CA rules deportation of 14 Taiwanese to China is legal

(Updated 12:42 p.m.) The Court of Appeals has upheld the legality of the Philippine government's decision to deport 14 Taiwanese to China early this year. In a 15-page resolution, the appellate court's Former Special 16th Division junked on May 26 the writ of habeas corpus petition filed by six of the 14 Taiwanese deportees. Last year, the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) arrested 14 Taiwanese and 10 Chinese because they were supposedly engaged in a multi-million dollar criminal activity using the Internet and mobile gadgets. The arrests were made upon Beijing's request. To avert the deportation to China, the lawyer for six of the 14 Taiwanese asked the Philippine Court of Appeals to issue a writ of habeas corpus. Granting the request, the court ordered the Philippine Bureau of Immigration (BI) to produce the living bodies of the six Taiwanese men before the CA office on February 2. But on that same day, the BI deported all 24 foreigners to the People's Republic of China on Feb. 2, despite attempts by the Taiwan Economic and Cultural Office (TECO) officials and lawyers to have the 14 Taiwanese brought to Taiwan. Because of the deportation, the Taiwan government threatened that economic and labor ties with the Philippines will suffer. But Taiwan later eased its restrictions on the hiring of Filipino workers after the Philippines sent former Sen. Manuel Roxas II to polish Manila's relations with Taipei. Justice Secretary Leila de Lima, meanwhile, said she felt vindicated that the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the Philippine government. It was De Lima who approved the BI's decision to deport all 24 foreigners to China last February. "There was never really a problem there because what we did when I authorized the deportation of all 24 suspects to China is based on my best professional judgment, pursuant to the facts and documents submitted to me by the BI, the NBI, as recommended by (DOJ) undersecretary in charge, Jovy Salazar," De Lima said. CA decision In its ruling, the Court of Appeals said that while the arrest warrants against the Taiwanese were defective, the habeas corpus petition should be dismissed because a case filed against them validated their arrest, detention, and deportation. "In the instant case, while it may be correctly argued that the search warrant and the petitioner's subsequent arrest were defective, nonetheless, we do not find this as sufficient ground to grant the prayers sought for. The records reveal that the petitioners were arrested, detained and correspondingly charged for violation of Section 37 (a) (7) of CA (Commonwealth) No. 613 (Philippine Immigration Act)," the CA said. Associate Justice Francisco Acosta wrote the resolution, which was concurred in by Associate Justices Vicente Veloso and Samuel Gaerlan. The court added that the matter is already moot because the Taiwanese have already been deported to China. "Petitioners were already deported to mainland China before the matter was heard by this Court. Thus, in the light of the foregoing, the instant petition for habeas corpus is no longer available," the resolution reads. One-China policy The CA also said it was legal for the Philippines to deport the Taiwanese to China because of the One-China policy, where Taiwan is considered a province of China and thus, Taiwanese men should be deported to China. "It need not be over-emphasized that it was more prudent for the government to deport the petitioners to mainland China pursuant to the One-China policy, i.e., the Philippines recognizes Taiwan s a province of China. As a matter of fact, during the hearing on 16 March 2011, the counsel for the petitioners admitted that the adherence by the government to the One-China policy is a political question," said the court. It added that the BI's failure to present the six Taiwanese before the CA last Feb. 2 -- a disobedience of the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus -- was "not willful and deliberate so as to bring the authority of this court into disrepute." "Likewise, there is no showing that the BI, in failing to comply with our order, was motivated by its desire to impede the due administration of justice or to despise the dignity of this court. Besides, it must be stressed that the deportation was ordered and approved by the DOJ (Department of Justice) Secretary who, under the doctrine of qualified agency, is an alter-ego of the President," the court said. — RSJ, GMA News