Philippine Legal History: Relevant Jurisprudence I. Colonial Setting: Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro A.

Comprehensive Digest FACTS: Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917 provided: 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 and approved by the provincial board. Pursuant to the above law, the provincial board of Mindoro adopted Resolution No. 25 allocating 800 hectares of public land in the sitio of Tigbao on Naujan Lake as a site for the permanent settlement of Mangyanes in Mindoro. Moreover, the provincial governor issued Executive Order No. 2 directing all the Mangyans in the towns of Naujan and Pola and the Mangyans east of the Baco River including those in the districts of Dulangan and Calapan, to take up their habitation on the site of Tigbao, Naujan Lake. The Order stated further that any Mangyan who shall refuse to comply shall upon conviction be imprisoned for a period not exceeding in sixty days, in accordance with Section 2759 of the Revised Administrative Code. A petition for habeas corpus in favor of Rubi and other Manguianes of the Province of Mindoro was filed. It was alleged that the Manguianes were being illegally deprived of their liberty by the provincial officials. ISSUE/S: Whether or not the petition should be granted; a) W/N (whether or not) Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1919 was unconstitutional on the ground of invalid delegation of legislative power. b) W/N Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1919 was unconstitutional on the ground of religious discrimination. c) W/N Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1919 was unconstitutional on the ground that it denied liberty without due process of law and violated equal protection. d) W/N Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1919 was unconstitutional on the ground that it constituted slavery and involuntary servitude. e) W/N Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1919 was a valid exercise of police power. RATIO: a) Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1919 was a valid delegation oflegislative power by the Legislature. The Legislature merely conferred, uponthe provincial governor with the approval of the provincial board and the department head, discretionary authority as to its execution, to be exercised under and in pursuance of the law.

b) Since the term "non-Christian" was construed to refer to the natives with a low grade of civilization, Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1919 does not discriminate between individuals on account of religious differences. c) Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1919 did not unduly interfere with the liberty of the petitioners. Considering the degree of civilization of the Manguianes, the restraint was for their own good and the general good the Philippines. Neither did the law violate due process and equal protection since (a) the law was reasonable, (b) it was enforced according to the regular methods of procedure and (c) it applied to equally to all in the same class. d) Confinement in reservations in accordance with the said law did not constitute slavery and involuntary servitude. The purpose of the Government was evident. The Mangyans, led a nomadic life and made depredations on their more fortunate neighbors, were uneducated in the ways of civilization, and did nothing for the advancement of the Philippine Islands. What the Government wished to do by bringing than into a reservation was to gather together the children for educational purposes, and to improve the health and morals. The process of civilizing the Mangyans required that they be gathered together. Segregation really constituted protection for the Mangyans. e) It was a valid exercise of police power. The Government of the Philippine Islands has both on reason and authority the right to exercise the sovereign police power in the promotion of the general welfare and the public interest. The fundamental objective of the law was to establish friendly relations with the so-called non-Christians, and to promote their educational, agricultural, industrial, and economic development and advancement in civilization. RULING: Petitioners are not unlawfully imprisoned or restrained of their liberty. Habeas corpus cannot issue. Point to ponder: Under current socio- cultural norms, would the case be decided in the same way? B. Case Primer What is the rule of "postestas delegata"? The complete phrase is "Delegata potestas non potest delagari" which means that, "no delagated power cannot be further delegated." What is legislative power? It is the power to make laws. Can legislative power be delegated? As a general rule, legislative power is vested in the Congress and cannot be delegated. The Rubi case admits an exception to this rule. The power can be delegated to local government units. What is the term for laws made by the Congress? Statues.

What is the term for the legislation made by LGUs? Ordinances. Distinguish laws from ordinances. Laws are more authoritative than ordinances. The rule is that for an ordinance to be valid, it should not contravene with a statue or the Constitution. B. Recitation-Ready Digest: Rubi and other Manguianes were detained in a reservation for non-Christian tribes in Mindoro as ordered by the governor and the provincial board in accordance with the Administrative Code (authorizing them to do so when necessitated by law and order). Said Code is allegedly an undue undue delegation. However, discretion as to how to execute it is allowed.1 delegation upon the governor and the provincial board. The court found the allegation untenable. The rule of potestas delagata is not absolute. However, delegation of legislative powers to LGUs is sanctioned by immemorial practice (as in this case). Local officials are in the best position to know when what actions are in the interest of law and order. Discretion as to what the law shall be constitutes undue delegation. However, discretion as to how to execute it is allowed.1