SC defines judiciary’s role on immigration matters By MAR-VIC CAGURANGAN Staff Reporter

The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that the judiciary is only tasked to determine the deportability of an illegal alien, and that the power to grant relief such as voluntary departure belongs to the executive branch through the Attorney General.

The high court ordered Superior Court Associate Judge Timothy Bellas to delete a provision in his 1998 order in which he allowed an overstaying Filipina, Gemma G. Sagun, to voluntarily depart the Commonwealth.

The Supreme Court issued the ruling in favor of the appeal filed by the Attorney General’s Office, which has contested the voluntary departure provision in Bellas’ order as it would allow Sagun to re-enter the CNMI. An alien who is deported by the government is barred from re-entering the Commonwealth for five years.

“The executive branch is vested with authority to exercise discretion with respect to voluntary departure; the judicial branch has the authority to determine facts with respect to deportability,” the high court ruled.

The Supreme Court said US courts have “historically” exercised the discretion of granting discretionary relief including voluntary deportation and suspension. In contrast, the Commonwealth Legislature has placed the proceedings that lead to final orders of deportation in the Commonwealth Superior Court, the high court added.

“A court does not sit as a super legislature, passing judgment on the wisdom of legislative policy decisions limiting immigration,” the high court ruling said. “As justices, it is our duty to apply the law even if the results are sometimes, harsh,” it added.

Sagun entered the CNMI as a houseworker. Her entry permit expired on Jan. 27, 1993, but she had since stayed on Saipan for six more years.

She left Saipan on Oct. 31, 1998 based on the voluntary departure relief granted to her by the trial court.

Since Sagun is no longer on island, the high court said her case could be considered moot.

However, the Supreme Court said “the question presented in this case is of public concern and if it were to recur, would likely become moot before it could determined on appeal.”

“We are satisfied that the matter is not moot because of the effect the deportation order has on Sagun’s ability to re-enter the Commonwealth,” the court said.