Rubi v.

Provincial Board of Mindoro Case: Petition for habeas corpus in favor of Rubi and other Manguianes of the Province of Mindoro. It is alleged that the Maguianes are being illegally deprived of their liberty by the provincial officials of that province. Rubi and his companions are said to be held on the reservation established at Tigbao, Mindoro, against their will, and one Dabalos is said to be held under the custody of the provincial sheriff in the prison at Calapan for having run away form the reservation. Facts: The provincial governor of Mindoro and the provincial board thereof directed the Manguianes in question to take up their habitation in Tigbao, a site on the shore of Lake Naujan, selected by the provincial governor and approved by the provincial board. The action was taken in accordance with section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917, and was duly approved by the Secretary of the Interior as required by said action. Petitioners, however, challenge the validity of this section of the Administrative Code Resolution No. 25 adopted by the provincial board pursuant to Sec.2145. Stipulates the necessity to gather the Manguianes in a reservation area. Section 2145 of Act No. 2711 (Administrative Code of 1917) Establishment of non-Christians upon sites selected by provincial governor Section 2759 of the same Code Refusal of a non-Christian to take up appointed habitation (penalty) ISSUES: Main Issue: WON the Manguinaes are illegally held on account of the unconstitutionality of the law which authorized their captivity and therefore a writ of habeas corpus should be granted. Sub-issues: 1.) Whether or Not Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917 is constitutional. 2.) Whether or Not Section 2145 of the Administrative Code deprive a person of his liberty without due process of law. HELD/RATIO: NO. Writ not granted. Issue no.1: Constitutionality of Sec. 2145 1) There was a valid delegation of legislative power. a. What cannot be delegated is the power to make laws but the legislature can confer authority as to its execution. This delegation is valid and can be conferred to the executive department or official. b. Case at bar = Sec. 2145 merely confers to the governor the power to execute the law 2) The law does not discriminate a particular religion a. The court discussed in the case the history of the term non -Christians. The term does not refer to religion (or lack thereof) but to natives of the Philippine Island of a law grade civilization.1 Issue No.2: Due Process and Sec. 2145 Concept of due process of laws 1.) The law provides for the rights of the citizens a. Jones Law provides That no law shall be enacted in said Islands which shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or deny to any person therein the equal protection of the laws." 1. Liberty - Civil Liberty may be said to mean that measure of freedom which may be enjoyed in a civilized community, consistently with the peaceful enjoyment of like freedom in others. The right to Liberty guaranteed by the Constitution includes the right to exist and the right to be free from arbitrary personal restraint or servitude. 2. In general, it may be said that Liberty means the opportunity to do those things which are ordinarily done by free men b. The liberty that the law speaks of, like all the other rights, is regulated 2.) Rights can be taken away but not without the due process of laws i. "Due process of law" means simply . . . "first, that there shall be a law prescribed in harmony with the general powers of the legislative department of the Government; second, that this law shall be reasonable in its operation; third, that it shall be enforced according to the regular methods of procedure prescribed; and fourth, that it shall be applicable alike to all the citizens of the state or to all of a class." ii. The pledge that no person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws is not infringed by a statute which is applicable to all of a class. The classification must have a reasonable basis and cannot be purely arbitrary in nature. Legislative intent of Sec. 2145 and Resolution No. 25 Basically, the law is pursuant to the objective of the Government to civilize these people because if they remain as they are, they are a burden to the state; either they are a threat to the lives and properties of the civilized people or they are prone to abuse/slavery by the educated ones. Reasons set forth in the preamble: (1) The failure of former attempts for the advancement of the non-Christian people of the province; and (2) the only successfully method for educating the Manguianes was to oblige them to live in a permanent settlement. The Solicitor-General adds the following; (3) The protection of the Manguianes; (4) the protection of the public forests in which they roam; (5) the necessity of introducing civilized customs among the Manguianes. Secretary of the Interior: To permit them to live a wayfaring life will ultimately result in a burden to the state and on account of their ignorance, they will commit crimes and make depredation, or if not they will be subject to involuntary servitude by those who may want to abuse them.
