The Case of Ja Hoon Ku

SHOULD CHRISTIANS BE JUDGMENTAL?

The Case of Ja Hoon Ku

 

“Harboring a criminal” is a criminal offense. It is against the law to “harbor a criminal.” What is “harboring a criminal”? This is the definition given by a Law Dictionary:

“…the term used when a person HIDES another person wanted by the law.” [Source: http://thelawdictionary.org/harboring-a-criminal/]

When a person HIDES another person wanted by the law, that person committed the offense of ‘harboring a criminal.” When it was reported that Ja Hoon Ku, a Korean national arrested on 16 January 2014, was allegedly released by Malacañan (the executive branch of the Philippine government) and turned over to Iglesia Ni Cristo (Church Of Christ), many immediately criticized the Church and accused of “harboring a criminal.”

“Ja had already been arrested and was supposed to be deported to Korea, but he was granted temporary freedom. Thanks to a Palace official who allegedly signed an order to release him from detention. As stated in the order, Ja will be free while he waits for the court’s decision on his appeal regarding his deportation case. As if this was not questionable enough, Ja was turned over to members of Iglesia ni Cristo. Many Filipino citizens are not only criticizing the government for freeing the Korean fugitive and preventing (or delaying) his deportation but some are also vilifying the INC for harboring an accused wanted embezzler.”
[SOURCE: https://chrissantosra.wordpress.com/tag/ja-hook-ku/}

Did the Church committed the offense of “harboring a criminal” because of Ja Hoon Ku? Let us not be judgmental, but let us first look at the facts.

WHO IS JA HOON KU AND WHAT REALLY HAPPENED?

Ja Hoon Ku is from South Korea who went to the Philippines. He was one of the contractors when the Philippine Arena was contructed during 2012-2014. During that time, he was invited to the worship services of the Iglesia Ni Cristo. After examining the doctrines of this Church, he decided to join the Church. Thus, he became a member of the Iglesia Ni Cristo, not before the construction of the Philippine Arena, but during the construction of the Philippine Arena.

On 16 January 2014, he was arrested by Bureau of Immigration (BI) because of a letter of request sent to them by the South Korean embassy:

“Records showed the Korean Embassy wrote the BI to arrest and deport Ja for alleged arbitrary spending of the reserve funds of Seoul-based Phildip Korea Co, Ltd. Upon finding that Ja was a ‘risk to public interest,’ the BI charged him with violating Section 69 of Republic Act 2711 or the Revised Administrative Code as his visa had already expired.” [SOURCE: http://globalnation.inquirer.net/100715/sc-stops-release-of-wanted-south-korean/]

Thus, let us make it clear that Brother Ja Hoon Ku was not a convicted criminal in South Korea. The South Korean Embassy wrote the Bureau of Immigration (BI) to arrest Ja “for ALLEGED arbitrary spending of the reserve funds of Seoul-based Phildip Korea Co, Ltd.” Thus, the case was filed against Ja when he was in the Philippines. However, the BI arrested and charged him “with violating section 69 of RA 2711” or in other words, he was arrested because his visa had already expired.

The BI commissioner then immediately issued a warrant for Ja’s immediate deportation to South Korea (Ja was detained at the BI detention center in Bicutan, Taguig):

“BI Commissioner Siegfred Mison then issued a warrant for his immediate deportation to South Korea. Ja was arrested on January 16 and detained at the BI detention center in Bicutan, Taguig City.”  
[SOURCE: http://globalnation.inquirer.net/100715/sc-stops-release-of-wanted-south-korean/]

Because of this, the following day after his arrest on 16 January 2014, Ja asked the Manila court to issue a “writ of amparo” and a temporary protection order against the BI:

“The following day, Ja asked the Manila court to issue a writ of amparo and temporary protection order against the BI…”  
[SOURCE: http://globalnation.inquirer.net/100715/sc-stops-release-of-wanted-south-korean/]

The “writ of amparo” is a remedy for the protection of right to life, liberty and personal security:

