De Bisschop vs. Galang | Reyes, J.B.L.
authorities of not granting formal hearings in certain
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.
 Bisschop’s 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
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.
 Prohibition is, after all, not favored by the courts and will only be
granted in cases of extreme necessity.
1
“…in any case coming before the Board of Commissioners, the decision of any two
members shall prevail.”
Page 1 of 1