DIRECTOR OF PRISONS v ANG CHO KIO

The Solicitor General prays this Court "to 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) to leave this country in the first available transportation abroad' but
otherwise affirming the dismissal of the petition for habeas corpus, with costs in all instances
against respondent Ang Cho Kio." Ang Cho Kio had been charged, tried and convicted of various
offenses committed in the Philippines and was sentenced to suffer penalties, to wit: a total of
forty-five (45) years, ten (10) months and twenty one (21) days of imprisonment, P6,000
indemnity, and P5,000 moral damages, plus life imprisonment and P6,000 indemnity. After
serving six and one-half years of his sentence said respondent was granted conditional pardon on
July 4, 1959 by the President of the Philippines (on condition that he will voluntarily leave the
Philippines upon his release and never to return to this country).

In the evening of June 26, 1966 Ang Cho Kio arrived at the Manila International Airport on a
Philippine Air Lines plane from Taipeh, travelling under the name "Ang Ming Huy." On June 28,
1966 he and his two friends went to the Bureau of Immigration, where his friend Lim Pin signed
a letter addressed to the Commissioner of Immigration requesting for a fourteen-day extension of
stay in the Philippines for him. Ang Cho Kio was identified by inspector Mariano Cristi of the
Immigration Bureau as the Ang Cho Kio who was deported to Taipeh on July 18, 1959. His
identity having been established, Ang Cho Kio was arrested, and the immigration authorities
conducted an investigation regarding his presence in the Philippines. The immigration authorities
did not allow him to proceed with his trip to Honolulu. On July 5, 1966 the Executive Secretary,
by authority of the President, ordered him recommitted to prison to serve the unexpired portion of
the sentence that were imposed on him, for having violated the conditioned of his pardon. Ang
Cho Kio filed with the Executive Secretary a motion, dated August 29, 1966, for the
reconsideration of the supplemental order of recommitment. The Executive Secretary failed to act
on the motion for reconsideration, and so on October 5, 1966 Ang Cho Kio filed a petition for a
writ of habeas corpus with the Court of First Instance of Rizal.After due hearing the Court of
First Instance of Rizal, on January 31, 1967, rendered a decision dismissing the petition for
habeas corpus.

Ang Cho Kio appealed to the Court of Appeals from the decision of the Court of First Instance of
Rizal. In the decision of a special division of five justices, with three justices concurring, and two
justices concurring and dissenting, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision which in effect
affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance of Rizal dismissing Ang Cho Kio's petition for
habeas corpus. However, the majority opinion contains the recommendation that Ang Cho Kio be
sent out at once from this country and that he be allowed to leave Muntinlupa Prisons under guard
only when he has been booked for outward flight at the Manila International Airport so as to
avoid the possibility of any further violation of his conditional pardon. At any rate it would be to
the best interest of the security and peace of this country to have the petitioner expatriated from
the Philippines, instead of being recommitted for a long duration of time to prison where his
presence may constitute a constant menace to our country's welfare and bring about some sinister
influence among the people with whom he will associate or come in contact.

Held: The case before the Court of Appeals was for habeas corpus. The only question to be
resolved by the Court of Appeals was whether, or not, the Court of First Instance of Rizal, had
rightly dismissed the petition of Ang Cho Kio for habeas corpus. The Court of Appeals was not
called upon to review any sentence imposed upon Ang Cho Kio. The majority opinion should
have been limited to the affirmance of the decision of the lower court, and no more.The matter of
whether an alien who violated the laws in this country may remain or be deported is a political
question that should be left entirely to the Chief Executive to decide. Under the principle of
separation of powers, it is not within the province of the judiciary to express an opinion, or
express a suggestion, that would reflect on the wisdom or propriety of the action of the Chief
Executive on matters purely political in nature.After all, courts are not concerned with the
wisdom or morality of laws, but only in the interpretation and application of the law.

However, of the ten members of the Court, as presently constituted, only five are of the opinion
that the recommendation embodied in the decision of the majority of the special division of the
Court of Appeals, now in question, should be deleted from the decision. 5 Two members of the
Court are of a different opinion, and three others did not take part in the decision because of their
official actuations relative to the case of respondent Ang Cho Kio before it reached this Court.
There is, therefore, one vote less than the majority of the Court that is necessary to grant the
certiorari prayed for (certiorari denied).