G.R. No.

L-10280 September 30, 1963

QUA CHEE GAN, JAMES UY, DANIEL DY alias DEE PAC, CHAN TIONG YU, CUA
CHU TIAN, CHUA LIM PAO alias JOSE CHUA and BASILIO KING, petitioners-
appellants,
vs.
THE DEPORTATION BOARD, respondent-appellee.
Sabido and Sabido Law Offices and Ramon T. Oben for petitioners-appellants.
Solicitor General for respondent-appellee.

Facts:
May 12, 1952, Special Prosecutor Emilo Galang charged petitioners before the
Deportation Board, having purchased US dollars in the sum of $130,000.00,
without the necessary license from the Central Bank of the Philippines, which
was then secretly remitted to Hong Kong
Petitioners Qua Chee Gan and Chua Lim Pao alias Jose Chua and Basilio King
attempted to bribe officers of the PHL and US governments (Antonio Laforteza,
Chief of the Intelligence Division of the Central Bank, Capt. A.P. Charak of the
OSI, US Air Force) to evade prosecution for the unauthorized purchase.
A warrant of arrest of petitioners was issued by the Deportation Board. They filed
a surety bond of P10,000.00 and cash bond for P10,000.00, thereby provisionally
setting them at liberty
Petitioners-appellants filed a joint motion to dismiss in the Deportation Board for
the reason that the same does not constitute legal ground for deportation of
aliens, and that the Board has no jurisdiction to entertain such charges. Motion
was denied by the Board on Feb. 9, 1953
Petitioners then filed a petition for habeas corpus and/or prohibition to the Court,
but made returnable to the Court of First Instance of Manila. After securing and
filing a bond for P5,000.00 each, a writ of preliminary injunction was issued by
the lower court, restraining the DB from hearing deportation charges against
petitioners pending termination of the habeas corpus and/or prohibition
proceedings.
The DB then filed its answer to the original petition, saying as an authorized
agent of the President, it has jurisdiction over the charges filed, and the authority
to order their arrest. The Court upheld the validity of the delegation by the
president to the Deportation Board of his power to conduct the investigations. It
 also sustained the power of the DB to issue warrant of arrest and fix bonds for
the aliens temporary release pending investigation, pursuant to Section 69 of the
Revised Adminsistrative Code.

ISSUES:
1. WON the President has powers to deport aliens and, consequently,
2. WON the delegation to the DB of the ancillary power to investigate, carries with it
the power to order the arrest of the alien complained of

HELD:
1. Yes. As stated in Sec 69 od Act 2711 of the Revised Administrative Code

-x-
SEC. 69 Deportation of subject to foreign power. A subject of a foreign
power residing in the Philippines shall not be deported, expelled, or excluded
from said Islands or repatriated to his own country by the President of the
Philippines except upon prior investigation, conducted by said Executive or
his authorized agent, of the ground upon which Such action is
contemplated. In such case the person concerned shall be informed of the
charge or charges against him and he shall be allowed not less than these
days for the preparation of his defense. He shall also have the right to be
heard by himself or counsel, to produce witnesses in his own behalf, and to
cross-examine the opposing witnesses."
-x-

While it does not expressly confer on the President the authority to deport these
aliens, the fact that such a procedure was provided for before the President is a
clear indication of such power. SC stated petitioners committed the act of
profiteering which is a ground for deportation. The President may then order
their deportation if after investigation they are shown to have committed the
act charged.

2. No. President Quirinos EO 398 authorizes the DB to issue the warrant for the
arrest of the alien complained of and to hold him under detention during the
investigation unless he files a bond for his provisional release. The exercise of the
 power to order the arrest of an individual demands the exercise of discretion by the
one issuing the same. Such conditions are dependent/personal to the one upon
whom the authority devolves. It is an implied grant of power that would serve as
curtailment on the fundamental right of security to life and liberty, which equally
applies to both citizens and foreigners in this country. The guarantees of human
rights, then, must not rest on such a shaky foundation.

EO 398, as it empowers the DB to issue warrant of arrest and to fix bond and
prescribe the conditions for his temporary release, is therefore declared as
illegal.
Order of arrest of DB upon petitioners is declared null and void.

G.R. No. 202331 April 22, 2015

THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF AURORA, Petitioner,

vs.
HILARIO M. MARCO, Respondent.

FACTS:

Marco was permanently appointed as Corporate Development Specialist II by Gov. Ong

5 days before the end of her term in June 30, 2004. His appointment, along with 25
other appointments, was accompanied by a certification stating that funds were
available for the position. When the new Gov took over, the appointments made by Gov
Ong were revoked based on the recall made by Budget Officer regarding the availability
of funds for the position. Marcos sought reconsideration from the CSC Regional Office
but was denied. On appeal, the CSC through a resolution dated Apr 14 held the validity
of the appointment on the ground that it complied with the CSC rules and that the recall
of the certification did not affect its validity because evidence was not presented.
Instead of filing an MR, the Province filed a petition for relief. It was denied by the CSC
because it was not allowed by the rules. Meanwhile, Marco filed a motion to implement
the Apr 14 Resolution, which was granted. The Province filed an MR of the Apr 14
Resolution but was again denied because it was not filed within the 15-day
reglementary period. Finally, the Province filed before the CA a petition for certiorari via
Rule 43 against the CSCs second order implementing the Apr 14 resolution, invoking
the constitutional prohibition against midnight appointments. The CA denied the petition
and upheld the CSC decision.
 ISSUE:
1. Political Law: W/N the prohibition on midnight appointments apply to
appointments made by local executives
2. Remedial Law:W/N the CA is correct in taking cognizance over the case

RULING:
1. No. The prohibition under Article VII, Sec 15 applies only to presidential
appointments, and not to those made by local executives.

In this case, the appointment is valid because there is no law that prohibits local
elective officials from making appointments during the last days of his/her tenure.

2. No. The court should have dismissed the petition outright because no appeal
may be taken over an order of execution.
Under Rule 50, Sec 1 of the Rules of Court, the CA is allowed to dismiss an
appeal where the order appealed from is not appealable.
This rule is based on the doctrine of immutability of judgment, which states
that a final and executory removes from the court which renders it the power
and jurisdiction to further alter or amend it, much less revoked it.
Thus, even if a judgment is later on discovered to be erroneous, it remains
immutable.