Spec Pro Class 2020

FACTS:

On July 23, 1920, a petition for the writ of habeas corpus was filed in the CFI of Manila by one Lee Yick Hon alleging he had lately arrived from China at the port of Manila with a view to entering the Philippine Islands, but was presented from so doing by the Insular Collector of Customs, who was detaining him for deportation. Upon the presiding in Sala IV of said court, cited the collector to appear and show cause in writing why the writ of habeas corpus should not be issued as prayed. This citation was served at about 11 a.m., at which house arrangement had already been perfected for the deportation of Lee Yick Hon on a boat scheduled to leave Manila for Hongkong at noon on the same day; and either by oversight or design the Insular Collector failed to countermand the order for his embarcation on that boat. The result was that Lee Yick Hon was deported within two or three hours after the Insular Collector had been served with the citation to show cause in the habeas corpus proceeding. Thereupon contempt proceedings were instituted against the Insular Collector, with the result already stated. CFI fined Insular Collector of Custom for contempt of court

 

ISSUE:

Whether the citation is the writ itself, which failure to response would be a ground for contempt of court?

 

RULING:

There was an actual response or answer on the citation of the Court of First Instance.

 

In this case before us, if it be asked what lawful writ, process, order, judgment or command of the court or judge below was disobeyed or resisted by the appellant, the answer must be: None whatever. The citation that was served upon the appellant required him to appear at a stated time in the Court of First Instance of Manila and show cause if any there might be, why the writ prayed for should not issue. That citation was literally complied with when, on July 30, 1920, the Attorney-General, on behalf of the Insular Collector, filed his answer, wherein it was in effect stated that the case of Lee Yick Hon had been regularly passed upon by the special Board of Inquiry, and that it had been found that he had entered the Philippine Islands in contravention of the Immigration and Exclusion Acts, wherefore the Insular Collector had ordered his deportation. That answer, so far as appears in this case, has not been found to be false or insufficient; and the sole ground relied upon to sustain the judgment finding the appellant guilty to contempt is that by allowing Lee Yick Hon to be deported under the conditions stated he has frustrated the possible issuance of the writ of habeas corpus for which application had been made.

 

Such Citation is not the peremptory writ of habeas corpus but merely a preliminary citation

 

At this point attention should be directed to the fact that the order to show cause a copy of which was served on the Insular Collector of Customs on July 23, 1920 is NOT the peremptory writ of habeas corpus, unconditionally commanding the respondent to have the body of the detained person before the court at the time and place therein specified

 

The practice of issuing a preliminary citation of this character, upon applications for the writ of habeas corpus, has, as all legal practitioners are aware, become common in our courts; and upon considerations of practical convenience, the usage has must be commend it, in cases where the necessity for the immediate issuance of the peremptory writ is not manifest. Nevertheless in a case like that now before us, it is necessary to take account of the difference between the preliminary citation and the real writ of habeas corpus; and when advertence is had to this point, and the actual terms of the citation are considered, it is at one obvious that the appellant did not put himself in contempt by allowing Lee Yick Hon to be deported.