Case Title Andrew Harvey vs Defensor-Santiago

G.R. 82544
Main Topic Unreasonable Searches and Seizures
Other Related Topic Deportation
Date: June 28, 1988

DOCTRINES
 Warrantless Arrest - when such person has committed, actually committing, or is attempting to commit
an offense in his presence; and when an offense has, in fact, been committed and he has personal
knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it
 In this case, the arrest of petitioners was based on probable cause determined after close surveillance for
three (3) months during which period their activities were monitored. The existence of probable cause
justified the arrest and the seizure of the photo negatives, photographs and posters without warrant
 The requirement of probable cause, to be determined by a Judge, does not extend to deportation
proceedings.
 Deportation proceedings are administrative in nature – it is merely the order for an alien to return to his
country.
FACTS:
 Petitioners are old men, Harvey (52) and Sherman (72), and Adriaan van Elshout (58), part of 22 suspected
pedophiliac foreigners. Most of the 22 have voluntarily left the country, leaving the three to face
deportation proceedings.
 Commission on immigration and deportation has conducted surveillance in their area for three months.
During apprehension, the three were found with minor boys. *note, this was a time before Child Abuse
Law – takteng nullem crimen yan
 Petitioners contend that since their apprehension was warrantless, it constitutes a violation of their rights
against seizures, and that document and effects are also inadmissible as evidence due to the lack of a
valid search warrant/warrant of arrest.
 They also assailed that Defensor-Santiago did not have the authority to issue a warrant ordering their
arrest, as what was done in this case, after they were apprehended without a warrant – There is a specific
provision in the Philippine Immigration act of 1940 that allows the commissioner to issue a warrant for
deportation proceedings. It is not unconstitutional since the case is administrative in nature, not criminal.
 This petition is for a writ of Habeas Corpus – however, habeas corpus only takes effect when the
detention is illegal; if the detention is lawful, then issuance of writ of habeas corpus is moot and academic
ISSUE:
 Whether or not the their arrest was unlawful, therefore, in violation of their right against unreasonable
seizure
HELD:
 Their seizure was deemed lawful:
 The arrest of petitioners was based on probable cause determined after close surveillance for three (3)
months during which period their activities were monitored. The existence of probable cause justified the
arrest and the seizure of the photo negatives, photographs and posters without warrant. [The fact that]
petitioners were not “caught in the act” does not make their arrest illegal.
 Even if the act of arresting them was unlawful, there is a valid warrant in lieu of the Commission on
Immigration or Deportation ordering the petitioners to be tried for a deportation case;
 Every sovereign power has the inherent power to exclude aliens from its territory upon such grounds as it
may deem proper for its self-preservation or public interest. The power to deport aliens is an act of State,
an act done by or under the authority of the sovereign power. It is a police measure against undesirable
aliens whose continued presence in the country is found to be injurious to the public good and the
domestic tranquility of the people. Particularly so in this case where the State has expressly committed
itself to defend the tight of children to assistance and special protection from all forms of neglect, abuse,
cruelty, exploitation, and other conditions prejudicial to their development. Respondent Commissioner of
Immigration and Deportation, in instituting deportation proceedings against petitioners, acted in the
interests of the State.