Evangelista vs Jarencio

68 SCRA 99
Facts
: Evalengista, petitioner, is head of the Presidential Agency on Reforms and
GovernmentOperations (PARGO) created by Executive Order No. 4, which, among
others, provides:
The agency is hereby vested with all the powers of an investigating committee under
Sections
71 and 580 of the Revised Administrative Code, including the power to summon
witnesses by
subpoena duces tecum
, administer oaths, take testimony or evidence relevant to the
investigation.
Respondent Manalastas (Asst. City Public Service Officer of Manila) was issued a
subpoena adtestificandum
commanding him to appear as witness at the office of the PARGO to testify in a
certaininvestigation pending therein. Instead of obeying it, he filed a petition with the
CFI of Manila forprohibition, certiorari and restraining order assailing its legality. Judge
Jarencio issued a restrainingorder. Hence, this action.
Issue
: WON the PARGO enjoys the authority to issue subpoena in its conduct of factfinding investigation
Held
: YES(1)
Agency is with authority to enforce subpoenas issued.
Rightly, administrative agencies may enforce
subpoenas issued in the course of investigations, WON adjudication is involved, and
WON probablecause is shown and even before the issuance of a complaint. It is
enough that the investigation be for alawfully authorized purpose. The purpose of the
subpoena is to discover evidence, not to prove apending charge, but upon which to
make one if discovered evidence so justifies. Because judicial poweris reluctant if not
unable to summon evidence until it is shown to be relevant to issues on litigations,
itdoes not follow that an administrative agency charged with seeing that the laws are
enforced may not
have and exercise powers of original inquiry
(2)
Authority delegated by statute
. The administrative agency has the power of inquisition which is not
dependent upon a case of controversy in order to get evidence, but can investigate
merely on suspicionthat the law is being violated or even just because it wants
assurance that it is not. When investigativeand accusatory duties are delegated by
statute to an administrative body, it too may take steps toinform itself as to whether
there is probable violation of the law.In sum, it may be stated that the subpoena
meets the requirements for enforcement if the inquiry is:(a) within the authority of the
agency(b) the demand is not too indefinite
(c) the information is reasonable relevant
(3)
Information sought reasonably relevant to the investigations

. There is no doubt that the fact-findinginvestigations being conducted by the PARGO

upon sworn statements implicating certain public officialsof the City Govt of Manila in
anomalous transactions f
all within the PARGOs sphere of authority and
that the information sought to be elicited from respondent Manalastas of which he is
claimed to be in
possession, is reasonably relevant to the investigations.
BOOK VII
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
Chapter 1
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 1. Scope. - This Book shall be applicable to all agencies as defined in
the next succeeding section, except the Congress, the Judiciary, the
Constitutional Commissions, military establishments in all matters relating
exclusively to Armed Forces personnel, the Board of Pardons and Parole, and
state universities and colleges.chanrobles virtual law library
Chapter 2
RULES AND REGULATIONS
Sec. 3. Filing. - (1) Every agency shall file with the University of the
Philippines Law Center three (3) certified copies of every rule adopted by it.
Rules in force on the date of effectivity of this Code which are not filed within
three (3) months from that date shall not thereafter be the basis of any sanction
against any party or persons.chanrobles virtual law library
or portions thereof, inconsistent with this Code are hereby repealed or modified
accordingly.

Presidential Decree No. 902, s. 1976

Posted on March 5, 1976
MALACAANG
MANILA
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 902
FURTHER AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF PRESIDENTIAL DECREE
NUMBERED FOUR HUNDRED FIFTY-EIGHT, AS AMENDED, TO CREATE A LEGAL
SERVICE IN THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HIGHWAYS.
WHEREAS, the scope of responsibility and function of the Department of Public
Highways, as created under Presidential Decree No. 458, has been enlarged with the
creation of the Bureau of Barangay Roads;
WHEREAS, there are now three bureaus under the Department, in addition to the
existing twelve regional offices and districts and cities under them;

