Section 1, Article 3 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution ensures that “[n]o individual shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall anyone be denied equal protection of the laws.”¹ As such, judges are entrusted with the responsibility of deciding the propriety of issuing arrest and seizure warrants, acting as protectors of justice to ensure that civil rights are not arbitrarily infringed upon by the State.

Nevertheless, the rule that only judges can determine the existence of probable cause for the issuance of such warrants does not apply to deportation proceedings, where the President or the Bureau of Immigration may issue deportation orders for the arrest of unwanted aliens for deportation.² These warrants issued by an administrative agency are known as administrative warrants.

The very nature of this exception prompted the Supreme Court to issue new guidelines for the issuance of valid administrative warrants in the case of Board of Commissioners of the Bureau of Immigration and the Jail Warden v. Wenle.³

In July 2018, the Chinese Embassy requested the Bureau of Immigration (BI) to arrest and deport Yuan Wenle and other Chinese nationals due to their alleged involvement in crimes in China, leading to Wenle’s arrest on Aug. 22, 2018, pursuant to a Summary Deportation Order (SDO). Wenle then filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus on the ground that his due process rights were violated by the BI’s issuance of the SDO without sufficient notice or hearing. The Regional Trial Court of Manila, Br. 16, granted Wenle’s Petition, ruling that Wenle was not afforded any opportunity to challenge the charges against him.

Upon appeal, the Supreme Court examined the constitutionality of administrative warrants, including the BI’s practice of issuing SDOs against unwanted foreign nationals in the Philippines, and ruled in favor of their constitutionality. The Court emphasized that the power to deport is an attribute of sovereignty and pursuant to the international law principle of self-preservation.

Nevertheless, the Court reiterated that administrative warrants, including SDOs, must always be issued in accordance with due process standards. As such, the Court issued the following guidelines which must be strictly complied with by administrative agencies for administrative warrants to be valid and justified:

1. The danger, harm, or evil sought to be prevented by the warrant must be imminent and must be greater than the damage or injury to be sustained by the one who shall be temporarily deprived of a right to liberty or property;

2. The warrant’s resultant deprivation of a right or legitimate claim of entitlement must be temporary or provisional, aimed only at suppressing imminent danger, harm, or evil and such deprivation’s permanency must be strictly subjected to procedural due process requirements;

3. The issuing administrative authority must be empowered by law to perform specific implementing acts pursuant to well-defined regulatory purposes;

4. The issuing administrative authority must be necessarily authorized by law to pass upon and make final pronouncements on conflicting rights and obligations of contending parties, as well as to issue warrants or orders that are incidental to or reasonably necessary for the performance of the executive or administrative duty entrusted to it;

5. The issuance of an administrative warrant must be based on tangible proof of probable cause and must state a specific purpose or infraction allegedly committed with particular descriptions of the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized;

6. The warrant issued must not pertain to a criminal offense or pursued as a precursor for the filing of criminal charges and any object seized pursuant to such writ shall not be admissible in evidence in any criminal proceeding;

7. The person temporarily deprived of a right or entitlement by an administrative warrant shall be formally charged within a reasonable time if no such period is provided by law and shall not be denied any access to a competent counsel of his or her own choice. Furthermore, in cases where a person is deprived of liberty by virtue of an administrative warrant, the adjudicative body which issued the warrant shall immediately submit a verified notice to the Regional Trial Court nearest to the detainee for purposes of issuing a judicial commitment order;

8. Any violation of any item of these guidelines is a prima facie proof of usurpation of judicial functions, malfeasance, misfeasance, nonfeasance, or graft and corrupt practices on the part of responsible officers.⁴

According to the Court, the new guidelines were issued to ensure that violence and oppression will not result from the fusion of executive and judicial powers in a single authority.

¹ Philippine Constitution, Article 3, Section 1.

² Salazar v. Achacoso, G.R. No. 81510, March 14, 1990.

³ G.R. No. 242957, Feb. 28, 2023.

⁴ Id.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author. This article is for general informational and educational purposes only and not offered as and does not constitute legal advice or legal opinion.

Jaims Gabriel L. Orencia is an associate of the Litigation and Dispute Resolution Department of the Angara Abello Concepcion Regala & Cruz Law Offices (ACCRALAW).

(632) 8830-8000

jlorencia@accralaw.com