{"id":166216,"date":"2018-06-05T05:54:35","date_gmt":"2018-06-05T09:54:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/?p=166216"},"modified":"2018-06-05T05:54:35","modified_gmt":"2018-06-05T09:54:35","slug":"fox-asks-doj-anew-to-void-bi-leave-order","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/2018\/06\/05\/fox-asks-doj-anew-to-void-bi-leave-order\/","title":{"rendered":"Fox asks DOJ anew to void BI leave order"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"Fox<\/a>
Fox appeared at the DOJ together with her legal counsels from the National Union of People’s Lawyers (NUPL), where she filed a 22-page reply on the BI’s comment on her petition for review filed last May 25. (PNA photo)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

MANILA<\/strong>\u00a0— The camp of Australian nun Sr. Patricia Fox on Tuesday filed a comment before the Department of Justice reiterating their appeal for the reversal of the Bureau of Immigration\u2019s (BI) decision ordering her to leave the country.<\/p>\n

Fox appeared at the DOJ together with her legal counsels from the National Union of People’s Lawyers (NUPL), where she filed a 22-page reply on the BI’s comment on her petition for review filed last May 25.<\/p>\n

In the said petition, Fox asked Justice Secretary Menardo Guevarra, to overturn the BI\u2019s leave order on May 17 forfeiting her missionary visa due to allegations of violating the conditions of her stay and gave her a temporary visitor\u2019s visa lasting only 30 days.<\/p>\n

According to NUPL reiterated Fox position that \u201cthere is no factual basis for the downgrading of petitioner\u2019s missionary visa into a temporary visitor\u2019s visa.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThe allegation that she violated the terms and conditions [of her visa] is misplaced and unfounded.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cShe was merely accused of participating in a ‘political activity’ which ‘political activity’ did not in any way endanger public order and safety or disturbed the peace of the community or the country and which activity is protected by the Constitutional guarantee on freedom of expression and assembly,\u201d Fox said in her reply.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe allegation that she violated the terms and conditions is misplaced and unfounded. In the case of the petitioner, there is no mention in the report of the intelligence agents of the BI and even in its assailed order that petitioner’s presence or activities disturbed the peace and order of the country,\u201d she added.<\/p>\n

Her lawyers admitted they agree with the BI’s position that a visa is a privilege and not a right given to foreigners.<\/p>\n

However, the NUPL pointed out \u201conce it is granted by the State, it cannot be revoked except on valid and lawful ground and upon observance of due process of law, both substantive and procedural.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cBe that as it may, the petitioner submits the view that while a visa given to a foreigner is a privilege that is subject to the discretion of the granting authority\u2014an exercise of the plenary power granted to the State as regards to exclusion of foreigners\u2014this does not come without limitations,\u201d the lawyers said.<\/p>\n

\u201cTo espouse otherwise, as what the BI is fervently pushing in its Comment, would run counter to the very nature of an organized society and would set a very dangerous precedent championing an unbridled exercise of State authority at the expense of basic human rights of the people,\u201d they argued.<\/p>\n

\u201cThese limitations apply not only to its power to deport foreigners but to all the other powers that the BI may exercise such as visa forfeiture or visa cancellation,\u201d they added.<\/p>\n

For her part, Fox said she is hopeful to give a consideration.<\/p>\n

\u201cAll I can say I\u2019m hopeful this will be given due consideration in the case. Still I\u2019m hopeful,\u201d Fox told reporters.<\/p>\n

Earlier, Justice Secretary Menardo Guevarra said the DOJ \u201creserves the right to call such clarificatory hearings, as may be necessary, to arrive at a just resolution of this appeal.\u201d<\/p>\n

In its order, the BI dismissed Fox\u2019s arguments that the bureau forfeited her visa without due process and that allegations that she engaged in political activities were not backed with solid evidence.<\/p>\n

It reiterated that Fox acted beyond allowed activities under her visa by working outside Barangay Amihan in Quezon City, where she claimed she would render her missionary work when she applied for her visa.<\/p>\n

The order likewise stressed that the strict rules on evidence do not apply to immigration cases, which are administrative proceedings requiring only the lowest quantum of evidence.<\/p>\n

On April 16, Fox was apprehended by BI operatives pursuant to a mission order issued by Commissioner Jaime Morente for violating the conditions of her stay in the country by engaging in political activities and anti-government demonstrations.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

MANILA\u00a0— The camp of Australian nun Sr. Patricia Fox on Tuesday filed a comment before the Department of Justice reiterating …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":33,"featured_media":166217,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[51673,51672],"class_list":["post-166216","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-uncategorized","tag-national-union-of-peoples-lawyers-nupl","tag-sr-patricia-fox","mauthors-christopher-lloyd-caliwan","mauthors-philippine-news-agency"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/166216","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/33"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=166216"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/166216\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/166217"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=166216"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=166216"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=166216"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}