WHEREAS, the magnitude of the work and responsibility of the Department, as well
as the wide scope of its operation, warrants the existence of a Legal Service in the
Department Proper to provide legal service and support to all the bureaus, regions
and field offices and under it;
WHEREAS, the Commission on Reorganization recognized the need of a legal
service in the different departments whose scope of operation and magnitude of work
and responsibility are similar to those of the Department of Public Highways;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines, by
virtue of the powers in me vested by the Constitution, do hereby decree and order;
Section 1. Section 2 of Presidential Decree No. 458, as amended, is hereby further
amended to reads as follows:
Sec. 2. Organization of the Department of Public Highways. The Department of
Public Highways, hereinafter called the Department, shall be composed of a
Department Proper made up of the immediate Office of the Secretary, the Planning
Service, the Administrative Service, the Financial and Management Service, the
Project Execution Service, the Legal Service and the Special Projects Service; three
bureaus, namely: (a) the Bureau of Construction and Maintenance, (b) the Bureau of
Equipment, (c) the Bureau of Barangay Roads; and the Regional and District Offices.
Section 2. The Legal Service shall be headed by a Director for Legal Affairs and
assisted by an Assistant Director for Legal Affairs to be appointed by the President
upon the recommendation of the Secretary. It shall have under it two divisions,
namely; (1) the Complaints and Investigation Division and (2) the Law Division, each
to be headed by a Chief Legal Officer to be appointed in accordance with the Civil
Service Law.
Section 3. The Legal Service shall be directly under the Office of the Secretary and
shall be responsible for extending legal advice, service and support to the Secretary
and the Undersecretary and all the bureaus, regions, district and city offices of the
Department; represent the Secretary and other officials of the Department, in
collaboration with the Office of the Solicitor General, in all cases involving said
officials and/or functions of the Department; and the bureaus and offices under it;
assist the Secretary and the Undersecretary the formulation or preparation of
proposed presidential decrees affecting the functions and operations of the
Department; assist the Secretary in the formulation and preparation of department
policies, memoranda or circulars pertaining to the functions and operations and area
of responsibility of the Department, and perform such other function as may be
specially assigned to it by the Secretary.
Section 4. All laws, decrees, executive orders, rules and regulations inconsistent with
this Decree are hereby repealed and/or modified accordingly.
Section 5. This Decree shall take effect upon its approval.
Done in the City of Manila, this 5th day of March, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen
hundred and seventy-six.
(Sgd.) FERDINAND
President of the Philippines

E.

MARCOS

By the President:
(Sgd.)
JACOBO
Presidential Executive Assistant

C.

CLAVE

Board of Commissioners vs. Judge De la Rosa 197 scra 853

Facts:
On July 12, 1960, Santiago Gatchalian, grandfather of William Gatchalian, was
recognized by the Bureau of Immigration as a native born Filipino citizen following
the citizenship of natural mother Mariana Gatchalian. On June 27, 1961, Willian,
then twelve years old, arrives in Manila from Hongkong together with a daughter and
a son of Santiago. They had with them certificate of registration and identity issued
by the Philippine consulate in Hongkong based on a cablegram bearing the
signature of the secretary of foreign affairs, Felixberto Serrano, and sought
admission as Filipino citizens.

On July 6, 1961, the board of special inquiry admitted the Gatchalians as Filipino
citizens and issued an identification certificate to William. The boarf of
commissioners waws directed by the Secretary of Justice to Review all cases where
entry was allowed on the ground that the entrant was a Filipino citizen such included
the case of William. As a result of the decision of the board of special inquiry which
recommended for the reversal of the decision of the Board of Commissioners. Acting
commissioner issued an order affirming the decision of the Board of Special Inquiry.
On August 15, 1990, the Commission on Immigration and Deportatiion ordered the
arrest of William and was released upon posting P 200,000 cash bond. Thus on the
29thof the same month, he filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the
RTC of Manila. A motion to dismiss was filed but denied.

Issue:
Whether or not William Gatchalian is to be declared as a Filipino citizen

Held:
William Gatchalian is declared as a Filipino Citizen. Having declared the assailed
marriage as valid, respondent William Gatchalian follows the citizenship of his father,
a Filipino as legitimate child. Respondent belongs to a class of Filipinos who are
citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of the constitution.

