STATCON Statutory Definition
STATCON Statutory Definition
STATCON Statutory Definition
CASE: Chang Yung Fa, et al VS. Gianzon (G.R. No. L-7785, November 25, 1955)
FACTS:
On November 11, 1949, petitioners were admitted to the Philippines on pre-arranged employment as
immigrants under section 13(a) of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940, known as Commonwealth Act
No. 613, with the express condition that their stay shall be limited to two years. On June 12, 1950, the
Immigration Act was amended by Republic Act No. 503 introducing therein certain amendments among
them that which changes the classification of pre-arranged employees from immigrants to non-
immigrants.
On November 21, 1952, upon proper request, the Secretary of Justice rendered an opinion (Opinion No.
314, series of 1952) holding in effect that the condition imposed for the admission of petitioners to this
country whereby their stay shall be for not more than two years was valid intimating therein that, should
they fail to comply with said condition after the expiration of that period, they shall be subject to
deportation.
Appellants contend that having been classified as "non-quota immigrants" under section 13 of
Commonwealth Act No. 613, they should have been admitted for permanent residence in this country
because the word "immigrant" is defined to be a person who comes into a country for permanent
residence, and, therefore, the imposition of the condition limiting their stay to not more than two years by
the Commissioner of Immigration is in violation of law.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Commissioner of Immigration has a right to limit their period of stay in the
Philippines as immigrants?
HELD:
In construing section 3 (2) of the Immigration Act, we are not concerned with the ordinary definition of the
word "immigrant", as one who comes for permanent residence. The act makes its own definition, which is
that "the term "immigrant" means any alien departing from any place outside the United States destined
for the United States." The term thus includes every alien coming to this country either to reside
permanently or for temporary purposes, unless he can bring himself within one of the exceptions.
Viewed, therefore, in the light of the meaning of the term "immigrant" as above interpreted which includes
aliens coming both for permanent or temporary purposes, it cannot be correctly pretended that the
limitation imposed upon petitioners as regards their stay in the Philippines by the Commissioners of
Immigration does violence to the law since it does not clearly appear therein that such class of aliens can
only be admitted with the status of permanent residence. On the contrary, the power of the Commissioner
of Immigration under section 20 of Commonwealth Act No. 613 would appear to be broad enough to
include the authority to impose such limitation, for if the Commissioner has the power to deny completely
the admission of an alien who seeks to enter this country on a pre-arranged employment by withholding
the issuance of an immigration visa on the ground of public interest, with more reason can he impose a
condition which is less onerous such as limiting the duration of his stay in the country.
In any event, it appearing that petitioners were admitted to the Philippines subject to the express
condition that their stay would only be for two years and they consented to their admission under such
condition, they cannot now be heard to complain that the Commissioner of Immigration acted in excess of
his power in imposing that limitation. They are now estopped from disputing such power even if when
they entered they were not disqualified for admission as permanent residents because of their failure to
ask for the cancellation of such limitation. They have perhaps labored under the impression that if they
had asked for their unconditional admission the immigration authorities would have denied altogether
their entry into this country. And such apprehension is well within the realm of possibility considering the
broad power granted by law to the Commissioner of Immigration with regard to the entrance of aliens into
the Philippines.
Premises considered, we find no justifiable reason to disturb the decision reached by the lower court, and
so we affirm the same, with costs against appellants.
LIMITATIONS:
1. Controlling in the act concerned and not in other statutes even if the same word or term is used.
2. If the application creates obvious incongruities in the language of the statute, destroys the
purpose or becomes illogical.
GENERAL WORDS
- Words of general significance in a statute are to be taken in its ordinary and comprehensive
sense.
- A general word should not be given a restricted meaning where no restriction is indicated
- If a word in a statute has both restricted and general meaning, the general must prevail over the
restricted unless the nature of the subject matter or the context in which it is employed clearly
indicates that the limited sense is intended.
MAXIMS: