G.R. No.

82544
June 28, 1988

In the matter of the petition for Habeas

Corpus of: Andrew Harvey, John Sherman
and Adriaan Van Del Elshout (petitioners)
VS.

Honorable Commissioner Miriam

Defensor-Santiago, Commission on
Immigration and Deportation

A petition for Habeas Corpus

was submitted by American Nationals
Andrew Harvey and John Sherman and
a Dutch National named Adriaan Van
Elshout to the Supreme Court.
The case started when the petitioners
were apprehended on February 1988
in their residences by the agents of
Commission on Immigration and
Deportation (CID) by virtue of a
mission order issues by respondent
Commissioner
Miriam
DefensorSantiago.
Petitioners are detained at the CID
Detention Center.

They were among the twentytwo (22) suspected alien pedophiles who
were apprehended after three months of
close surveillance by CID agents in
Pagsanjan, Laguna.

Two (2) days after they were

apprehended, 17 of the 22 arrested
aliens opted for self-deportation and
have left the country. One was released
for lack of evidence, another was
charged not for being a pedophile but for
working without valid working visa.
The three remained to face deportation.

Seized during petitioners apprehension

were the following:
Rolls of photo negatives
Photos of the suspected child prostitutes
Posters & other literatures advertising
child prostitutes.
OPERATION REPORT of CID Agents
According to the Operation Report on
the two (2) American Nationals that Mr.
Harvey was found together with two (2)
young boys while Mr. Sherman was found
with two (2) naked boys inside his room.
As for the Dutch National Mr. Elshout, he
was with two (2) children ages 14 & 16
who were living with him and was under
his care for quite some time.

On March 4, deportation proceeding were

instituted against petitioners for being
undesirable aliens.
On March 7, Warrants of Arrest were issued
by respondents against the foreign nationals
for violation of the Immigration Act and
Section 69 of the Administrative Code.
A trial commenced against the petitioners on
the same date.
On March 14, petitioners Urgent Petition for
Release Under bong alleging that their health
was seriously affected by their continuous
detention. But when medical experts
performed an examination, it was found out
that they were healthy.
On March 22, 1988, petitioners filed a
Petition for Bail which the respondent denied
considering the certification by the CID
physician that they were healthy.

Instead the respondent ordered the

petitioners to be transferred to a less
congested detention cell but it was deferred
due to the difficulty of transferring them to
and from CID where the trial is on-going.

On April 4, 1988, Mr. Harvey an American

National filed a motion that he had agreed to
a self-deportation and praying to be
provisionally released for at last 15 days and
placed under the custody of his lawyer before
he voluntarily departs from the country.
On April 7, 1988, the Board of Special Inquiry
(BSI) allowed the provisional release of five
(5) days only under certain conditions.

However, when Mr. Harvey filed the motion

to request the provisional release, the three
(3) of them already filed the Petition for Writ
of Habeas Corpus.

PETITIONERS QUESTION THE VALIDITY ON THEIR

DETENTION ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:
1.) There is NO PROVISION in the Philippine
Immigration Act of 1940 nor under Revised
Administration Code, which gives the Commissioner
authority to arrest and detain the petitioners.
2.) Respondent violated the Constitution in the
prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures
since the CID agents were NOT CLOTHED with valid
Warrants of arrest, search and seizures as required by
the said provision.
3.) Confidential information made to the CID agents
and their suspicion of the activities of the petitioners
coupled with other suspected pedophiles, are NOT
VALID LEGAL GROUNDS for their arrest and detention
unless they are caught in the act.
They also allege that being a pedophile is not
punishable by any Philippine Law nor it is a crime to be
a pedophile.

The Court rejects the petitioners

contentions and upheld respondents
official acts ably defended by the Solicitor
General.
1.) The arrest of the petitioners was based on
probable cause determined after close
surveillance for three (3) months during
which period their activities were monitored.
The existence of probable cause justified the
arrest and the seizure of the photo negatives,
photographs and posters without warrant.
Those articles were seized as an incident to a
lawful arrest and, are therefore, admissible in
evidence.
Even assuming that their arrests were invalid,
warrants of arrest were issued resulting for
the restraint against their persons to be legal.

2.) Section 37 of the Immigration Law,

empowers
the
Commissioner
of
Immigration to issue warrants for the
arrest
of
overstaying
aliens
is
constitutional.

The arrest is a stop preliminary to the

deportation of the aliens who had
violated the condition of their stay in this
country.
In addition to this, the denial by the
respondent Commissioner of petitioners
release on bail was justified because the
right to bail is not a matter of right but a
matter of discretion on the part of the
Commissioner of Immigration and
Deportation.
Petition is dismissed and the writ of
Habeas Corpus is DENIED.