Rubi vs Provincial Board of Mindoro

39 Phil. 660 – Political Law – Delegation of Powers – Liberty and due process

Rubi and various other Manguianes (Mangyans) in the province of Mindoro were ordered by the provincial governor of Mindoro to
remove their residence from their native habitat and to established themselves on a reservation in Tigbao, still in the province of
Mindoro, and to remain there, or be punished by imprisonment if they escaped. Manguianes had been ordered to live in a
reservation made to that end and for purposes of cultivation under certain plans. The Manguianes are a Non-Christian tribe who
were considered to be of “very low culture”.

One of the Manguianes, a certain Dabalos, escaped from the reservation but was later caught and was placed in prison at Calapan,
solely because he escaped from the reservation. An application for habeas corpus was made on behalf by Rubi and other
Manguianes of the province, alleging that by virtue of the resolution of the provincial board of Mindoro creating the reservation,
they had been illegally deprived of their liberty. In this case, the validity of Section 2145 of the Administrative Code, which provides:

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.

was challenged.

ISSUE: Whether or not Section 2145 of the Administrative Code constitutes undue delegation. Whether or not the Manguianes are
being deprived of their liberty.

HELD:

I. No. By a vote of five to four, the Supreme Court sustained the constitutionality of this section of the Administrative Code. Under
the doctrine of necessity, who else was in a better position to determine whether or not to execute the law but the provincial
governor. It is optional for the provincial governor to execute the law as circumstances may arise. It is necessary to give 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 questions of fact.

II. No. Among other things, the term “non-Christian” should not be given a literal meaning or a religious signification, but that it was
intended to relate to degrees of civilization. The term “non-Christian” it was said, refers not to religious belief, but in a way to
geographical area, and more directly to natives of the Philippine Islands of a low grade of civilization. In this case, the Manguianes
were being reconcentrated 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.

The Supreme Court held that the resolution of the provincial board of Mindoro was neither discriminatory nor class legislation, and
stated among other things: “. . . one cannot hold that the liberty of the citizen is unduly interfered with when the degree of
civilization of the Manguianes is considered. They are restrained for their own good and the general good of the Philippines. Nor can
one say that 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.”
Rubi vs Provincial Board of Mindoro

Constitutional Law : Article VI, Sec. 1(Legislative Power; Non-Delegation)

G.R. No. L-14078; March 7, 1919; 39 Phil 660

FACTS:

The case 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 from the reservation.

The provincial governor of Mindoro and the provincial board thereof directed the Manguianes in question to take up their
habitation in Tigbao, a site on the shore of Lake Naujan, selected by the provincial governor and approved by the provincial board.
The action was taken in accordance with section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917, and was duly approved by the Secretary
of the Interior as required by said action.

Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917 reads as follows:

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 an approved by the provincial board.

Petitioners, however, challenge the validity of this section of the Administrative Code.

ISSUE:

Does section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917 constitute an unlawful delegation of legislative power by the Philippine
Legislature to a provincial official and a department head, therefore making it unconstitutional?

HELD:

No. The Philippine Legislature has here conferred authority upon the Province of Mindoro, to be exercised by the provincial
governor and the provincial board.

In determining whether the delegation of legislative power is valid or not, the distinction is between the delegation of power to
make the law, which necessarily involves a discretion as to what it shall be, and conferring an authority or discretion as to its
execution, to be exercised under and in pursuance of the law. The first cannot be done; to the later no valid objection can be made.
Discretion may be committed by the Legislature to an executive department or official. The Legislature may make decisions of
executive departments of subordinate official thereof, to whom it has committed the execution of certain acts, final on questions of
fact. The growing tendency in the decision is to give prominence to the "necessity" of the case.

In enacting the said provision of the Administrative Code, the Legislature merely conferred upon the provincial governor, with the
approval of the provincial board and the Department Head, discretionary authority as to the execution of the law. This is necessary
since the provincial governor and the provincial board, as the official representatives of the province, are better qualified to judge
“when such as course is deemed necessary in the interest of law and order”. As officials charged with the administration of the
province and the protection of its inhabitants, they are better fitted to select sites which have the conditions most favorable for
improving the people who have the misfortune of being in a backward state.

Hence, Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917 is not an unlawful delegation of legislative power by the Philippine
Legislature to provincial official and a department head.