the BAR: Philippine Digested Cases

▼
Friday, August 19, 2016

Constitutional Law: RUBI VS. PROVINCIAL BOARD OF MINDORO

RUBI VS. PROVINCIAL BOARD OF MINDORO

Facts:

This is an application for habeas corpus in favor of Rubi and other Manguianes of the Province of
Mindoro. The provincial board of Mindoro adopted resolution No. 25 which states that “provincial
governor of any province in which non-Christian inhabitants (uncivilized tribes) are found is authorized,
when such a course is deemed necessary in the interest of law and order, to direct such inhabitants to
take up their habitation on sites on unoccupied public lands to be selected by him and approved by the
provincial board”. It is resolved that under section 2077 of the Administrative Code, 800 hectares of
public land in the sitio of Tigbao on Naujan Lake be selected as a site for the permanent settlement of
Mangyanes in Mindoro. Further, Mangyans may only solicit homesteads on this reservation providing
that said homestead applications are previously recommended by the provincial governor. Thereafter,
the provincial governor of Mindoro issued executive order No. 2, which says that the provincial governor
has selected a site in the sitio of Tigbao on Naujan Lake for the permanent settlement of Mangyanes in
Mindoro. In that case, pursuant to Section 2145 of the Revised Administrative Code, all the Mangyans in
the townships of Naujan and Pola and the Mangyans east of the Baco River including those in the
districts of Dulangan and Rubi's place in Calapan, were ordered to take up their habitation on the site of
Tigbao, Naujan Lake. Also, that any Mangyan who shall refuse to comply with this order shall upon
conviction be imprisoned not exceed in sixty days, in accordance with section 2759 of the revised
Administrative Code. Said resolution of the provincial board of Mindoro were claimed as necessary
measures for the protection of the Mangyanes of Mindoro as well as the protection of public forests in
which they roam, and to introduce civilized customs among them.

It appeared that Rubi and those living in his rancheria have not fixed their dwelling within the
reservation of Tigbao and are liable to be punished. It is alleged that the Manguianes 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.
Issue: Whether or Not Section 2145 of the Administrative Code deprive a person of his liberty without
due process of law. Whether or Not Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917 is constitutional.

Held:

The Court held that 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. The Court is 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. The preamble of the resolution of the
provincial board of Mindoro which set apart the Tigbao reservation, it will be read, assigned as reasons
fort the action, the following: (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. Considered purely as an exercise of
the police power, the courts cannot fairly say that the Legislature has exceeded its rightful authority. It
is, indeed, an unusual exercise of that power. But a great malady requires an equally drastic remedy.
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. None of the
rights of the citizen can be taken away except by due process of law. To constitute "due process of law,"
as has been often held, a judicial proceeding is not always necessary. In some instances, even a hearing
and notice are not requisite a rule which is especially true where much must be left to the discretion of
the administrative officers in applying a law to particular cases. The idea of the provision in question is
to unify the people of the Philippines so that they may approach the highest conception of nationality.
The public policy of the Government of the Philippine Islands is shaped with a view to benefit the
Filipino people as a whole. The Manguianes, in order to fulfill this governmental policy, must be
confined for a time, as we have said, for their own good and the good of the country.

Therefore, petitioners are not unlawfully imprisoned or restrained of their liberty. Habeas corpus can,
therefore, not issue.

Dagitab at 2:39 AM

Share

No comments:

Post a Comment

‹
›

Home

View web version

Powered by Blogger.