De Bisshop vs. Galang 8 SCRA 244 (1963) G.R. No. L-18365 May 31, 1963

Fact: Petitioner-appellee, an American citizen, was allowed to stay in this country for three years, expiring he applied for extension of stay with the Bureau of Immigration. In view, however, of confidential and damaging reports of the Commissioner of Immigration, in a communication of Customs of Iloilo demanded from petitioner, advised him that his application for extension of stay as a prearranged employee has been denied by the Board of Commissioners, and that he should depart within 5 days. Thereafter, counsel of de Bisschop requested for a copy of the adverse decision said Board, but the legal officer of the Bureau of Immigration replied that, pursuant to immigration practice and procedure and as is usual in such cases where the result is a vote for denial, for reason of practicability and expediency, no formal decision, order resolution is promulgated by the Board. Thereafter, Mr. Bisschop was simply advised of said denial. No request for reinvestigation was made with the Bureau of Immigration. Instead, to forestall his arrest and the filing of the corresponding deportation proceedings, de Bisschop filed the present case on 18 September 1959. adrianantazo.wordpress.com

Issue: Whether the Commissioners of Immigration are required by law to conduct formal hearings on all applications for extension of stay of aliens, and in ruling that said Commissioners are enjoined to promulgate written decisions in such cases?adrianantazo.wordpress.com

Held: The Philippine Immigration Act of 1940, is silent as to the procedure to be followed in these cases, this would not violate the due process clause if it took into account that, in this particular case, the letter of appellant-commissioner advising de Bisschop to depart in 5 days is a mere formality, a preliminary step, and, therefore, far from final, because, as alleged in appellant’s answer to the complaint, the “requirement to leave before the start of the deportation proceedings is only an advice to the party that unless he departs voluntarily, the State will be compelled to take steps for his expulsion”. It is already a settled rule in this jurisdiction that a day in court is not a matter of right in administrative proceedings. That due process of law is not necessarily judicial process; much of the process by means of which the Government is carried on, and the order of society maintained, is purely executive or administrative, which is as much due process of law, as is judicial process. While a day in court is a matter of right in judicial proceedings, in administrative proceedings, it is otherwise since they rest upon different principles. In certain proceedings, therefore, of all administrative character, it may be stated, without fear of contradiction, that the right to a notice and hearing are not essential to due process of law.adrianantazo.wordpress.com