Case: Director of Prisons vs.

Ang Cho Kio

G.R. No.: L-30001
Date: June 23, 1970

FACTS:
Respondent Ang Cho Kio aka Ang Ming Huy had been charged, tried and convicted of
various offenses committed in the Philippines and was sentenced to suffer penalties.

He filed a petition for habeas corpus which the CFI of Rizal denied. The CA affirmed the
decision but recommended that Ang may be allowed to leave the country on the first available
transportation abroad.

The Solicitor General filed a motion for reconsideration praying for the deletion of the
recommendation. The Solicitor General maintains that the recommendation is not a part of the
decision and was uncalled for; that it gives the decision a political complexion, because courts
are not empowered to make such a recommendation, nor is it inherent or incidental in the
exercise of judicial powers. He also contends that allowing convicted aliens to leave the country
is an act of the state exercises solely in the discretion of the Chief Executive. It is urged that the
act of sending an undesirable alien out of the country is political in character, and the courts
should not interfere with, nor attempt to influence, the political acts of the President.

ISSUE:

Whether the courts of justice may interfere in the exercise by the President, thru his Executive
Secretary, of his administrative power of recommitment.

RULING:

No. The only question to be resolved by the Court of Appeals was whether, or not, the
Court of First Instance of Rizal, had rightly dismissed the petition of Ang Cho Kio for habeas
corpus. The Court of Appeals was not called upon to review any sentence imposed upon Ang Cho
Kio.

The recommitment to prison of Ang Cho Kio was done in the exercise by the President of
the Philippines of his power pursuant to the provision of Section 64 of the Revised Administrative
Code, and the courts should not interfere with the exercise of that power.

The recommendatory power of the courts in this jurisdiction are limited to those expressly
provided in the law — and such law is the provision of Section 5 of the Revised Penal Code as
follows:

Whenever a court has knowledge of any act which it may deem proper to repress
and which is not punishable by law, it shall render the proper decision, and shall report to
 the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice, the reasons which induce the court
to believe that said act should be made the subject of penal legislation.

In the same way the court shall submit to the Chief Executive, through the
Department of Justice such statement as may be deemed proper, without suspending the
execution of the sentence, when a strict enforcement of the provisions of this Code would
result in the imposition of a clearly excessive penalty, taking into consideration the degree
of malice and the injury caused by the offense.

The Court of Appeals was not called upon to review any sentence that was imposed on Ang Cho
Kio. It was simply called upon to determine whether Ang Cho Kio was illegally confined, or not,
in the insular penitentiary under the Director of Prisons.