Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • An Appeal by Certiorari

    Uploaded by

    AronJames
    59 views2 pages
    The document summarizes a case involving a man (Ang Chio Kio) who was convicted and imprisoned in the Philippines, pardoned on the condition he leave the country, but then returned and was re-imprisoned. The Court of Appeals dismissed his habeas corpus petition but recommended he be allowed to leave the country. The Supreme Court ruled the recommendation was beyond the Court of Appeals' authority, as the case involved only the habeas petition dismissal, not a review of his sentence. Courts' recommendatory powers are limited to those in law, and the judiciary should not interfere with the President's political powers over such matters. The decision should contain only opinions relevant to the question before the court.

    Original Description:

    STAT CON

    Original Title

    STATUROY CONS

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The document summarizes a case involving a man (Ang Chio Kio) who was convicted and imprisoned in the Philippines, pardoned on the condition he leave the country, but then returned and was re-imprisoned. The Court of Appeals dismissed his habeas corpus petition but recommended he be allowed to leave the country. The Supreme Court ruled the recommendation was beyond the Court of Appeals' authority, as the case involved only the habeas petition dismissal, not a review of his sentence. Courts' recommendatory powers are limited to those in law, and the judiciary should not interfere with the President's political powers over such matters. The decision should contain only opinions relevant to the question before the court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    59 views2 pages

    An Appeal by Certiorari

    Uploaded by

    AronJames
    The document summarizes a case involving a man (Ang Chio Kio) who was convicted and imprisoned in the Philippines, pardoned on the condition he leave the country, but then returned and was re-imprisoned. The Court of Appeals dismissed his habeas corpus petition but recommended he be allowed to leave the country. The Supreme Court ruled the recommendation was beyond the Court of Appeals' authority, as the case involved only the habeas petition dismissal, not a review of his sentence. Courts' recommendatory powers are limited to those in law, and the judiciary should not interfere with the President's political powers over such matters. The decision should contain only opinions relevant to the question before the court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    DIRECTOR OF PRISONERS VS ANG CHIO KIO

    Petitioners: THE DIRECTOR OF PRISONS and THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

    Respondents: ANG CHO KIO @ ANG MING HUY and THE COURT OF APPEALS

    -An appeal by certiorari-

    Prayer: Render judgment ordering the striking out from said decision of the portions recommending to
    the Executive Secretary 'to allow the (petitioner) (respondent Ang Cho Kio @ Ang Ming Huy) to leave this
    country in the first available transportation abroad' but otherwise affirming the dismissal of the petition
    for habeas corpus.

    FACTS:

    1. Respondent had been charged, tried and convicted for various offenses committed in the
    Philippines. After serving 6 ½ years out of 45 yrs 10 mos 21 days of his sentence, he was pardoned
    on July 4, 1959 by the President on the condition that he will voluntarily leave the Philippines upon
    his release and never to return to this country.

    2. On June 26, 1996, he arrived at MIA via PAL from Taipeh under the name “Ang Ming Huy”.
    Identified by inspector Mariano Cristi as the “Ang Chio Kio” who was deported to Taipeh, the
    respondent was arrested and the Executive Secretary ordered him recommitted to prison to serve
    the unexpired portion for having violated the conditions of his pardon.

    3. Ang Chio Kio filed a motion for reconsideration with the Executive Secretary. The latter’s failure
    to act on the motion prompted the respondent to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with
    the CFI Rizal making the Director of Prisons and Executive Secretary as respondents.

    4. CFI dismissed the respondent’s petition saying that he was validly recommitted to prison. He
    appealed to CA but the latter affirmed the CFI’s decision on dismissing the petition for writ of
    habeas corpus. There was, however, a special division of five justices where three justices
    concurred and two dissented on the dispositive portion that allowed the respondent to leave the
    country by the first available transportation. The majority opinion contains the recommendation
    that allow the respondent to leave because they see it best to the interest of the security and
    peace of the country.

    5. In due time, OSG filed a motion for reconsideration with CA praying for the deletion of the
    recommendation that allow the respondent to leave the country. The CA, by a vote of 3-2, denied
    the motion. Hence this appeal for certiorari with the SC.

    6. Petitioners claim that the recommendation is not part of the decision binding upon the parties
    and is uncalled for. It gives a political complexion since courts are not empowered by law to make
    such recommendations to the President. The courts should not interfere with the political acts of
    the Chief Executive by sending an undesirable alien out of the country.
    ISSUE:

    Whether or not CA erred in making a recommendation to allow respondent to leave this country on the
    first available transportation abroad.

    HELD:

    The case before the CA was for habeas corpus and therefore the only question that should have
    been resolved was if CFI had rightly dismissed the petition for habeas corpus. The CA was not called upon
    to review any sentence imposed upon the respondent. The recommendatory power of courts are limited
    to those expressly provided in the law.

    SC did not see it proper that the recommendation would suggest a modification or a correction
    of the act of the Chief Executive since it interferes with the President’s exercise of political powers. It is
    not within the province of the judiciary to express an opinion or suggestion that would reflect on the
    wisdom of the action of the President on matters purely political in nature.

    RATIO:

    The decision of the court should contain only opinion that is relevant to the question that is before it.
    After all, the courts are not concerned with the wisdom or morality of laws, but only in the interpretation
    and application of it. Judges should refrain from expressing irrelevant opinions which may only reflect
    unfavorably upon their competence.

    You might also like