This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-04-24 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| It must be remembered that aliens seeking entry in the Philippines do not acquire the right to be admitted into the country by the simple passage of time. When an alien, such as respondent, has already physically gained entry in the country, but such entry is later found unlawful or devoid of legal basis, the alien can be excluded anytime after it is found that he was not lawfully admissible at the time of his entry.[42] Every sovereign power has the inherent power to exclude aliens from its territory upon such grounds as it may deem proper for its self-preservation or public interest.[43] The power to deport aliens is an act of State, an act done by or under the authority of the sovereign power.[44] It is a police measure against undesirable aliens whose continued presence in the country is found to be injurious to the public good and the domestic tranquility of the people.[45] | |||||
|
2006-07-25 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Secondly, even if the right of due process could be rightfully invoked, still, in administrative proceedings, the essence of due process is simply the opportunity to explain one's side.[56] At the outset, it is here emphasized that the term "due process of law" as used in the Constitution has no fixed meaning for all purposes due "to the very nature of the doctrine which, asserting a fundamental principle of justice rather than a specific rule of law, is not susceptible of more than one general statement."[57] The phrase is so elusive of exact apprehension,[58] because it depends on circumstances and varies with the subject matter and the necessities of the situation.[59] | |||||