Bureau of Immigration (BI) Deputy Commissioner Aldwin F. Alegre faced questions on the handling of deportation cases involving foreign nationals, including those linked to Philippine offshore gaming operators (POGOs), during his public interview for a post as associate justice of the Supreme Court on Tuesday.
During the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) screening for the soon-to-be-vacant position of Associate Justice Amy Lazaro-Javier, Alegre was asked to explain how the bureau handles foreign nationals facing criminal complaints, whether deportation could proceed while criminal cases remain pending, and what happens to their potential criminal and civil liabilities after they leave the country.
House Committee on Justice Chairperson and JBC member Rep. Gerville Luistro raised the questions, citing the mass departure of Chinese nationals following the government's crackdown on illegal POGOs.
Alegre said the BI had processed about 33,000 foreign nationals, most of them Chinese, in connection with POGO operations. He clarified, however, that not all had been deported, with some placed under the bureau's monitoring system and barred from returning without the required government approval.
Alegre also said high-profile cases, including that of dismissed Bamban, Tarlac Mayor Alice Guo, remained subject to deportation proceedings.
He said that when a foreign national faces a pending criminal case, the bureau may continue deportation proceedings but suspend the implementation of a deportation order until the criminal case becomes final.
On civil liability, Alegre said victims could pursue separate civil actions, explaining that the state primarily concerns itself with criminal proceedings.
Luistro pressed him on whether the government had adequately pursued the criminal and civil liabilities of foreign nationals who had already left the country.
Alegre said some deported foreign nationals had been penalized, with fines ranging from P50,000 to P100,000 imposed on the individuals concerned. He did not provide a detailed accounting of the criminal and civil cases involving those who had departed.
The questioning also touched on Alegre's participation in the deportation proceedings against Guo, who faces separate criminal cases.
Alegre said the Board of Commissioners, of which he is a member, issued a decision in Guo's deportation case in June 2025. He clarified that his participation concerned the administrative deportation proceedings, while criminal matters fell under the Department of Justice.
The screening panel also examined Alegre's views on judicial activism, corruption in government and the judiciary, and the respective authority of the Office of the Ombudsman and the Supreme Court over erring members of the judiciary.
Asked to define judicial activism, Alegre said the Supreme Court could provide guidance to Congress when resolving constitutional questions but must remain within constitutional limits and respect the separation of powers.
The court should avoid encroaching on the functions of the legislative and executive branches when deciding cases involving questions of constitutionality, Alegre said.
On corruption, Alegre cited prevention, prosecution, and education as key measures to reduce wrongdoing in public service.
He also said automating government transactions and streamlining procedures could help curb corruption by reducing opportunities for irregularities.
Alegre said he had recommended automating processes and reducing the number of steps required to complete transactions while serving at the BI.
The panel also questioned him about the Ombudsman's authority to investigate and prosecute public officials, including members of the judiciary, and its relationship with the Supreme Court's disciplinary powers.
Alegre said the Ombudsman had the constitutional authority to investigate and prosecute erring public officials, although he acknowledged the limits of its jurisdiction over members of the judiciary.
Another JBC member asked Alegre about the Ombudsman's call for the Supreme Court to revisit the conspiracy standard in the case of Arroyo v. People.
Alegre was asked to identify the two forms of conspiracy discussed in the context of the case and explain the basis for the Supreme Court's ruling. His response, as captured in the interview transcript, did not clearly explain the specific legal principles involved.
Alegre, who said he took the bar examination in 2006, cited his background as a certified public accountant and his experience handling administrative cases involving foreign nationals as relevant to the work of the high court.
He said his work at the BI involved balancing the rights of foreign nationals against the state's interests in national security and enforcing immigration laws.
The public interview was part of the JBC's screening of candidates for the position of Supreme Court associate justice.