Director of Prisons vs.

Ang Cho Kio

G.R. No. L-30001 June 23, 1970
ZALDIVAR, J.:

Facts:
Ang Cho Kio had been previously convicted of various crimes and sentenced to more than 45 years
of jail time. After serving six and one-half years of his sentence, he was granted conditional pardon on July
4, 1959 by the President of the Philippines. In the said condition, he will voluntarily leave the Philippines
upon his release and never to return again. However, in the evening of June 26, 1966, Ang Cho Kio under
the name of Ang Ming Huy arrived at the Manila International Airport en route Honolulu. The Stopover in
Manila was about 72 hours or three days. While in the Philippines, he contacted his two friends in Manila,
Lim Pin and Go Bon Kim, who invited him to stay longer. All three of them went to the Bureau of
Immigration to ask for a 14-day extension of his stay. Nonetheless, Ang Cho Kio was identified by inspector
Mariano Cristi, he was then arrested and the immigration authorities conducted an investigation
regarding his presence in the Philippines, and he was not allowed to proceed to his trip to Honolulu.

On July 5, 1966, by authority of the President, Executive Secretary Rafael Salas, then ordered him
to be recommitted to the National Penitentiary to serve his unexpired prison term. Ang Cho Kio filed a
petition for a writ of habeas corpus but was denied by both the Court of First Instance of Rizal and the
Court of Appeals, on the ground that the president by himself can determine if the conditions of a pardon
were violated, a prerogative which the Courts may not interfere with, however erroneous the findings
may be. However, the Court of Appeals decision contained a recommendation that Ang Cho Kio be
allowed to leave the country. The Solicitor General thus came to the Supreme Court to propose that the
recommendation be deleted saying that it was beyond the issue raised by the petition of Ang Cho Kio and
that it is not inherent or incidental to the exercise of judicial functions. It is political in character, thus
courts should not interfere.

Issue: Whether or not the recommendation in the decision of the Court of Appeals should be removed.

Held:
Yes, the recommendation enclosed in the Court of Appeals’ decision should be removed, for the
recommendation is not authorized under the provision of Article V of the Revised Penal Code. In doing so,
the court is now interfering with the political acts or functions of the Chief Executive, and it would also
violate the principle of separation of powers, in which the judiciary cannot express an opinion or a
suggestion for matters purely political in nature. However, no majority vote was acquired to overturn the
Court of Appeals’ recommendation, hence it stands.