Court of Appeals clears Immigration executive of graft charges

MANILA, Philippines - The Court of Appeals has cleared an official of the Bureau of Immigration of graft charges for ordering verification of the travel documents and immigration status of a Chinese suspected to be an illegal alien.

The ninth division of the appeals court reversed a decision of the Office of the Ombudsman dismissing lawyer Faizal Hussin, BI intelligence chief, from service for grave misconduct and gross insubordination. In a nutshell, the CA ruled that the BI has the authority to verify the travel documents and immigration status of foreigners suspected of violating Philippine immigration laws.

Hussin was earlier charged before the anti-graft body for issuing a memorandum to his subordinates to verify the documents of a Chinese reported to be violating immigration laws for working without a permit.

In its decision, the CA ninth division chaired by Justice Mario Guarina ruled that Hussin, as head of the BI intelligence division has the power and authority to detect immigration law violators.

Hussin, according to the appellate court, acted “within the ambit of his authority” when he issued the memorandum to verify the travel papers of Li Yong Cheng, the Chinese who was the subject of his memorandum.

The CA also dismissed the charge that Hussin had ordered the apprehension of Li Yong Cheng, without the required mission order from the BI commissioner.

“The instruction of Hussin as stated in the said memorandum was very explicit. It was only limited to the verification of the travel/immigration documents of Li Yong Cheng, no more no less,” the court said, adding that the clear import of the memorandum was merely to verify documents and not to apprehend the Chinese.

It was in 2005 that the Office of the Ombudsman issued its decision ordering Hussin’s dismissal from the service for issuing the memorandum to his subordinates to verify Cheng’s immigration status. Hussin had said that he issued the memorandum on the basis of reports that the Chinese was violating immigration laws for being an undocumented and illegally working alien.

The Ombudsman’s decision, however, was not implemented in light of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Ombudsman vs Samaniego, preventing the implementation of said decision pending appeal.