Easiest Website Builder ever! · Build your own toolbar · Free Talking Character · Email Marketing
powered by
bravenet.com
|
|
CMW/C/PHL/Q/1/Add.1
UNITED NATIONS
COMMITTEE ON THE PROTECTION OF THE
RIGHTS OF ALL MIGRANT WORKERS AND
MEMBERS OF THEIR FAMILIES
Tenth session, 20 April - 1 May 2009
International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families
WRITTEN REPLIES BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES CONCERNING THE LIST OF ISSUES (CMW/C/phl/Q/1) RECEIVED BY THE COMMITTEEON THE PROTECTION OF THE RIGHTS OF ALL MIGRANT WORKERS AND MEMBERS OF THEIR FAMILIES RELATING TO THE CONSIDERATION OF THE INITIAL REPORT OF THE PHILIPPINES (CMW/C/phl/1)*
Article 16 (page 32 to 34)
12. With regard to the information contained in paragraph 208 of the report that
“at the time a person is arrested, it shall be the duty of the arresting officer to inform him of the reason of the arrest, if any” (emphasis added), please clarify whether migrant workers and members of their families can be arrested without any reason (para.208 of the report). Please provide data on foreigners in detention in the Philippines. Please clarify whether and how their right to the free assistance of an interpreter is guaranteed in practice.53. No person, including migrant workers and members of their families, may be arrested without any reason. A person may only be arrested when there is a warrant duly issued by a competent court for his/her arrest or in cases of valid warrantless arrests under Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure and reiterated in Rule 11 of the PNP Operational Procedures.
54. In addition, it is the duty of the person effecting the arrest to inform the suspect/ accused in a language known to him of his rights under the law. This would obligate the arresting/ investigating officer to get the services of interpreters in case the arrested person is a foreigner. As such, coordination with the appropriate government agencies and embassies is undertaken. (Section 2 of RA7438).
55. Information from the Bureau of Immigration revealed that as of 26 January 2009, there are sixty-two (62) foreigners detained at the Bureau of Immigration Detention Center, Camp Bagong Diwa, Bicutan, Taguig City. There are 125 foreign inmates detained in city and municipal jails all over the Philippines as of 31 December 2008.
56. As a standard operating procedure, all detained foreigners are notified of their right for consular visitation by accredited consular officers of their respective embassies/consulates in line with the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.
57. In the case of Lao Alfonso vs. Vivo, 16 SCRA 10, the Supreme Court ruled that Section 37(a) of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940 speaks of two warrants
– one for the arrest and the other for the deportation of the alien. The warrant of arrest is issued by the Commissioner of Immigration, or any officer authorized by him, whereas the warrant of deportation is issued by the Commissioner of Immigration “upon determination by the Board of Commissioner of the existence of the ground for deportation as charged against the alien.”58. Moreover, in the case of Neria vs. Vivo, 29 SCRA 701, it was held that no warrant of arrest can be issued by immigration authorities before a final order of deportation is made. For until it is established that an alien lawfully admitted gained entry into the country through illegal means and his expulsion is finally decreed, his arrest cannot be ordered. (emphasis supplied)
Limitations on warrants of arrest by the Commissioner of Immigration in deportation cases
59. In the cases of Po Siok Pin vs. Vivo (62 SCRA 363) and Ang Ngo Chiong vs. Galang (67 SCRA 338), the Supreme Court consistently ruled that the Immigration Commissioner may order the arrest of an alien upon a final determination of deportability by the Board of Commissioners. However, no warrant of arrest for deportation may be issued by immigration authorities before a final order of deportation is made or before the charges have been fully substantiated [Cf: Tiu vs. Vivo (47 SCRA 23); Santos vs. Commissioner of Immigration (74 SCRA 96)]. In fact, the Supreme Court ruled in the Santos case that it is not indispensable that the alien be arrested during the investigation.
60. In the cases of Dalamal vs. Deportation Board (9 SCRA 382), Morano vs. Vivo (20 SCRA 562), Contemprate vs. Acting Commissioner of Immigration (35 SCRA 624) and Sy vs. Commissioner Domingo (G.R. Nos. 97152 and G.G. No. 97159) dated 20 March 1991, the Supreme Court had the occasion to rule that the issuance of arrests warrants by the Immigration Commissioner solely for the purposes of investigation and before a final order of deportation is issued, is contrary to the right of a person to due process, whether he/she be a citizen or an alien.
Likewise, the Immigration Commissioner cannot be allowed to circumvent the law by the mere expediency of re-naming the order of arrest as a simple
“mission order” for the purpose of bringing a subject foreigner to the immigration authorities for preliminary investigation. It had also been consistently ruled by the Supreme Court, i.e., Court of Appeals, that a mission order under the guise of a warrant of arrest issued by the Immigration Commissioner only for purposes of investigation is null and void for being unconstitutional [Cf: Rossi et al. vs. Board of Commissioners (G.R. No.27853, 28 May 1992), Qua Chee Gan vs. Deportation Board (9 SCRA 27) Ng Hua To vs. Galang (10 SCRA 411), Board of Commissioners vs. De la Rosa (197 SCRA 853)]. bravenet.com