TIACO V. FORBES, 228 U. S. 549 (1913)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 228 U. S. 549

U.S. Supreme Court

Tiaco v. Forbes, 228 U.S. 549 (1913)

Tiaco v. Forbes

Nos. 254, 255, 256

Argued April 24, 1913

Decided May 5, 1913

228 U.S. 549


Where the act originally purports to be done in the name and by the authority of the state, a defect in that authority may be cured by the subsequent adoption of the act.

The deportation of a Chinaman from the Philippine Islands by the Governor General prior to an act of the legislature authorizing such deportation is to be considered as having been ordered in pursuance of such statute.

Sovereign states have inherent power to deport aliens, and Congress is not deprived of this power by the Constitution of the United States.

The ground on which the power to deport aliens rests necessitates that it may have to be exercised in a summary manner by executive officers.

Congress not being prevented by the Constitution from deporting

Page 228 U. S. 550

aliens, the Philippine government cannot be prevented from so doing by the Bill of Rights incorporated in the Act of July 1, 1902.

The deportation of aliens in this case by the Philippine government was not a deprivation of liberty without due process of law.

The local government of the Philippine Islands has all civil and judicial power necessary to govern the Islands, and this includes the power to deport aliens.

The extension by Congress of the Chinese Exclusion and Immigration Laws to the Philippine Islands does not prevent the government of the Islands passing an act removing aliens therefrom.

The English rule is that an act of state is not cognizable in any municipal court. It is within the power of the Legislature of the Philippine Islands to declare an act of the executive which is within its power to authorize to be not subject to question or review.

A statute which protects the executive protects the subordinates as well as the chief executive.

Quaere whether the Governor of the Philippine Islands has authority, by virtue of his office alone, to deport aliens, or immunity from action for a deportation made in good faith, whether he had the power or not.

Quaere whether, historically speaking, prohibition was the proper remedy; but, in this case, this Court should not interfere with the local practice in a matter relating to the administration of local statutes except for good cause shown.

The act of the Philippine Legislature passed April 19, 1910, ratifying the action of the Governor General in ordering the deportation of plaintiffs, Chinamen, and declaring it to have been an exercise of authority vested in him by law in all respects legal and not subject to question or review, was within the power of the legislature, and took from the court, in which an action had been brought to enjoin the deportation, jurisdiction to try the case, and the judgment granting a writ of prohibition is affirmed.

The facts, which involve the power of the Philippine government to deport aliens, are stated in the opinion.

Page 228 U. S. 554

ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review :

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line :