“The 1987 Philippine Constitution, in Article VIII, Sec.5 (5) thereof, vests the power to the Philippine Supreme Court to "promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights..." This served as the legal basis for the formulation of the Philippine writ of amparo. Features of the Philippine Writ of Amparo

“As can be gleaned from the definition thereof, the writ is a remedy for the protection of right to life, liberty and personal security. It is not available as a remedy for the protection of property right although in some cases, property right is so intertwined with right to liberty or security thus, the remedy can still be used. The writ can be availed of by anybody but the Rule provides for a strict order of preference, non-compliance therewith can be fatal to the granting of the writ by the courts....”
[SOURCE: http://www.studymode.com/essays/Philippine-Writ-Of-Amparo-Definition-And-763231.html]

Remember the real reason for the arrest. It was reported that the real reason for the arrest was “the BI charged him with violating Section 69 of Republic Act 2711 or the Revised Administrative Code as his visa had already expired.” Because of this, Ja was arrested and detained, and threatened to be immediately be deported to South Korea. Thus, Ja asked the lower court in Manila to issue a “writ of amparo” or he asked the lower court for “remedy for the protection of right to life, liberty and personal security” against the BI. The lower court decided in favor of Ja:

“The following day, Ja asked the Manila court to issue a writ of amparo and temporary protection order against the BI. Gallegos heard the petition on the same day and ruled in the Korean’s favor.”  
[SOURCE: http://globalnation.inquirer.net/100715/sc-stops-release-of-wanted-south-korean/]

On January 28, the lower court ordered the Bi to transfer the cutody of Ja Hoon Ku to Richard Gordon and the Philippine National Red Cross:

“The lower court last Jan. 28 ordered Ku’s release to the Philippine National Red Cross (PRC) chair Richard Gordon and for the PNP to extend protection to Ku’s family…”
[SOURCE: http://globalnation.inquirer.net/98476/sc-stops-transfer-of-korean-fugitive/]

Take note that the Manila court ordered the BI that Ja be released to the PNRC chair Richard Gordon. PNRC requested the lower court that the custody of Ja be transferred from BI to PNRC. If the order was followed, thus PNRC will be the “caretaker” of Ja and his family as they wait the decision of the court regarding his deportation case. If this took place, does this mean that PNRC is ‘harboring a criminal”?  No. If PNRC will be given Ja’s custody, it doesn't follows that the PNRC is “HIDING a person convicted of a crime” or “HIDING a person accused of a crime,” but a “caretaker” until the high court made a decision on his deportation case.

On the following day, 29 January 2014, the lower court again ordered the BI to release Ja to Philippine National Police (PNP). In response, the BI took the case to the high court, which issued on February 4 a temporary restraining order (TRO):

“Last Feb. 4, the high court already issued a restraining order against Gallegos and ruled that Ja Hoon Ku should stay under the Bureau of Immigration’s custody.”  
[SOURCE: http://globalnation.inquirer.net/100715/sc-stops-release-of-wanted-south-korean/]

The high court issued a TRO to lower court’s order “until further order”:

"The Court issued a TRO enjoining the enforcement of the two orders of the RTC until further orders. It also directed the BI to retain custody of the private respondent Ja Hoon Ku," said SC Public Information Office chief and spokesman Theodore Te in a media briefing.”
[SOURCE: www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/347113/news/metromanila/sc-stops-korean-national-s-transfer-to-pnp]

WHAT ABOUT MALACANAN?

The President of the Philippines or the executive branch of the government has the “power to countermand decisions of the Board of Commissioners of the BI upon dismissing Ja’s plea:

“After being arrested by the immigration authorities, Ja was supposed to be exiled to Korea.

“The CA quoted Section 10 of the Administrative Code of 1987, Book III, stating the president's power to countermand decisions of the Board of Commissioners of the BI upon dismissing Ja’s plea.”  
[SOURCE: http://m.philstar.com/headlines/show/2bd771eeeb8bd1a9fa05cff1a003127d]

The INC detractors accusing the Church of influencing Malacanan regarding Ja’s case. Take note that the president has the power to countermand decisions of the Board of Commissioners of the BI upon dismissing Ja’s plea. Did the INC influence Malacanan to countermand the decision of BI regarding Ja’s case?

