Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-2855 July 30, 1949
BORIS MEJO, petitioner,
vs.
!IRECTOR O PRISONS, respondent.
First Assistant Solicitor General Roberto A. Gianzon and Solicitor Lucas Lacson for
respondent.
BENG"ON, J.#
The petitioner Boris Mejoff is an alien of Russian descent who was brouht to this
countr! fro" #hanhai as a secret operative b! the $apanese forces durin the latter%s
rei"e in these &slands. 'pon liberation he was arrested aa a $apanese sp!, b! '. #.
Ar"! Counter &ntellience Corps. (ater he was handed to the Co""onwealth
)overn"ent for disposition in accordance with Co""onwealth Act No. *+,. Thereafter
the People%s Court ordered his release. But the deportation board ta-in his case up,
found that havin no travel docu"ents Mejoff was illeall! in this countr!, and
conse.uentl! refferd the "atter to the i""iration authorities. After the correspondin
investiation, the Board o/ Co""issioners of &""iration on April 0, 123+, declared
that Mejoff had entered the Philippines illeall! in 1233, withoutinspection and
ad"ission b! the i""iration officials at a desinated port of entr! and, therefore, it
ordered that he be deported on the first available transportation to Russia. The
petitioner was then under custod!, he havin been arrested on March 1+, 123+. &n Ma!,
123+, he was transferred to the Cebu Provincial $ail toether with three other Russians
to await the arrival of so"e Russian vessels. &n $ul! and in Auust of that !ear two
boats of Russian nationalit! called at the Cebu Port. But their "asters refused to ta-e
petitioner and his co"panions allein lac- of authorit! to do so. &n 4ctober, 123+, after
repeated failures to ship this deportee abroad, the authorities re"oved hi" to Bilibid
Prison at Muntinlupa where he has been confined up to the present ti"e, inas"uch as
the Co""issioner of &""iration believes it is for the best interest of the countr! to
-eep hi" under detention while arrane"ents for his deportation are bein "ade.
&t is contended on behalf of petitioner that havin been brouht to the Philippines legally
b! the $apanese forces, he "a! not now be deported. &t is enouh to sa! that the
aru"ent would den! to this )overn"ent the power and the authorit! to eject fro" the
&slands an! and all of that "e"bers of the Nipponese Ar"! of occupation who "a! still
be found hidin in re"ote places. 5hich is absurd. Petitioner li-ewise contends that he
"a! not be deported because the statutor! period to do that under the laws has lon
e6pired. The proposition has no basis. 'nder section 78 of the Philippine &""iration
Act of 1239 an! alien who enters this countr! :without inspection and ad"ission b! the
i""iration authorities at a desinated point of entr!: is subject to deportation within
five !ears. &n a recent decision of a si"ilar litiation ;Borovs-! vs. Co""issioner of
&""iration< we denied the re.uest for habeas corpus, sa!in=
:&t "ust be ad"itted that te"porar! detention is a necessar! step in the process of
e6clusion or e6pulsion of undesirable aliens and that pendin arrane"ents for his
deportation, the )overn"ent has the riht to hold the undesirable alien under
confine"ent for a reasonable lenht of ti"e. >owever, under established precedents,
too lon a detention "a! justif! the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.
1
:The "eanin of :reasonable ti"e: depends upon the circu"stances, speciall! the
difficulties of obtainin a passport, the availabilit! of transfortation, the diplo"atic
arrane"ents concerned and the efforts displa!ed to send the deportee awa!.
,

Considerin that this )overn"ent desires to e6pel the alien, and does not relish
-eepin hi" at the people%s e6pense, we "ust presu"e it is "a-in efforts to carr! out
the decree of e6clusion b! the hihest officer of the land. 4n top of this presu"ption
assurances were "ade durin the oral aru"ent that the )overn"ent is reall! tr!in to
e6pedite the e6pulsion of this petitioner. 4n the other hand, the record fails to show how
lon he has been under confine"ent since the last ti"e he was apprehended. Neither
does he indicate nelected opportunities to send hi" abroad. And unless it is shown
that the deportee is bein indefinitel! i"prisoned under the pretense of awaitin a
chance for deportation
7
or unless the )overn"ent ad"its that itcan not deport hi"
3
or
unless the detainee is bein held for too lon a period our courts will not interfere.
:&n the 'nited #tates there were at least two instances in which courts fi6ed a ti"e li"it
within which the i"prisoned aliens should be deported
0
otherwise their release would be
ordered b! writ of habeas corpus. Nevertheless, supposin such precedents appl! in
this jurisdiction, still we have no sufficient data fairl! to fi6 a definite deadline.:
The difference between this and the Borovs-! case lies in the fact that the record shows
this petitioner has been detained since March, 123+. >owever, considerin that in the
'nited #tates ;where transportation facilities are "uch reater and diplo"atic
arrane"ents are easier to "a-e< a dela! of twent! "onths in carr!in out an order of
deportation has not been held sufficient to justif! the issuance of the writ of habeas
corpus,
*
this petition "ust be, and it is hereb! denied. #o ordered.