1 HISTORY (of the non-Christians) A. Before Acquisition of the Phil. by the US The Spaniards introduced the idea of gathering non-christians in one place to civilize them as they were deemed as a backward race. In implementing this concept, they have established laws to govern all indios, provincial authorities to implement the said laws, armed-forces to protect the new towns and punish rebellious indios. B. After Acquisition of the Phil. by the US Philippine organic law recognized a dividing line between the territory not inhabited by Moros or other non-Christian tribes, and the territory which is inhabited by Moros or other non-Christian tribes. There were different laws denote an anxious regard for the welfare of the non-Christian inhabitants of the Philippines and a settled and consistent practice with reference to the methods to be followed for their advancement. The term non-Christian refers not to religious belief, but, in a way, to geogra phical area, and, more directly, to natives of the Philippine Islands of a low grade of civilization, usually living in tribal relationship apart from settled communities.

Due Process and Sec. 2145 (and/or Res. 25) 1) The non-Christians do not have the right conception of liberty a. There is no doubt in my mind that this people a right conception of liberty and does not practice liberty in a rightful way. They understand liberty as the right to do anything they will going from one place to another in the mountains, burning and destroying forests and making illegal caigins thereon. b. Not knowing what true liberty is and not practising the same rightfully, how can they allege that they are being deprived thereof without due process of law? 2) The guarantee of due process does not apply to non-Christians a. But does the Constitutional guaranty that 'no person shall be deprived of his liberty without due process of law' apply to a class of persons who do not have a correct idea of what liberty is and do not practise liberty in a rightful way? To say that it does will mean to sanction and defend an erroneous idea of such class of persons as to what liberty is. It will mean, in the case at bar, that the Government should not adopt any measures looking to the welfare and advancement of the class of persons in question. It will mean that this people should be let along in the mountains and in a permanent state of savagery without even the remotest hope of coming to understand liberty in its true and noble sense. 3) The non-application of the due process guaranty to them is for public welfare and also their own benefit a. Shall we, after expending sweat, treasure, and even blood only to redeem this people from the claws of ignorance and superstition, now willingly retire because there has been erroneously invoked in their favor that Constitutional guaranty that no person shall be deprived of his liberty without due process of law? To allow them to successfully invoke that Constitutional guaranty at this time will leave the Government without recourse to pursue the works of civilizing them and making them useful citizens. They will thus left in a permanent state of savagery and become a vulnerable point to attack by those who doubt, nay challenge, the ability of the nation to deal with our backward brothers. b. In short, everything is being done from them in order that their advancement in civilization and material prosperity may be assured. Certainly their living together in Tigbao does not make them slaves or put them in a condition compelled to do services for another. They do not work for anybody but for themselves. There is, therefore, no involuntary servitude. Conclusion The right to liberty is not absolute The remedy for any oppressed Manguian is to seek for the officials removal from office The government has the power to restrain freedom of citizens to some extent Further, one cannot hold that the liberty of the citizen is unduly interfered without when the degree of civilization of the Manguianes is considered. They are restrained for their own good and the general good of the Philippines. Nor can one say that due process of law has not been followed. To go back to our definition of due process of law and equal protection of the law, there exists a law ; the law seems to be reasonable; it is enforced according to the regular methods of procedure prescribed; and it applies alike to all of a class. Action pursuant to section 2145 of the Administrative Code does not deprive a person of his liberty without due process of law and does not deny to him the equal protection of the laws, and that confinement in reservations in accordance with said section does not constitute slavery and involuntary servitude. We are further of the opinion that section 2145 of the Administrative Code is a legitimate exertion of the police power, somewhat analogous to the Indian policy of the United States. Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917 is constitutional. Petitioners are not unlawfully imprisoned or restrained of their liberty. Habeas corpus can, therefore, not issue. This is the true ruling of the court. Costs shall be taxes against petitioners. So ordered.