Harvey v. Defensor-Santiago
162 SCRA 840
G.R. No. 82544
Facts: This is a petition for Habeas Corpus. Petitioners are the following: American
nationals Andrew Harvey, 52 and Jonh Sherman 72. Dutch Citizen Adriaan Van Den
Elshout, 58. All reside at Pagsanjan Laguna respondent Commissioner Miriam
Defensor Santiago issued Mission Orders to the Commission of Immigration and
Deportation (CID) to apprehended petitioners at their residences. The Operation
Report read that Andrew Harvey was found together with two young boys. Richard
Sherman was found with two naked boys inside his room. While Van Den Elshout in
the after Mission Report read that two children of ages 14 and 16 has been under
his care and subjects confirmed being live-in for sometime now.
Seized during the petitioners apprehension were rolls of photo negatives and photos
of suspected child prostitutes shown in scandalous poses as well as boys and girls
engaged in sex. Posters and other literature advertising the child prostitutes were also
found.
Petitioners were among the 22 suspected alien pedophiles. They were apprehended
17 February1988 after close surveillance for 3 month of the CID in Pagsanjan,
Laguna. 17 of the arrested aliens opted for self-deportation. One released for lack of
evidence, another charged not for pedophile but working with NO VISA, the 3
petitioners chose to face deportation proceedings. On 4 March1988, deportation
proceedings were instituted against aliens for being undesirable aliens under Sec.69
of Revised Administrative Code.
Warrants of Arrest were issued 7March1988 against petitioners for violation of Sec37,
45 and 46 of Immigration Act and sec69 of Revised Administrative Code. Trial by the
Board of Special Inquiry III commenced the same date. Petition for bail was filed
11March 1988 but was not granted by the Commissioner of Immigration. 4 April1988

Petitioners filed a petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. The court heard the case on oral
argument on 20 April 1988.
Issue:
Whether or Not the Commissioner has the power to arrest and detain petitioners
pending determination of existence of probable cause.
Whether or Not there was unreasonable searches and seizures by CID agents.
Whether or Not the writ of Habeas Corpus may be granted to petitioners.
Held: While pedophilia is not a crime under the Revised Penal Code, it violates the
declared policy of the state to promote and protect the physical, moral, spiritual and
social well being of the youth. The arrest of petitioners was based on the probable
cause determined after close surveillance of 3 months. The existence of probable
cause justified the arrest and seizure of articles linked to the offense. The articles
were seized as an incident to a lawful arrest; therefore the articles are admissible
evidences (Rule 126, Section12 of Rules on Criminal Procedure).
The rule that search and seizures must be supported by a valid warrant of arrest is
not an absolute rule. There are at least three exceptions to this rule. 1.) Search is
incidental to the arrest. 2.) Search in a moving vehicle. 3.) Seizure of evidence in
plain view. In view of the foregoing, the search done was incidental to the arrest.
The filing of the petitioners for bail is considered as a waiver of any irregularity
attending their arrest and estops them from questioning its validity. Furthermore, the
deportation charges and the hearing presently conducted by the Board of Special
Inquiry made their detention legal. It is a fundamental rule that habeas corpus will not
be granted when confinement is or has become legal, although such confinement
was illegal at the beginning.
The deportation charges instituted by the Commissioner of Immigration are in
accordance with Sec37 (a) of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940 in relation to

sec69 of the Revised Administrative code. Section 37 (a) provides that aliens shall be
arrested and deported upon warrant of the Commissioner of Immigration and
Deportation after a determination by the Board of Commissioners of the existence of
a ground for deportation against them. Deportation proceedings are administrative in
character and never construed as a punishment but a preventive measure. Therefore,
it need not be conducted strictly in accordance with ordinary Court proceedings. What
is essential is that there should be a specific charge against the alien intended to be
arrested and deported. A fair hearing must also be conducted with assistance of a
counsel if desired.
Lastly, the power to deport aliens is an act of the State and done under the authority
of the sovereign power. It a police measure against the undesirable aliens whose
continued presence in the country is found to be injurious to the public good and
tranquility of the people.