RUBI VS.

PROVINCIAL BOARD OF MINDORO

[39 PHIL 660; NO. 14078; 7 MAR 1919]

Facts: The provincial board of Mindoro adopted resolution No. 25 wherein nonChristian 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 reservation providing that
said 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 form 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 nonChristian 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 SolicitorGeneral 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 by due process of law.

Therefore, petitioners are not unlawfully imprisoned or restrained of their liberty.

Habeas corpus can, therefore, not issue.