Miranda v Deportation Board

No. L-6784, 12 Mar 1954

FACTS:
 Petitioners (Mirandas) were charged before the Deportation board for entering the Philippines
through fraud and misrepresentation. It was alleged that they are children of Chinese parents but
through misrepresentation, they showed that they are legitimate children of Faustino Miranda (a
Filipino) and Puy Siok. Thus, they came here as children of a Filipino citizen.
 Petitioners were subsequently arrested and detained at the detention station of the Bureau of
Immigration. Later, they posted a bond and were given their freedom.
 Petitioners field a motion to quash the case alleging that they are Filipino citizens thus, the
Deportation Board has no jurisdiction over them.
 Deportation Board denied the motion and set the case for hearing.
 Hence, this petition. Petitioners filed a petition for habeas corpus seeking to restrain respondent
from hearing the Deportation case filed against petitioners and to have an order issued requiring
respondent to show cause why petitioners should not be released on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction.

ISSUE: WON the Deportation Board has jurisdiction over the persons of the petitioners. YES

RULING:
While the jurisdiction of the Deportation Board as an instrument of the Chief Executive to deport
undesirable aliens exists only when the person arrested is an alien, the mere plea of citizenship, however,
does not divest the Board of its jurisdiction over the case. Petitioners should make "a showing that his
claim is not frivolous" (Ng Fung Ho vs. White 259, U. S. 275), and must prove by sufficient evidence that
they are Filipino citizens. [Kessler vs. Strecker (1939) 307 U. S., 21, 35-36.] If such is the primary duty of
petitioners, it follows that the Deportation Board has the necessary power to pass upon the evidence that
may be presented and determine in the first instance if petitioners are Filipino citizens or not. This is
inherent in, or essential to the efficient exercise of, the power of the Deportation Board (Laurencio vs.
Collector of Customs, S5 Phil., 37.) It is not therefore correct to state that the question of citizenship
should be determined exclusively by the courts.

With regard to the contention that the Deportation Board has acted in excess of its jurisdiction or with
grave abuse of discretion in allowing- the taking of a blood test upon the persons of petitioners to prove
that they are not Filipino citizens, the same need not now be considered, it being a matter that said Board
can look into in the exercise its incidental power to pass upon the citizenship of petitioners.