EN BANC

G.R. No. L-14078

March 7, 1919
RUBI, ET AL. (manguianes), plaintiffs,
vs.
THE PROVINCIAL BOARD OF MINDORO, defendant.
D. R. Williams & Filemon Sotto for plaintiff.
Office of the Solicitor-General Paredes for defendant.
MALCOLM, J.:
Facts: The provincial board of Mindoro adopted resolution No. 25 wherein
non-Christian inhabitants (uncivilized tribes) will be directed to take up
their habitation on sites on unoccupied public lands. 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 providing that said reservation homestead applications
are previously recommended by the provincial governor.
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 from the reservation.
Issue: Whether or Not Section 2145 of the Administrative Code deprive a
person of his liberty pf abode. Thus, WON 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 of abode 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. Section 2145 of the Administrative
Code of 1917 is constitutional.
Assigned as reasons for the action: (1) 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.
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.
Liberty regulated by law": Implied in the term is restraint by law for the
good of the individual and for the greater good of the peace and order of
society and the general well-being. No man can do exactly as he pleases.
None of the rights of the citizen can be taken away except bydue process of
law.
Therefore, petitioners are not unlawfully imprisoned or restrained of their
liberty. Habeas corpus can, therefore, not issue