SICHANGCO v BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF IMMIGRATION
FACTS
The Bureau of Immigration recognized Benito Sichangco (Sy Te) as a Filipino citizen by birth in an order dated February 19, 1960. He was married to Cheng Yok Ha and had 3 children—Si Beng, Si Son and Si Luna—all born in China and allegedly out of their marriage. The Board of Special Inquiry of the Bureau of Immigration admitted into the Philippines these 3 minor children from Hongkong on the basis of the finding that they were children of Sichangco, a Filipino citizen. When the decision was submitted to the Board of Commissioners of Immigration (BCI), it “noted” the decision. The Secretary of Justice (Diokno) issued an order (Memo Order No. 9) setting aside all decisions of the BCI, since it had not been collectively deliberating on the cases filed before it. Thus, the BCI reversed the previous decision and ordered the exclusion from the Philippines of the minor children. Thus, in behalf of these minors, Sichangco filed a petition for prohibition and preliminary injunction before the CFI of Manila to annul the decision of the BCI excluding these minors from the Philippines. The CFI granted the petition. The BCI appealed.
ISSUE
Whether the Secretary of Justice may validly issue Memorandum Order No. 9, setting aside all decisions purporting to have been rendered by the BCI
HELD
YES. The BCI was and still is under the supervision and control of the DOJ. By virtue of his power of control, the Secretary of Justice can modify, nullify or set aside the decision of the Board of Special Inquiry, as well as the act of noting of the decision by the BCI. He can even directly exercise the powers of the chief of the bureau or office under him pursuant to Sec. 37, Act No. 4007, which provides that: The provisions of the existing law to the contrary notwithstanding whenever a specific power, authority, duty, function, or activity is entrusted to a chief of bureau, office, division, or service, the same shall be understood as also conferred upon the proper Department head who shall have authority to act directly in pursuance thereof, or to review, modify or revoke any decision or action of said chief of bureau, office, division, or service.
Moreover, BCI’s act of “noting” the decision of the Board of Special Inquiry was NOT a valid decision of affirmance by the BCI in the exercise of its power of review motu proprio under the Immigration Act of 1940. The word “noted” simply meant that the members of BCI had taken cognizance of the existence of the decision of the Board of Special Inquiry.
