G.R. No.

L-14078 March 7, 1919

RUBI, ET AL. (manguianes), plaintiffs,
vs.
THE PROVINCIAL BOARD OF MINDORO, defendant.
This is an application for habeas corpus in favor of Rubi and other Manguianes of the Province of
Mindoro. It is alleged that the Maguianes 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.
It divided the Philippine Islands into twelve senatorial districts, the twelfth district to be composed of
the Mountain Province, Baguio, Nueva Vizcaya, and the Department of Mindanao and Sulu.
The idea that the term "non-Christian" is intended to relate to degree of civilization, is substantiated by
reference to legislative, judicial, and executive authority.

Issue whether the Maguines are being illegally deprived of their liberty by the provincial officials of
that provinnce by means of statutes

Ruling:

Liberty includes the right of the citizens to be free to use his faculties in all lawful ways; to live an
work where he will;

It is this: "Liberty" as understood in democracies, is not license; it is "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. Every man
must renounce unbridled license. The right of the individual is necessarily subject to reasonable
restraint by general law for the common good. Whenever and wherever the natural rights of citizen
would, if exercises without restraint, deprive other citizens of rights which are also and equally natural,
such assumed rights must yield to the regulation of law. The Liberty of the citizens may be restrained in
the interest of the public health, or of the public order and safety, or otherwise within the proper scope
of the police power.

The pledge that no person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws is not infringed by a statute
which is applicable to all of a class. The classification must have a reasonable basis and cannot be
purely arbitrary in nature.

G.R. No. L-14639 March 25, 1919

ZACARIAS VILLAVICENCIO, ET AL., petitioners,
vs.
JUSTO LUKBAN, ET AL., respondents.

the Mayor of the city of Manila, Justo Lukban, for the best of all reasons, to exterminate vice, ordered
the segregated district for women of ill repute
At any rate, about midnight of October 25, the police, acting pursuant to orders from the chief of
police, Anton Hohmann and the Mayor of the city of Manila, Justo Lukban, descended upon the
houses, hustled some 170 inmates into patrol wagons, and placed them aboard the steamers that
awaited their arrival. The women were given no opportunity to collect their belongings, and apparently
were under the impression that they were being taken to a police station for an investigation. They had
no knowledge that they were destined for a life in Mindanao. They had not been asked if they wished to
depart from that region and had neither directly nor indirectly given their consent to the deportation.

Ruling:

under the american constitutiona system. liberty of abode is a principle so deeply imbedded in
jurisprudence and considered so elementary in nature as not even to require a constitutional sanction.

to change their domicile from Manila to another locality. On the contrary, Philippine penal law
specifically punishes any public officer who, not being expressly authorized by law or regulation,
compels any person to change his residence.

The writ of habeas corpus was devised and exists as a speedy and effectual remedy to relieve persons
from unlawful restraint, and as the best and only sufficient defense of personal freedom. Any further
rights of the parties are left untouched by decision on the writ, whose principal purpose is to set the
individual at liberty.

G.R. No. 27484 September 1, 1927

ANGEL LORENZO, petitioner-appellant,
vs.
THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH, respondent-appelle.

erein it was admitted that the applicant was a leper. It was, however, alleged that his confinement in the
San Lazaro Hospital in the City of Manila was in violation of his constitutional rights. The further
allegation was made that leprosy is not an infectious disease. The return of the writ stated that the leper
was confined in the San Lazaro Hospital in conformity with the provisions of section 1058 of the
Administrative Code

rulling:

Section 1058 of the Administrative Code was enacted by the legislative body in the legitimate exercise
of the police power which extends to the preservation of the public health. It was place on the statute
books in recognition of leprosy as a grave health problem. The methods provided for the control of
leprosy plainly constitute due process of law. The assumption must be that if evidence was required to
establish the necessity for the law, that it was before the legislature when the act was passed. In the case
of a statute purporting the have been enacted in the interest of the public health, all questions relating to
the determination of matters of fact are for the legislature. If there is probable basis for sustaining the
conclusion reached, its findings are not subject to judicial review.

Judicial notice will be taken of the fact that leprosy is commonly believed to be an infectious disease
tending to cause one afflicted with it to be shunned and excluded from society, and that compulsory
segregation of lepers as a means of preventing the spread of the disease of supported by high scientific
authority
G.R. No. L-53622 April 25, 1980
JOVITO R. SALONGA, petitioner,
vs.
CAPTAIN ROLANDO HERMOSO, TRAVEL PROCESSING CENTER, and GENERAL
FABIAN VER, respondents.

Facts

President Marcos made reference to martial law being instituted in accordance with law and
that the Constitution had been applied in appropriate cases. As an agency of the executive
branch, therefore, the Travel Processing Center should ever be on its guard, lest the
impression be created that such declarations amount, to paraphrase Justice Jackson, to no
more than munificent bequests in a pauper's will.

Ruling;

Nonetheless, in view of the likelihood that in the future this Court may be faced again with a
situation like the present which takes up its time and energy needlessly, it is desirable that
respondent Travel Processing Center should exercise the utmost care to avoid the impression
that certain citizens desirous of exercising their constitutional right to travel could be subjected
to inconvenience or annoyance. In the address of President and Prime Minister Ferdinand E.
Marcos before the American Newspaper Publishers Association last Tuesday April 22, 1980,
emphasized anew the respect accorded constitutional rights The freedom to travel is certainly
one of the most cherished.

the case became moot and academic as the Office of the Solicitor General, in its answer to
the petition, stated that the travel eligibility certificate was not denied and, as a matter of fact,
had been granted. Nonetheless, a brief separate opinion was filed, concurring in the
resolution, and worded thus: "Clearly this petition had assumed a moot and academic
character

G.R. No. L-62100 May 30, 1986

RICARDO L. MANOTOC, JR., petitioner,
vs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS, HONS. SERAFIN E. CAMILON and RICARDO L. PRONOVE,
JR., as Judges of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Pasig branches, THE PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, the SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMISSION, HON. EDMUNDO M.
REYES, as Commissioner of Immigration, and the Chief of the Aviation Security Command
(AVSECOM), respondents.

Petitioner Ricardo L. Manotoc, Jr., is one of the two principal stockholders of Trans-Insular
Management, Inc. and the Manotoc Securities, Inc., a stock brokerage house. Having
transferred the management of the latter into the hands of professional men, he holds no
officer-position in said business, but acts as president of the former corporation.
Ruling:
A court has the power to prohibit a person admitted to bail from leaving the Philippines. This is a necessary consequence of the nature and function of a bail
bond.

Liberty, the most important consequence of bail, albeit provisional, is indivisible. If granted at all, liberty operates as fully within as without the boundaries of the
granting state. This principle perhaps accounts for the absence of any law or jurisprudence expressly declaring that liberty under bail does not transcend the
territorial boundaries of the country.

The effect of a recognizance or bail bond, when fully executed or filed of record, and the prisoner released thereunder, is to transfer the custody of the accused
from the public officials who have him in their charge to keepers of his own selection. Such custody has been regarded merely as a continuation of the original
imprisonment. The sureties become invested with full authority over the person of the principal and have the right to prevent the principal from leaving the
state.14