Villavicencio vs Lukban G.R. No. 14639 March 25,1919

Republicanism is manifested by the government of laws and not of men. Araullo, J. dissenting in part. (Proper transmittal of the same to the fiscal of the city of Manila and to the provincial fiscal of Davao, both the latter shall present the corresponding informations for the prosecution and punishment of the crimes which have been committed on the occasion when the illegal detention of the women was carried into effect by Mayor Justo Lukban of the city of Manila and Chief of Police Anton Hohmann, and also of those crimes committed by reason of the same detention and while the women were in Davao.)

The mayor of Manila (Lukban) had been motivated by his desire to protect the morals and health of the people when he "deported" 170 prostitutes from Manila to Davao. The SC condemn his act, there being no showing that it had been authorized by any law or even an ordinance.

Villavicencio vs Lukban G.R. No. 14639 March 25,1919

Ponente: Malcolm, J.

Summary:

The Mayor of City of Manila ordered deportation of 170 women, from Manila to Davao. Some or most of them were ill refute and/or prostitutes. The petitioners applied for writ of habeas corpus. In granting the petition for the issuance of the writ, the SC upheld the right of these women, despite having ill reputation, to liberty of abode and travel.

Doctrine:

[In relation to constitutional right to liberty and travel of the prostitutes, the SC explained:] "These women despite their being in a sense lepers of society are nevertheless not chattels but Philippine citizens protected by the same constitutional guaranties as are other citizens."

Facts:

The Mayor of the city of Manila ordered the segregated district for women of ill repute. The women were kept confined to their houses in the district by the police.

In one midnight, the police, acting pursuant to orders from the chief of police, Anton Hohmann and the Mayor of the city of Manila, Justo Lukban, descended upon the houses, hustled some 170 inmates into patrol wagons, and placed them aboard the steamers that awaited their arrival. The women were given no opportunity to collect their belongings, and apparently were under the impression that they were being taken to a police station for an investigation. They had no knowledge that they were destined for a life in Mindanao. They had not been asked if they wished to depart from that region and had neither directly nor indirectly given their consent to the deportation.

The vessels reached their destination at Davao where the women were landed and receipted for as laborers.

The friends of the victim filed a case for issuance of habeas corpus to a member of the Supreme Court. 

Issues Ratio:

Whether or not, the writ [of habeas corpus] should be granted.

The court awarded the writ, that directed Justo Lukban, Mayor of the city of Manila, Anton Hohmann, chief of police of the city of Manila, Francisco Sales, governor of the province of Davao, and Feliciano Ynigo, an hacendero of Davao, to bring before the court the persons therein named, alleged to be deprived of their liberty.

According to the Supreme Court, there is no law that justifies the action of the respondent in deporting the women of ill refute to Davao. In upholding the right of the victims on liberty to abode and travel, the SC explained that: these women despite their being in a sense lepers of society are nevertheless not chattels but Philippine citizens protected by the same constitutional guaranties as are other citizens.

 

Dispositive:

Writ granted.

Other Notes:

Although the case was decided prior to the enactment of 1987 Constitution, the case remains to provide a good basis for discussions of the constitutional right to travel and abode.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

LAWYERS LEAGUE FOR A BETTER PHILIPPINES vs. AQUINO G.R. No. 73748

  [President Corazon C. Aquino] was installed by direct sovereignty, the people. The people have accepted the Aquino government which is in effective control of the entire country. It is not merely a de facto government but in fact and law a je jure government; and the community of nations has recognized the legitimacy of the new government. LAWYERS LEAGUE FOR A BETTER PHILIPPINES vs. AQUINO (G.R. No. 73748 - May 22, 1986) (There is no "Full-Text" of this case. This is a Minute Resolution made by the SC.) Minute Resolutions EN BANC   SIRS/MESDAMES: Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court MAY 22, 1986. In G.R. No. 73748, Lawyers League for a Better Philippines vs. President Corazon C. Aquino, et al .; G.R. No. 73972, People's Crusade for Supremacy of the Constitution vs. Mrs. Cory Aquino, et al ., and G.R. No. 73990, Councilor Clifton U. Ganay vs. Corazon C. Aquino, et al ., the legitimacy of the government of President Aquin...
Read more

Cruz vs Secretary of DENR GR. No. 135385, Dec. 6, 2000

Cruz vs Secretary of DENR Natural Resources and Environmental Law; Constitutional Law; IPRA; Regalian Doctrine   GR. No. 135385, Dec. 6, 2000   FACTS : Petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa filed a suit for prohibition and mandamus as citizens and taxpayers, assailing the constitutionality of certain provisions of Republic Act No. 8371, otherwise known as the Indigenous People’s Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA) and its implementing rules and regulations (IRR). The petitioners assail certain provisions of the IPRA and its IRR on the ground that these amount to an unlawful deprivation of the State’s ownership over lands of the public domain as well as minerals and other natural resources therein, in violation of the regalian doctrine embodied in section 2, Article XII of the Constitution.   ISSUE : Do the provisions of IPRA contravene the Constitution?   HELD : No, the provisions of IPRA do not contravene the Constitution. Examining the IPRA, there...
Read more

Francisco v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, November 10, 2003,

V erba legis , that is, wherever possible, the words used in the Constitution must be given their  ordinary meaning  except where technical terms are employed. ERNESTO B. FRANCISCO, JR. vs. THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES G.R. No. 160261. November 10, 2003. http://lapispapelatereyser.blogspot.com/2012/10/case-digest_9528.html FACTS: On July 22, 2002, the House of Representatives adopted a Resolution, sponsored by Representative Felix William D. Fuentebella, which directed the Committee on Justice "to conduct an investigation, in aid of legislation, on the manner of disbursements and expenditures by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF)."   On June 2, 2003, former President Joseph E. Estrada filed an impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr. and seven Associate Justices of this Court for "culpable violation of the Constitution, betrayal of the public trust and other high crimes." The complaint ...
Read more