ESTEBAN MORANO, CHAN SAU WAH and FU YAN FUN vs. HON.

MARTINIANO VIVO [G.R. No. L-22196. June 30, 1967]

Facts: Chan Sau Wah, a Chinese citizen, together with her minor son in
her first marriage, Fuyan Fun arrived in the Philippines to visit her cousin.
they are permitted only into the Philippines under a temporary visitor's visa
for two months and after they posted a cash bond of 4,000. afterwards,
Chan married Esteban Morano, native Filipino citizen. to prolong their stay
in the Philippines, chan and Fu obtained several extension. The last
extension expired on September 10, 1962.

In a letter, the commissioner of Immigration ordered Chan and Fu to leave

the country on or before September 10 with a warning that upon failure so
to do, he will issue a warrant for their arrest and will cause the confiscation
of their bond.

Instead of leaving the country they petitioned the court of first instance for
mandamus to compel the commissioner of immigration to cancel
petitioners' alien certificate of registration, prohibition to stop the issuance
of warrant of arrest and preliminary injunction to restrain the confiscation
of their cash bond.

Issue: Whether or not the commissioner of immigration can issue warrant

of arrest

Held: The Supreme Court held that Section 1 (3), Article III [Bill of Rights]
of the Constitution, to wit:
(3) The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be
violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, to be
determined by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly
describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be
seized.

They say that the Constitution limits to judges the authority to issue
warrants of arrest and that the legislative delegation of such power to the
Commissioner of Immigration is thus violative of the Bill of Rights.

Section 1 (3), Article III of the Constitution, we perceive, does not require
judicial intervention in the execution of a final order of deportation issued
in accordance with law. The constitutional limitation contemplates an order
of arrest in the exercise of judicial power4 as a step preliminary or
incidental to prosecution or proceedings for a given offense or
administrative action, not as a measure indispensable to carry out a valid
decision by a competent official, such as a legal order of deportation,
issued by the Commissioner of Immigration, in pursuance of a valid
legislation.

In consequence, the constitutional guarantee set forth in Section 1 (3),

Article III of the Constitution aforesaid, requiring that the issue of probable
cause be determined by a judge, does not extend to deportation
proceedings