“Ja, a former plant manager of Phildip Korea Co. Ltd., became a business partner of San Jose Builders, Inc. in the Philippines. He was arrested by the Bureau of Immigration (BI) but was later released prior to his deportation to his home country. The report said Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa issued an order to grant Ja temporary liberty as he awaits the court's ruling on his appeal for the deportation case. Ja, who converted to Iglesia ni Cristo rom being a Korean Christian Church member, was reportedly entrusted to his co-INC members.”
[SOURCE: http://m.philstar.com/headlines/show/2bd771eeeb8bd1a9fa05cff1a003127d]

The Church never influence the Court nor Malacanan for Ja’s case. What the Church asked was to be the “caretaker” of Ja Hoon Ku as he waits the final decision of the Supereme Court regarding his deportation case.

“HARBORING A CRIMINAL”?

Remember that Manila RTC branch 47 issued a “writ of amparo” for Ja Hoon Ku and ordering the BI to transfer the custody of Ja to the Philippine National Red Cross? This did not take place because of a TRO from the Supreme Court. But, this proves that there is no irregularities, nor a criminal offense will be committed if Ja was entrusted to a group like PNRC. Although Malacanan has the power to counterdemand the decision of the BI regarding Ja’s case, the President has the power to dismiss Ja’s case, but instead, Ja was temporarily entrusted to the INC and waited the decision of the Supreme Court regarding Ja’s case:

“The CA quoted Section 10 of the Administrative Code of 1987, Book III, stating the president's power to countermand decisions of the Board of Commissioners of the BI upon dismissing Ja’s plea.

“In this case, the summary deportation order in question has become final and executory, since it was not countermanded by the president within 30 days from promulgation," the CA said.

“CA said that the summary deportation order was issued on Jan. 16, 2014, while the order denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration was issued on Jan. 23, 2014.

"There was no order by the president countermanding or reversing said orders within the 30-day period...”
[SOURCE: http://m.philstar.com/headlines/show/2bd771eeeb8bd1a9fa05cff1a003127d]

 Dud INC committed the offense of “harboring a criminal” because of this? “Harboring a criminal” means “hiding another person wanted by law.” First of all, the Church did not HIDE Ja Hoon Ku; and secondly, it was the law (the government) who entrusted Ja to the Church. INC became the “caretaker” of Ja Hoon Ku as he waits the final decision of the Supreme Court regarding his case.

Thus, let us not be judgmental. There are no irregularities or anomalies committed, and no law was broken when Ja was temporarily entrusted to the INC as he waits the final decision of the Supreme Court regarding his case.

PRISTINE TRUTH

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

ISANGBUKAS NA LIHAM SA MGA KUMAKALABAN SA PAMAMAHALA

THESTORY OF THE COFFEE TABLE BOOKS?

TAXEVASION CASE IN JAPAN?

 

RESPONSE SA “PAGLILINAW SA TAX EVASION CASE NG INC SA JAPAN”

 

SINOANG NAGSISINUNGALING AT SINO ANG NAGSSABI NG TOTOO

THEHUMBLE HOUSE OF WORSHIP ISSUE

THECASE OF JA HOON KU

THETRUTH ABOUT SCENIC, SOUTH DAKOTA

THE UNEXPLAINED WEALTH?

STILL NO CONCRETE EVIDENCESM NO BAK ACCOUNTS, NO DUMMY ACCOUNTSM NO MANSION, NO CONDO, NO ONLINE ACCOUNTS, NO MONEY TRAILS, NO PAPER TRAILS

ANGPAGLAPASTANGAN NILA SA BANAL NA ORDENASYON

THEFORT VICTORIA ANOMALY?

SOMEPROPERTIES OF THE CHURCH AS SOLD. SO WHAT?

THANKYOU AE FOR CONFIRMING WHAT WE SAY IS TRUE

VALIDOBA ANG KANILANG AKUSASYON?

VALIDOBA ANG KANILANG EBIDENSIYA?

SINOTALAGA ANG NASA LIKOD NG MGA KUMAKALABAN SA PAMAMAHALA NG IGLESIA?