De Bisschop vs. Galang | Reyes, J.B.L.

FACTS
George de Bisschop (Bisschop), an American citizen, was
allowed to stay in the country until 1 August 1959 as a
prearranged employee of the Bissmag Production, Inc.
(Bissmag), of which he is president and general
manager.
He applied for extension of stay with the Bureau of
Immigration, in a letter dated 10 July 1959.
However, this application was denied by the
Commissioner of Immigration in view of damaging
reports of Immigration Officer Benjamin De Mesa to the
effect that Bissmag is a gambling front and that Bisschop
is suspected of tax evasion in a communication of 10
September 1959 and Bisschop was advised that he
should depart within 5 days.
Bisschops counsel requested a copy of the decision.
The legal officer of the Bureau of Immigration replied
that, where the result of an application for extension is a
denial, no formal decision, order, or resolution is
promulgated by the Board for reasons of practicability
and expediency.
Bisschop then filed this petition for prohibition.
The TC granted the petitioni, ordering the Board to
refrain from arresting Bisschop and that it should first
conduct formal hearings.
ISSUES/HELD
Are the Commissioners of Immigration required to
conduct formal hearings on all applications for extension
of stay of aliens? NO.
Do the Commissioners need to promulgate written
decisions in such cases? NO.
RATIONALE
1st issue
Since CA 613 (Philippine Immigration Act of 1940) is

silent as to the procedure to be followed in these cases,

the Court is inclined to uphold the argument that courts
have no jurisdiction to review the purely
administrative practice of immigration authorities
of not granting formal hearings in certain cases as
the circumstances may warrant, for reasons of
practicability and expediency.
This would not violate due process because the letter
instructing Bisschop to depart is a mere formality, a
preliminary step.
o The requirement to leave before the start of
deportation proceedings is only an advice to
the party that unless he departs voluntarily,
the State will be compelled to take steps for
his expulsion.
Furthermore, a day in court is not a matter of right
in administrative proceedings.
o Due process of law is not necessarily judicial
process; much of the process by means of which the
government is carried on, and the order of society
maintained, is purely executive or administrative,
which is as much due process of law.
o A day in court is matter of right only in judicial
proceedings and not necessarily in administrative
proceedings.
2nd issue
The use of the word decision in Sec. 8 1 of the
Immigration Act refers to the number of votes
necessary to constitute the decision of the Board and not
to a written decision.
Were the intention of the lawmaker otherwise, it would
have expressly stated it because the law, in fact,
enumerates when a written decision is necessary.
Finally.
Prohibition may not be granted because there is another
plain, speedy and adequate remedy available to
Bisschop in the form of habeas corpus.
1

in any case coming before the Board of Commissioners, the decision of

any two members shall prevail.

Page 1 of 2

Prohibition is, after all, not favored by the courts and will
only be granted in cases of extreme necessity.

Page 2 of 2