Case Study #1

G.R. No. 180364 December 3, 2014 TZE SUN WONG,Petitioner, vs. KENNY WONG,Respondent. Issue Whether or not the petitioner, Tze Sun Wong should be deported from the Philippines The Facts Petitioner is a Chinese citizen who immigrated to the Philippines in 1975 and subsequently acquired a permanent resident status in 1982. As the records would show, he studied, married, and continued to reside in the country, and even owned a company called Happy Sun Travel and Tours.⁴ On September 12, 2000, Kenny Wong (respondent), owner and proprietor of San Andres Construction Supply, filed a Complaint Affidavit5against petitioner before the Bureau of Immigration (BOI), alleging that the latter had misrepresented, in his driver's license application, that he was a Filipino citizen. Respondent also averred that petitioner and his business partner, Tina Yu, issued post-dated checks in the amount of 886,922.00 which, however, bounced to his damage and prejudice. Thus, taking cue from the foregoing acts, respondent prayed that petitioner be investigated by the BOI for violation of immigration laws.6 In his Counter-Affidavit7dated September 28, 2000, petitioner denied respondent's claim of misrepresentation, stating that when he applied for a driver's license, it was another person who filled up the application form for him. However, said person entered the wrong information, particularly, on his name, birth year, and nationality.8 Finding probable cause, the Special Prosecutor filed with the BOI the applicable deportation charges9against petitioner, docketed as BSI-D.C. No. ADD-02-280.10Thereafter, the BOI Commissioner issued a Mission Order11to verify petitioner's immigration status. The Mission Order was later recalled12and the Law and Investigation Division endorsed the records to the Board of Special Inquiry which directed the parties to submit their respective memoranda.13 Ruling In a Judgment¹⁴dated October 2, 2002,the BOI Board of Commissioners ordered the deportation of petitioner on the grounds of: (a) illegal use of alias, i.e., Joseph Wong, which was the name appearing in his driver's license application; and (b) misrepresenting himself as a Filipino citizen in the same application, in violation of Section 37 (a) (7) and (9)¹⁵of Commonwealth Act No. 613,¹⁶otherwise known as "The Philippine Immigration Act of 1940" (Immigration Act), in relation to Sections 1, 2, and 3¹⁷of Republic Act No. (RA) 6085.¹⁸Aside from pointing out the misrepresentations made by petitioner, the BOI took judicial notice of the fact that driver's license applications require the personal appearance of the applicant in order to prevent fraud. Thus, by allowing someone to apply for him, he actively involved himself in the preparation and issuance of a fraudulent driver's license. By the same account, he cannot then aver that he was without any participation in the entry of his supposed Philippine citizenship in his driver's license.¹⁹

Summarize in 2 to 3 sentences the arguments of both the petitioner and the respondents/

Why did the respondent file a case against the petitioner?

Do you agree with the ruling of the BOI? Why?

What area of Section 37 of the PIA did the petitioner violate?

If you were one of the commissioners of the BOI, will you give the same verdict?

Case Study # 2

A Japanese national who had been held in the Philippines for issuing dud cheques was finally released by authorities last May 20, 2015 after fighting a 16 year battle in Philippine courts.

Junichi Inoue, who was quarantined at the Bureau of Immigration warden facility in Taguig City since 1999, was finally deported to his home country by the Bureau of Immigration. After spending more than a decade and a half in detention, Inoue is considered to be one of the country's longest serving immigration detainees.

According to BOI, the implementation of the deportation order issued in 1999 is considered to be a "little victory" for the Bureau in view of the many challenges involved in the process. The Bureau is glad to have finally deported him to Japan considering that the Bureau is not in the business of detaining but of deporting.

Inoue was originally apprehended and quarantined at the Bureau of Immigration Warden Facility in 1999 the basis that the Japanese national had violated the conditions of his stay in the country.

He was reported to be a fugitive of Japan for the crime of robbery, and his passport has been cancelled by his home country at the time of his arrest. He has requested for voluntary deportation, which was granted on May 13, 1999.But later on, it was found that Inoue has pending criminal cases in Philippine courts and the immigrations bureau was prevented from implementing the deportation order against him.

Inoue's cases include violations of Batas Pambansa 22 or Anti-Bouncing Check Law with cases filed against him before the municipal trial courts of Cainta, Rizal; Binan, Laguna; San Pedro, Laguna; and Cabanatuan City. Based on Philippine immigration rules, any foreign national who is a subject of a final deportation order may not be physically deported if he has pending obligations with the Philippine government, especially if the obligation arises from a criminal liability.

1. What are the bases for Junichi Inoue's deportation?
2. Why do you think that his deportation took 16 long years?
3. Do you agree that if the foreigner is criminally liable in the Philippines, he will not be deported in the country but instead should be imprisoned here?