

"In the same way the court shall submit to the Chief Executive, through the Department of
Justice such statement as may be deemed proper, without suspending the execution of the
sentence, when a strict enforcement of the provisions of this Code would result in the imposition
of a clearly excessive penalty, taking into consideration the degree of malice and the injury
caused by the offense." 

From this, it is clear that the recommendation in the majority opinion IS NOT AUTHORIZED. The Court of
Appeals was not called upon to review any sentence that was imposed on Ang Cho Kio. It was simply
called upon to determine whether Ang Cho Kio was illegally confined, or not, in the insular penitentiary
under the Director of Prisons. 

Thus, the Court rules for the recommendation embodied in the decision of the majority by the five justices BE
DELETED, the petition for writ of certiorari Is DENIED, and the decision of the special division of the Court of
Appeals STANDS. 

NOTES: There were 10 Justices in the CA’s review of Respondent’s appeal. While 5 had majority opinion, 2 Justices
dissented while the other 3 did not take part in the decision because of their official actuations relative to the case
of respondent Ang Cho Kio before it reached this Court.