Digest Author: Falgui It is already a settled rule in this jurisdiction that a day in court is not a matter

Bischop v Galang of right in administrative proceedings.

Petitioner: GEORGE DE BISSCHOP, petitioner-appellee,
Respondent: EMILIO L. GALANG, in his capacity as Commissioner of The administration of immigration laws is the primary and exclusive
Immigration, respondent-appellant. responsibility of the Executive branch of the government. Extension of stay of
Ponencia: REYES, J.B.L., J. aliens is purely discretionary on the part of the immigration authorities.

DOCTRINE: The fact should not be lost sight of that we are dealing with an
administrative proceeding and not with a judicial proceeding. As Judge
Cooley has well said, due process of law is not necessarily judicial process.
While a day in court is a matter of right in judicial proceedings, in
administrative proceedings, it is otherwise since they rest upon different
principles.
Commonwealth Act No. 613, otherwise known as the Philippine Immigration
Act of 1940, is silent as to the procedure to be followed in these cases, we
are 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.

FACTS:
1. Petitioner-appellee George de Bisschop, an American citizen,
was allowed to stay in this country for three years as the
prearranged employee of the Bissmag Production, Inc
2. He applied for extension of stay with the Bureau of Immigration
This would not violate the due process clause if we take into account that, in
this particular case, the letter of appellant-commissioner advising de
Bisschop to depart in 5 days is a mere formality, a preliminary step, and,
therefore, far from final, because, as alleged in paragraph 7 of appellant's
answer to the complaint, the "requirement to leave before the start of the
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".

WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is reversed. The petition for

3. Due to confidential and damaging reports of Immigration Officer prohibition is dismissed, and the writ of preliminary injunction issued by the
Benjamin de Mesa to the effect that Bissmag is more of a court a quo is hereby dissolved, with costs against George de Bisschop.
gambling front than the enterprise for promotion of local and
imported shows that it purports to be, and that de Bisschop is
suspect of having evaded payment of his income tax, the
Commissioner of Immigration, in a communication of Customs of
Iloilo, advised him that his application for extension of stay as a
prearranged employee has been denied by the Board of
Commissioners, and that he should depart within 5 days.

4. Upon prayer of Bisschop, a writ of preliminary injunction was

issued ex-parte by the lower court ordering herein respondent-
appellant to desist from arresting and deporting petitioner-
appellee until proper and legal proceedings are conducted by the
Bureau of Immigration

ISSUES: WoN Commissioners of Immigration are required by law to conduct

formal hearings on all applications for extension of stay of aliens

RULING + RATIO: NO