Case Digest: Mejoff v. Director of Prisons 90 Phil. 70 (1951)

 Public International Law | The Nationality Principle

Facts: 

• Boris Mejoff, an alien of Russian descent, was brought to the Philippines by Japanese forces during their occupation.
• He was arrested as a Japanese spy, handed over to the Commonwealth Government for processing under Commonwealth Act No. 682, and subsequently ordered for deportation due to illegal entry into the Philippines.
• Over the years, efforts to deport him failed and he remained in detention at Bilibid Prison.

Issue:

• Whether Mejoff, despite illegal entry, could be indefinitely detained if deportation was not possible.

Ruling:

• Aliens illegally staying in the Philippines have no right of asylum therein, even if they are “stateless,” which the petitioner claims to be. It is no less true however, as impliedly stated in this Court’s decision, supra, that foreign nationals, not enemy, against whom no charge has been made other than that their permission to stay has expired, may not indefinitely be kept in detention. The protection against deprivation of liberty without due process of law and except for crimes committed against the laws of the land is not limited to Philippine citizens but extends to all residents, except enemy aliens, regardless of nationality. Whether an alien who entered the country in violation of its immigration laws may be detained for as long as the Government is unable to deport him, is a point we need not decide. The petitioner’s entry into the Philippines was not unlawful; he was brought by the armed and belligerent forces of a de facto government whose decrees were law during the occupation.
• Moreover, by its Constitution (Art. II, Sec. 3), the Philippines “adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of Nation.” And in a resolution entitled “Universal Declaration Of Human Rights” and approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations of which the Philippines is a member, at its plenary meeting on December 10, 1948, the right to life and liberty and all other fundamental rights as applied to all human beings were proclaimed. It was there resolved that “All human beings are borm free and equal in degree and rights” (Art. 1) that “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedom set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, nationality or social origin, property, birth, or other status” (Art. 2) ; that “Every one has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the Constitution or by law” (Art. 8); that “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile” (Art. 9 ); etc.
• The most recent case, as far as we have been able to find, was that of Staniszewski vs. Watkins (1948), 80 Fed. Supp., 132, which is nearly foursquare with the case at hand. In that case a stateless person, formerly a Polish national, resident in the United States since 1911 and many times serving as a seaman on American vessels both in peace and in war, was ordered excluded from the United States and detained at Ellis Island at the expense of the steamship company, when he returned from a voyage on which he had shipped from New York for one or more European ports and return to the United States. The grounds for his exclusion were that he had no passport or immigration visa, and that in 1937 had been convicted of perjury because in certain documents he represented himself to be an American citizen. Upon his application for release on habeas corpus, the Court released him upon his own recognizance. Judge Leibell, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, said in part:
• “When the return to the writ of habeas corpus came before this court, I suggested that all interested parties ... make an effort to arrange to have the petitioner ship out of some country that would receive him as a resident. He is a native-born Pole but the Polish Consul has advised him in writing that he is no longer a Polish subject. This Government does not claim that he is a Polish citizen. This attorney says he is stateless. The Government is willing that he go back to the ship, but if he were sent back aboard ship and sailed to the Port (Cherbourg, France) from which he last sailed to the United States, he would probably be denied permission to land. There is no other country that would take him, without proper documents. 
• It seems to me that this is a genuine hardship case and that the petitioner should be released from custody on proper terms.... “What is to be done with the petitioner? The government has had him in custody almost seven months and practically admits it has no place to send him out of this country. The steamship company, which employed him as one of a group sent to the ship by the Union, with proper seaman’s papers issued by the United States Coast Guard, is paying $3 a day for petitioner’s board at Ellis Island. It is no fault of the steamship company that petitioner is an inadmissible alien as the immigration officials describe him.... 
• “I intend to sustain the writ of habeas corpus and order the release of the petitioner on his own recognizance. He will be required to inform the immigration officials at Ellis Island by mail on the 15th of each month, stating where he is employed and where he can be reached by mail. If the government does succeed in arranging for petitioner’s deportation to a country that will be ready to receive him as a resident, it may then advise the petitioner to that effect and arrange for his deportation in the manner provided by law.”
• Although not binding upon this Court as a precedent, the case aforecited affords a happy solution to the quandary in which the parties here find themselves, solution which we think is sensible, sound and compatible with law and the Constitution. For this reason, and since the Philippine law on immigration was patterned after or copied from the American law and practice, we choose to follow and adopt the reasoning and conclusions in the Staniszewski decision with some modifications which, it is believed, are in consonance with the prevailing conditions of peace and order in the Philippines.
• Premises considered, the writ will issue commanding the respondents to release the petitioner from custody upon these terms: The petitioner shall be placed under the surveillance of the immigration authorities or their agents in such form and manner as may be deemed adequate to insure that he keep peace and be available when the Government is ready to deport him. The surveillance shall be reasonable and the question of reasonableness shall be submitted to this Court or to the Court of First Instance of Manila for decision in case of abuse. He shall also put up a bond for the above purpose in the amount of P5,000 with sufficient surety or sureties, which bond the Commissioner of Immigration is authorized to exact by Section 40 of Commonwealth Act No. 613.

Conclusion:

• Aliens illegally staying in the Philippines have no right of asylum therein, even if they are “stateless,” which the petitioner claims to be. However, the protection against deprivation of liberty without due process of law and except for crimes committed against the laws of the land is not limited to Philippine citizens but extends to all residents, except enemy aliens, regardless of nationality. 
• The petitioner’s entry into the Philippines was not unlawful; he was brought by the armed and belligerent forces of a de facto government whose decrees were law during the occupation.
• The Philippines, by its Constitution, the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of Nation and supports human rights as proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
• In a similar case in the US (Staniszewski vs. Watkins), a stateless person was released on his own recognizance due to the inability to deport him. Despite not being a binding precedent, the reasoning from the US case is adopted, providing a sensible solution within the Philippine law.
• The Court issued the petitioner's release under surveillance by immigration authorities, subject to reasonable terms and a bond of P5,000, ensuring availability for deportation.