Rubi v.

Provincial Board of Mindoro

Malcolm, J. | GR No. L-14078 | March 7, 1919

Doctrine:
“Sanctioned by immemorial practice” is an exception to the general rule against delegation of
legislative power. 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.

Facts:
 This is an application for habeas corpus in favor of Rubi and other Manguianes of the
Province of Mindoro.
 It is alleged that the Manguianes 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.
 SolGen alleges that:
o The provincial board of Mindoro adopted resolution No. 25 which:
 orders the Mangyans to live in one place in order to make a permanent
settlement.
 Authorizes the provincial governor of any province w/ non-Christian
inhabitants to direct such inhabitants to live on sites on unoccupied public
lands to be selected by the provincial governor and approved by the
provincial board. [the place is called sitio of Tigbao on Lake Naujan]
 That under the Administrative Code, 800 hectares of public land on said
sitio was selected as site for permanent settlement of Mangyanes in
Mindoro
o Such resolution was approved by the Secretary of Interior
o So the Provincial Board of Mindoro issued EO 2 which contains:
 Site of Mangyanes settlement in sitio of Tigbao on Lake Naujan
 All Mangyans shall take up habitation in said sitio
 Any Mangyan who refuses shall, upon conviction, be imprisoned (not
exceeding 60 days)
o Such resolution/EO was necessary for the protection of the Mangyanes, protection
of the forests, to introduce civilized customs among them
o Rubi and other Mangyanes living in his rancheria were not able to comply with the
EO, thus, they were imprisoned.

 Petitioners Rubi, et al. are now challenging the said sections of the Administrative Code
(Sec. 2145, which authorizes the establishment of “non-Christian” sites to be selected by
provincial governor, and Sec. 2759 of the same code which provides for the punishment
of the Mangyanes who fail to comply w/ appointed habitation)

There is a very long discussion on the history of the laws which relate to the issue in this case.
Below’s a quick summary:

Before occupation of US:

Law I: authorize “indios” to be reduced into “poblaciones” communities.
Law VIII: formation of “reducciones”. [reducciones are settlements created by Spanish rulers, as
a relocation site for native inhabitants (indios) of their colonies.]
Law IX, XIII, XV: rules governing the reducciones
Law XXI: there should be no spaniards, “negroes”, mestizos and “mulatoes” in the reducciones.

After occupation of US:

Organic Law: uncivilized tribes should be subjected to wise and firm regulation and constant and
active effort should be exercised to prevent barbarous practices and introduce civilized customs.

Statute Law:
Act. No. 547 - An act providing for the establishment of local civil governments for the Manguianes
in the province of Mindoro

Issues:
1. (Relevant) W/N said provision of the Administrative Code (which confers authority to the
Province of Mindoro, to be exercised by the provincial governor and provincial board)
constitutes undue delegation of legislative powers. – NO
2. W/N there is religious discrimination - NO
3. W/N Section 2145 of the Admin Code deprives a person of his liberty of abode - NO

Ruling:

1.

 Sanctioned by immemorial practice, the central legislative body is permitted to delegate

legislative powers to local authorities.
 The Philippine Legislature has 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.
2.
  The term "non-Christian" refers to natives of the Philippines Islands of a low grade of
civilization
 Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917, does not discriminate between
individuals on account of religious differences.

3.
 Section 2145 of the Administrative Code does not deprive a person of his liberty without
due process of law and does not deny to him the equal protection of the laws, and that
confinement in reservations in accordance with said section does not constitute slavery
and involuntary servitude. The court further ruled that section 2145 of the Administrative
Code is a legitimate exertion of the police power and thus constitutional.
 Petitioners are not unlawfully imprisoned or restrained of their liberty. Habeas corpus can,
therefore, not issue.
 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.
 The public policy of the Government of the Philippine Islands is shaped with a view to
benefit the Filipino people as a whole. The Manguianes, in order to fulfill this governmental
policy, must be confined for a time, as we have said, for their own good and the good of
the country.