Monday, February 5, 2018

Rubi vs. Prov. Board of Mindoro, 39 Phil. 660 (1919)


Rubi vs. Prov. Board of Mindoro, 39 Phil. 660 (1919)

Nature: APPLICATION OF HABEAS CORPUS
Keywords: NON-CHRISTIAN, NATIVES, DELEGATED IN SPECIFIC AREAS, MADE REFERENCE TO A US CASE THAT INVOLVE AMERICAN INDIANS.

Summary: The case is an application 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 from the reservation.
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.

Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917 reads as follows:

SEC. 2145. Establishment of non-Christian upon sites selected by provincial governor. — With the prior approval of the Department Head, the provincial governor of any province in which non-Christian inhabitants 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 an approved by the provincial board.
Petitioners, however, challenge the validity of this section of the Administrative Code.

Facts: Rubi and various other Manguianes (Mangyans) in the province of Mindoro were ordered  by the provincial governor of Mindoro to remove their residence from their native habitat and to established themselves on a reservation in Tigbao, still in the province of Mindoro, and to remain there, or be punished by imprisonment if they escaped. Manguianes had been ordered to live in a reservation made to that end and for purposes of cultivation under certain plans. The Manguianes are a Non-Christian tribe who were considered to be of “very low culture”.

One of the Manguianes, a certain Dabalos, escaped from the reservation but was later caught and was placed in prison at Calapan, solely because he escaped from the reservation. An application for habeas corpus was made on behalf by Rubi and other Manguianes of the province, alleging that by virtue of the resolution of the provincial board of Mindoro creating the reservation, they had been illegally deprived of their liberty. In this case, the validity of Section 2145 of the Administrative Code, which provides:

With the prior approval of the Department Head, the provincial governor of any province in which non-Christian inhabitants 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.

Issue: Whether due process was followed in the restraint of liberty and imprisonment due to violation of Section 2145 of the Administrative Code.

Held: The provision is valid, as an exception to the general rule. The legislature is permitted to delegate legislative powers to the local authorities on matters that are of purely local concerns. Action pursuant to Section 2145 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 confinement in accordance with the said section does not constitute slavery and involuntary servitude. Therefore, petitioners are not unlawfully imprisoned or restrained of their liberty. Habeas corpus can, therefore, not issue.

Doctrine: AMERICAN DECISIONS MAY IF APPLICABLE, BE CITED IN CASES BROUGHT TO OUR COURTS FOR DECISION

No comments:

Post a Comment

Republic vs Pasig Rizal

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. PASIG RIZAL CO., INC. [ G.R. No. 213207. February 15, 2022 ] EN BANC Petitioner : Republic of the Philippine...

Popular