Legality of arrest, deportation of 14 Taiwanese questioned

One month after the Philippine Bureau of Immigration deported 14 Taiwanese and 10 Chinese nationals to mainland China because of their alleged telecommunications fraud operations in the Philippines last February 2, the legality of their deportation and even that of their arrest remain under a cloud of doubt. The Philippines’ Court of Appeals (CA) had issued a writ of habeas corpus on six of the 14 suspects, ordering Immigration officials to produce before the court the six suspects last February 2. However, on that same day, the BI defied the habeas corpus order and deported all 24 foreigners to mainland China. As it also turned out, the deportation was made with the Philippines’ Department of Justice (DOJ) approval, even as the suspects' estafa cases at the DOJ were still pending. The cases were only resolved last February 21. As of posting time, GMA News Online could not reach Justice Sec. Leila de Lima for clarification on why she approved the BI's deportation of the 24 foreigners while the suspects still had pending cases at her department. The deportation has sparked a diplomatic row between Manila and Taipei. The Taiwan Economic and Cultural Office (TECO) has demanded that the 14 Taiwanese suspects should have been brought to Taiwan instead, which later led to the Taipei government asking for an apology from Manila. Not enough evidence for estafa raps In four separate resolutions, DOJ prosecution attorney Gerard Gaerlan junked the complaints filed by the National Bureau of Immigration (NBI) and said there was no sufficient evidence to charge the 24 suspects with estafa and with violation of Republic Act No. 8484, or the Access Devices Regulations Act of 1998. In December last year, the NBI arrested the 14 Taiwanese and the 10 Chinese in two separate areas: one in Bel Air Village in Makati City, and another one in Ayala Alabang Village in Muntinlupa City, The foreigners were supposedly engaged in a multi-million dollar criminal activity using the Internet and telecommunications devices. The NBI then confiscated the items the suspects used to allegedly victimize Chinese nationals through telecommunications fraud. These include laptops, printers, cellular phones, telephone and computer cables, routers, adapters, radios, and a satellite transceiver, among others. The arrests and the inspections were made upon Beijing's request. But in his resolutions, Gaerlan said that the items seized by the NBI from the suspects cannot be classified as access devices prohibited by RA 8484. "After a careful evaluation of the records of this case, the undersigned investigating prosecutor finds the evidence presented by the complainants insufficient to establish probable cause against herein respondents for the crime charged," said Gaerlan. He further held: "The items seized by the [NBI] team cannot immediately be classified as access devices defined under RA No. 8484, since the said items were ordinary equipment or instruments used for ordinary activities. Thus, failure to show any proof that these items were used in committing prohibited acts means that there is not enough evidence to establish probable cause against the respondents, since the mere possession of these items is not prohibited by the said law." ‘Defective arrest warrants’ Gaerlan added that the arrest warrants for the suspects in Makati were defective. Thus, their arrests were illegal. "The undersigned investigating prosecutor finds that the warrantless arrest of herein respondents was illegal considering that the search warrant implemented was null and void from the very beginning," said Gaerlan. The prosecution attorney added that the warrant indicated not the particular place to be searched, but only the whole street where numerous houses are found. "In view of the fact that the place indicated in the subject search warrant failed to specify a definite place to be searched, the same became a general warrant, which is strictly prohibited by the Constitution. The mere mention of the street and city where the search is to be conducted is not sufficient to particularly point a definite and ascertainable place as to exclude others," he said. Rundown of suspects Documents obtained from the DOJ listed the following suspects who were arrested in the raid in Makati City:

• Lin Te Kuei (Taiwanese),
• Lin Chih Chiang (Taiwanese),
• Wang Chun Hsiang (Taiwanese),
• Fan Ming Fu (Taiwanese),
• Liu Gui Yun (Taiwanese),
• Tsou Chi Feng (Taiwanese),
• Chuang Chao Shan (Taiwanese),
• Gong Yingbin (Taiwanese),
• Chen Heyang (Taiwanese), and
• Liu Yan (Chinese).

The following were arrested in the raid in Muntinlupa City:

• Peng Yuxue (Chinese),
• He Cong (Chinese),
• Feng Zehang (Chinese),
• Peng Jinxing (Chinese),
• Liang Feng (Chinese),
• Tang Xian Hua (Chinese),
• Wang Mingxia (Chinese),
• Weng Jialu (Chinese),
• Xue Yushan (Chinese),
• Chen Jiaxiang (Taiwanese),
• Li Yuangxing (Taiwanese),
• Dai Yaobin (Taiwanese),
• Li Xiangbin (Taiwanese), and
• Lin Yingchang (Taiwanese).

Diplomatic row with Taiwan The deportation of the 14 Taiwanese to China turned into a diplomatic tiff when Taiwanese President Ma Ying-Jeou demanded an apology from Manila for what he called the Philippines' "wrongful deportation." In a meeting with former Philippine senator Manuel Roxas II, the special envoy sent by Philippine President Benigno Aquino III to Taiwan last Feb. 21-22, Ma said Manila committed at least three mistakes in the deportation issue: 1. The 14 Taiwanese fraud suspects were expelled by the Philippine government, but Filipino officials claimed that they were deported to China. Ma said that by failing to repatriate the 14 Taiwanese back to their home country after expelling them, the Philippines had violated international law and time-honored international practices in addressing such cases. 2. While the 14 Taiwanese had entered the Philippines legally with valid Taiwan passports, Filipino officials claimed that they were "undocumented" people with no legal travel documents. "Your officials' claim was a sheer lie," Ma had told Roxas. 3. Since the lawyer for the Taiwanese suspects had already obtained a writ of habeas corpus issued by the Philippines' CA on Jan 31, the Aquino administration had violated its own country's law in deporting them to China on Feb. 2. "Ignoring your own country's law was not what a democratic government should have done," Ma said. Taipei had threatened that the deportation of the 14 Taiwanese to China would adversely affect labor and economic relations between Philippines and Taiwan. Last week, however, the Taiwanese foreign minister was quoted as suggesting that if the Aquino government takes steps to reprimand any officials culpable for “mishandling" the deportation, Taipei might consider that as “a kind of apology." (See: Taiwan foreign minister: No need to argue with PHL)—JV, GMA News