Resolution is not about protecting an alleged fugitive
This has reference to the news item written by Ms. Christine Herrera appearing in your newspaper’s 01 June 2015 issue.
For the record, I object in the strongest possible terms to the insinuation linking the 21 May 2015 Resolution of the Bureau of Immigration’s Board of Commissioners to the allegation of congressional pay-off for the Bangsamoro Basic Law (BBL) passage and allegedly fund raising for the campaign of the Liberal Party. The spin of the news story is baseless and unfounded. The statements of the alleged source from BI and the House of Representatives are malicious; their identities and statements should have been double-checked. And the facts on the subject Chinese national are exaggerated.
The allegations that the BI through the two Associate Commissioners is being used as conduit of bribe money for the Liberal Party only seek to destroy the straight path governance of His Excellency President Aquino and to damage the credibility and independence of the Philippine Congress.
The Wang Bo case is presently before the Office of the Secretary of Justice under a process of appeal filed by the BI Legal Division. There is likewise a pending Petition for Habeas Corpus filed before the Court of Appeals by the respondent Chinese national Wang Bo.
The Memorandum for the Honorable DoJ Secretary and the subject 21 May 2015 Board Resolution are both self-explanatory.
Essentially, my issues revolve around compliance by the Chinese authorities on the acceptable proof of their allegations. Other countries like Australia, for instance, or the United States of America or those from the European Union are more compliant with the documentary requirements in accordance with the international practice.
The Bureau of Immigration and its disposition of issues are not and ought not to be dictated by a Chinese police official. If they can comply with the documents we need, then the resolution does not have the effect of res judicata.
BI dismisses applications with unauthenticated documents coming from foreign governments. The deportation case at hand should not be treated differently.
The BI Board Resolution is not about protecting an alleged fugitive. It is about according a person a chance to have the documents against him scrutinized and validated. It is about protecting the processes of the Bureau and make the Chinese police attache understand that in this country he or his office must observe compliance with documentary procedures.
At any rate, the matter is pending review by higher authorities.
Atty. Gilberto J. Repizo
Bureau of Immigration