CASE DIGEST : Zacarias Villavicencio, et al. v. Justo Lukban, et al. G.R. No. L-14639, March 25, 1919

FACTS

The case arose when Manila Mayor Justo Lukban, in an effort to eliminate prostitution in Manila, ordered the closure of the city's segregated district for women engaged in prostitution. Without any judicial order or statutory authority, approximately 170 women were forcibly rounded up by city police, placed aboard ships, and transported to Davao under the guise of providing them employment. The deportation was carried out without their consent, without notice, and without any hearing. Their relatives and friends, unable to communicate with them, filed a petition for habeas corpus before the Supreme Court seeking their return and questioning the legality of the acts of the city officials.

The respondents argued that the petitioners had no legal personality to file the petition, that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction because the women were already in Davao, and that the women were no longer under their custody. They likewise justified their actions by claiming that the deportation was intended to suppress vice and promote public welfare. However, the Court found that the women were Philippine citizens entitled to the full protection of the law despite their occupation, and that they had been deprived of their liberty without legal process.

The Court further observed that while the government possesses police power to protect public morals and welfare, such power must always be exercised pursuant to law. It noted that existing statutes, such as Act No. 519, Act No. 899, and Section 733 of the Revised Ordinances of Manila, provided lawful methods for dealing with prostitution, while Article 211 of the Penal Code expressly penalized any public officer who, without legal authority, compels a person to change residence or banishes a person beyond a specified distance. Since no law authorized the mayor or the chief of police to deport the women, the acts complained of were illegal.

---

ISSUE

Whether Mayor Justo Lukban and other city officials had the legal authority to forcibly remove and deport the women from Manila to Davao in the exercise of police power.

Whether the petition for habeas corpus was a proper remedy despite the fact that the women were already outside Manila and the petition was filed by their relatives and friends rather than by the women themselves.

Whether the respondents should be held liable for disobeying the writs and orders issued by the Supreme Court during the proceedings.

---

HELD

The Supreme Court granted the petition for habeas corpus and held that the deportation was illegal and unconstitutional. It ruled that no law authorized the Mayor of Manila or the Chief of Police to compel Philippine citizens to leave their domicile or transfer their residence. While the State may regulate prostitution under its police power, such authority must be exercised only through laws enacted by the legislature. The Court emphasized that Article 211 of the Penal Code specifically prohibits public officers from compelling persons to change their residence without lawful authority. It likewise stressed that the liberty of abode is a fundamental right protected under constitutional principles, and even the highest executive officials cannot arbitrarily deprive citizens of such right.

The Court further held that habeas corpus was the proper remedy because the women were unlawfully restrained of their liberty. It explained that under the Code of Civil Procedure and the Code of Criminal Procedure, relatives and friends may file the petition when the detained persons are unable to do so themselves. The Supreme Court also affirmed its authority to issue the writ throughout the Philippines, regardless of where the detainees were physically located, since the purpose of the writ is the immediate protection of personal liberty against unlawful restraint.

Finally, the Court declared that no public officer is above the law, emphasizing that the Philippines is governed by a government of laws and not of men. It found Mayor Lukban guilty of contempt of court for failing to promptly obey the Court's orders directing the production of the women and imposed upon him a fine. The Court underscored that while public officials may act with good intentions, they cannot disregard statutory and constitutional limitations. Individual liberty cannot be sacrificed in the name of expediency or morality without due process of law, and courts have the duty to protect citizens against illegal governmental action.