Rubi v Provincial Board of Mindoro HELD/RATIO:
GR NO. L-14078
March 7, 1919
By:
Topic: Due Process of Law – (1) There shall be a law prescribed in harmony with the
general powers of the legislative department; (2) This law shall be reasonable in its
operation; (3) It shall be enforced according to the regular methods of procedure
prescribed; and (4) It shall be applicable to all the citizens of the state or to all of a
class.
Petitioners: Rubi, Mangyans
Respondents: Provincial Board of Mindoro
Ponente: Malcolm, J.
FACTS:
 Rubi and the Manguianes (Mangyans) who are living in the province of
Mindoro were ordered by the provincial governor to move from their
current residence of their native habitat to a reservation in Tigbao,
Mindoro.
 They were ordered to remain in Tigbao or be punished by imprisonment
if they escaped the reservation.
 Additionally, with the Mangyan’s social condition in mind, the governor
intended the group to be cultivated in the reservation since they are a
non-Christian tribe who were considered to be of very low culture.
 Dabalos, one of the Mangyans residing in the reservation, escaped but
was eventually caught and imprisoned at Calapan due to violating the
provincial governor’s order.
 Hence, Rubi and the other Mangyans of Mindoro, alleging that the
resolution brought forth by the Provincial Board of Mindoro against the
Mangyans illegally robbed and deprived them of their liberty, made an
application for habeas corpus on behalf.
 Sec. 2145 of the Administrative Code was challenged by Rubi et. al.
 Sec 2145 of the AC: 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:
W/N Sec. 2145, through the execution of the law by the Provincial Board of
Mindoro, robbed the Mangyans of their liberty?
NO – The SC, by a vote of 4 to 5, sustained the constitutionality of Sec. 2145 by
reason of the doctrine of necessity. The doctrine explains that the provincial
governor is in the best position to whether or not he/she should execute the law in
his jurisdiction. It is optional for the provincial governor to execute the law as
circumstance may arise. It is necessary to give this discretion to the provincial
governor. The legislature may make decisions of executive departments of
subordinate official thereof, to whom it has committed the execution of certain
acts, final on question of facts.
Additionally, the term “non-Christian” should not be given a literal meaning or
religious signification since it was intended to relate to degrees of civilization. The
term refers to the natives of the Philippine Islands of a low grade of civilization.
In this case, the Mangyans were being transferred in the reservation to promote
peace and to arrest their seminomadic lifestyle. This will ultimately settle them
down where they can adapt to the changing times.
SC held that the provincial board was neither discriminatory nor a class legislation.
The Court explains, “One cannot hold that the liberty of the citizen is unduly
interfered with when the degree of civilization of the Mangyans is considered. They
are restrained for their own good and the general good of the PH. Nor can one say
that the due process of law has not been followed. To go back to our definition of
due process of law and equal protection of the laws, 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.”
We are of the opinion that 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.