Jessette Amihope N.

Castor BL5

THE DIRECTOR OF PRISONS and THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, petitioners,

vs.
ANG CHO KIO @ ANG MING HUY and THE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.
G.R. No. L-30001
June 23, 1970
Principle: Canon 1 -Independence

ZALDIVAR, J.:

Facts:
Ang Cho Kio was convicted of various offenses and was granted conditional pardon in
1959. He was never to return to the Philippines. In violation of his pardon, he returned in 1966
under the name "Ang Ming Huy". However, he was identified by an inspector of the Immigration
Bureau. Thus, he was arrested. 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. He filed a petition for habeas corpus
which the CFI of Rizal denied. The CA affirmed the decision but made a recommendation that
Ang may be allowed to leave the country on the first available transportation abroad.

The Solicitor General filed a motion for reconsideration praying for the deletion of the
recommendation. The Solicitor General maintains that the recommendation is not a part of the
decision and was uncalled for; that it gives the decision a political complexion, because courts are
not empowered to make such a recommendation, nor is it inherent or incidental in the exercise
of judicial powers. He also contends that allowing convicted aliens to leave the country is an act
of the state exercises solely in the discretion of the Chief Executive. It is urged that the act of
sending an undesirable alien out of the country is political in character, and the courts should not
interfere with, nor attempt to influence, the political acts of the President.

Issues:
Can the CA make recommendations?
Held:
The recommendatory power of the courts in this jurisdiction are limited to those expressly
provided in the law and such law is the provision of Section 5 of the Revised Penal Code.
Certainly, the recommendation in the majority opinion of the special division of the CA, now in
question, is not authorized under Article 5 of the Revised Penal Code. The CA was not called
upon to review any sentence that was imposed on Ang Cho Kio. It was simply called upon to
determine whether Ang Cho Kio was illegally confined, or not, in the insular penitentiary under
the Director of Prisons. It was improper for the CA justices to make a recommendation that would
suggest a modification or a correction of the act of the Chief Executive. 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. We believe that judges should
refrain from expressing irrelevant opinions in their decisions which may only reflect unfavorably
upon their competence and the propriety of their judicial actuations.