Scribd
Upload
168 views2 pages

Tan Tong v. Deportation Case Digest

Tan Tong was charged before the Deportation Board with affiliation with the communist party and smuggling American cigarettes. Tan Tong argued the Board lacked jurisdiction over the smuggling charge as no conviction had occurred in court as required by law. The Supreme Court ruled that section 2702 of the Administrative Code, which allows deportation for illegal importation following a court conviction, does not prohibit the Board from investigating smuggling allegations absent a conviction. The section is intended to streamline deportation if a conviction has occurred, not prohibit the Board's investigation of smuggling charges before a conviction. The Court affirmed the Board has jurisdiction to investigate Tan Tong and dismissed the appeal.

Uploaded by

LIERA
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
168 views2 pages

Tan Tong v. Deportation Case Digest

Tan Tong was charged before the Deportation Board with affiliation with the communist party and smuggling American cigarettes. Tan Tong argued the Board lacked jurisdiction over the smuggling charge as no conviction had occurred in court as required by law. The Supreme Court ruled that section 2702 of the Administrative Code, which allows deportation for illegal importation following a court conviction, does not prohibit the Board from investigating smuggling allegations absent a conviction. The section is intended to streamline deportation if a conviction has occurred, not prohibit the Board's investigation of smuggling charges before a conviction. The Court affirmed the Board has jurisdiction to investigate Tan Tong and dismissed the appeal.

Uploaded by

LIERA
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Tan Tong v. Deportation Board, G.R. No. L-7680.

April 30, 1955

FACTS:

On November 7, 1752, special prosecutor Emilio L. Galang charged Tan Tong before the
Deportation Board with affiliation with the communist party and with having fraudulently
engaged in unlawful importation of merchandise, especially American cigarettes. Tan Tong filed
a motion to quash the proceedings before the Board, first, on the ground that said charges had
already been investigated by the Bureau of Immigration, and second, that insofar as the charge
of smuggling is concerned, the proceedings are beyond the Board's jurisdiction, because no
deportation proceedings for smuggling can be instituted before his conviction by a competent
court (in accordance with section 2702 of the Revised Administrative Code). The motion to
quash was denied and thereupon Tan Tong instituted this action in the Court of First Instance of
Cebu, alleging that the respondent Deportation Board has no jurisdiction to consider the charges
which had been or were being investigated by the Bureau of Immigration, and because it lacks
jurisdiction to consider the charges of smuggling in accordance with the provisions of section
2702 of the Revised Administrative Code. The petition having been denied Tan Tong appealed
to this Court.

ISSUE:

Whether or not that the trial court erred in ruling that respondent board can subject the
petitioner to deportation for unlawful importation under section 2702 of the Revised
Administrative Code, even without a preceding court conviction for said offense

RULING:

Supreme Court ruled that the language of the provision and the chapter in which it is found do
not justify petitioner's contention. No derogation of a power vested in the Chief Executive or a
limitation thereof can be presumed by implication from the mere addition of the clause "he may
be subject to deportation" at the end of section 2702. This section punishes illegal importation
and imposes, in addition to the penalty prescribed, the liability to deportation if the person found
guilty is an alien. Its sole import is that if a competent court has found an alien guilty of a
violation of section 2702 of the Revised Administrative Code, the proceedings outlined in
section 69 of the said Code are no longer necessary for the deportation.

Beyond this it is unreasonable, if not absurd, to presume that the legislature intended more. It
could not have intended that if there is no conviction for a crime of unlawful importation, or if no
charges have been filed against an alien therefor, the Deportation Board may not proceed to
investigate said charges against him and recommend deportation. The reason for the provision
(SEC. 2702) is that if a competent court has found the alien guilty of a violation of the law, it is
no longer necessary that the proceedings outlined in section 69 be resorted to before his
deportation may be ordered by the Chief Executive for that would be a mere duplicity.
The appeal should be, as it is hereby, dismissed and the decision appealed from affirmed,
with costs against the petitioner-appellant.

You might also like