Director of Prisons vs Ang Cho Kio

G.R. No. L-30001 – 144 Phil. 439 – 33 SCRA 494 – Political Law – Constitutional Law – The Judicial Department – Judicial Power – Limitations of Judicial Power – Courts Cannot Issue Advisory Opinions

In 1952, Ang Cho Kio, a Chinese residing in the Philippines, was sentenced to 45 years in prison. Six years into his sentence, he was granted conditional pardon by the President. The condition was for him never to return to the Philippines. However, in 1966, he returned to the Philippines on a supposed connecting flight to Hawaii but he decided to stay longer upon the prodding of his friends. His presence was discovered and he was arrested to serve the remainder of his sentence. He filed a petition for the writ of habeas corpus which was denied. He appealed to the Court of Appeals which denied his appeal. However, the CA recommended that instead of being recommitted, Ang Cho Kio should be allowed to leave the country immediately in the first available transportation abroad.

ISSUE: Whether or not the decision of the CA is correct.

HELD: No. The portion making a recommendation for Ang Cho Kio’s immediate deportation is improper. Under the principle of separation of powers, it is not within the province of the judiciary to express an opinion, or express a suggestion.

It may be said that the recommendation simply represents the private opinion of the justices, and that judges should be left free to express even their private opinions in judicial decisions. However, the decision of a court should contain only opinion that is relevant to the question that is before the court for decision. Courts are not concerned with the wisdom or morality of laws, but only in the interpretation and application of the law. Judges should refrain from expressing irrelevant opinions in their decisions which may only reflect unfavorably upon their competence and the propriety of their judicial actuations.

Read full text.