Again this is a landmark case. In this classic case of Villavicencio vs. Lukban, the Supreme Court upheld the right of Filipino citizens to Freedom of Domicile.
Brace yourselves. Here's the facts:
Brace yourselves. Here's the facts:
Justo Lukban was then the Mayor of the City of Manila. Problem with this dude was he ordered the deportation of 170 agogo dancers and prostitutes to Davao. Which was then not a city yet I guess. This case is dated 1919 so take note, the President wasn't even born yet. Said women were inmates of the houses of prostitution situated in Gardenia Street, in the district of Sampaloc.
(So there was a brothel house in that area during those days)
(So there was a brothel house in that area during those days)
The mayor's reason for doing this was to preserve the morals of the people of Manila.
(This guy was probably the biggest hypocrite there ever was during those early days)
He claimed that the prostitutes were sent to Davao, purportedly, to work for an haciendero named Feliciano Ynigo. He had the prostitutes confined in houses meaning the one in Gardenia Street before boarding them, at the dead of night, in two boats bound for Davao. (If Digong was alive and kicking during those days, this dodgy mayor would have really gonna get it). The women were under the assumption that they were being transported to another police station while Ynigo, the haciendero from Davao, had no idea that the women being sent to work for him were actually prostitutes.
(This guy was probably the biggest hypocrite there ever was during those early days)
He claimed that the prostitutes were sent to Davao, purportedly, to work for an haciendero named Feliciano Ynigo. He had the prostitutes confined in houses meaning the one in Gardenia Street before boarding them, at the dead of night, in two boats bound for Davao. (If Digong was alive and kicking during those days, this dodgy mayor would have really gonna get it). The women were under the assumption that they were being transported to another police station while Ynigo, the haciendero from Davao, had no idea that the women being sent to work for him were actually prostitutes.
(Poor guy. Imagine all the commotion starting to happen in your place and you're still fuckin' totally clueless)
So the families of the prostitutes came forward to file charges against 3 people. Lukban. Anton Hohmann, who was the Chief of Police who rounded and took custody of the the dancers and prostitutes, and Francisco Sales, the Governor of Davao.
(Of course there's a considered conspiracy between these three)
They prayed for a WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS to be issued against the respondents to compel them to bring back the 170 women who were deported to Mindanao against their knowledge and will. During the trial, it came out that, indeed, the women were deported without their consent. Infact there was no law or order authorizing Lukban's deportation of the 170 prostitutes.
(So in effect, Lukban forcibly assigned them a new domicile. Obviously the guy doesn't know anything about the law and fundamental human rights)
Liberty of abode was raised here versus the power of the executive of the Municipality in deporting the women without their knowledge and consent in his capacity as Mayor.
(Of course there's a considered conspiracy between these three)
They prayed for a WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS to be issued against the respondents to compel them to bring back the 170 women who were deported to Mindanao against their knowledge and will. During the trial, it came out that, indeed, the women were deported without their consent. Infact there was no law or order authorizing Lukban's deportation of the 170 prostitutes.
(So in effect, Lukban forcibly assigned them a new domicile. Obviously the guy doesn't know anything about the law and fundamental human rights)
Liberty of abode was raised here versus the power of the executive of the Municipality in deporting the women without their knowledge and consent in his capacity as Mayor.
You know what the mayor did? He got technical. The guy moved for the dismissal of the case stating that those women were already out of his jurisdiction and that, it should be filed in the city of Davao instead. (what a bastard)
The trial court ruled in favor of the petitioners with the instructions to the respondents giving them 3 options (1) Produce the bodies of the persons according to the command of the writ. (2) Show by affidavit that on account of sickness or infirmity those persons (170 women subject of the writ of habeas corpus) could not safely be brought before the court, or (3) Present affidavits to show that the parties in question or their attorney waived the right to be present.
(So the mayor resorted to technicalities in his defense and he was slapped by the court through technicalities as well giving him a dose of his own medicine)
The three respondents hence appealed to the Supreme Court.
The three respondents hence appealed to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE:
Whether we are a government of laws or a government of men? Was the act of the mayor in deporting these women valid?
RULING:
The Supreme Court said "We are clearly a government of laws". Lukban committed grave abuse of discretion by deporting the prostitutes to a new domicile against their will.
There is no law expressly authorizing his action. On the contrary, there is a law punishing public officials, not expressly authorized by law or regulation, who compels any person to change his residence.
Furthermore, the prostitutes are still, as citizens of the Philippines, entitled to the same rights, as stipulated in the Bill of Rights, as every other citizen. Their choice of profession should not be a cause for discrimination. It may make some, like Lukban, quite uncomfortable but it does not authorize anyone to compel said prostitutes to isolate themselves from the rest of the human race. These women have been deprived of their liberty by being exiled to Davao without even being given the opportunity to collect their belongings or, worse,without even consenting to being transported to Mindanao. For this, Lukban et al must be severely punished.
Court reasoned further that if the chief executive of any municipality in the Philippines could forcibly and illegally take a private citizen and place him beyond the boundaries of the municipality, and then, when called upon to defend his official action, could calmly fold his hands and claim that the person was under no restraint and that he, the official, had no jurisdiction over this other municipality, then the more the writ of habeas corpus should be enforced.
Even if the party to whom the writ is addressed has illegally parted with the custody of a person before the application for the writ is no reason why the writ should not issue. If the mayor and the chief of police, acting under no authority of law, could deport these women from the city of Manila to Davao, the same officials must necessarily have the same means to return them from Davao to Manila.
The Supreme Court said that the women were not chattels but Filipino citizens who had the fundamental right not to be forced to change their place of residence.
The then mayor of Manila Justo Lukban loses this case.
