38. VILLAVICENCIO VS. LUKBAN 1. 7.ID.; JURISDICTION.

—It is a general rule of good practice that, to

avoid unnecessary expense and inconvenience, petitions for
habeas corpus should be presented to the nearest judge of the
[No. 14639. March 25, 1919.] Court of First Instance.
ZACARIAS VILLAVICENCIO ET AL., petitioners, vs.JUSTO LUKBAN ET AL.,
respondents. 779
1. 1.CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; RlGHT OF DOMICILE; LlBERTY; HABEAS VOL. 39, MARCH 25, 1919. 779
CORpus; CONTEMPT.—One hundred and seventy women, who Villavicencio vs. Lukban.
had lived in the segregated district for women of ill repute in the 1. 8.ID. ; ID.—The writ of habeas corpus may be granted by the
city of Manila, were by orders of the Mayor of the city of Manila Supreme Court or any judge thereof enforcible anywhere in the
and the chief of police of that city isolated from society and then Philippine Islands.
at night, without their consent and without any opportunity to
consult with friends or to defend their rights, were forcibly hustled
on board steamers for transportation to regions unknown. No law, 1. 9.ID.; ID.—Whether the writ shall be made returnable before the
order, or regulation authorized the Mayor of the city of Manila or Supreme Court or before an inferior court rests in the discretion
the chief of the police of that city to force citizens of the of the Supreme Court and is dependent on the particular
Philippine Islands to change their domicile from Manila to another circumstances.
locality. Held: That the writ of habeas corpus was properly
granted, and that the Mayor of the city of Manila who was 1. 10.ID.; RESTRAINT OF LIBERTY.—A prime specification of an
primarily responsible for the deportation, is in contempt of court application for a writ of habeas corpus is restraint of liberty. The
for his failure to comply with the order of the court. essential objects and purpose of the writ of habeas corpus is to
inquire into all manner of involuntary restraint as distinguished
1. 2.ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.—The remedies of the unhappy victims of official from voluntary, and to relieve a person therefrom if such restraint
oppression are three: (1) Civil action; (2) criminal action, and (3) is illegal. Any restraint which will preclude freedom of action is
habeas corpus. A civil action was never intended effectively and sufficient.
promptly to meet a situation in which there is restraint of liberty.
That the act may be a crime and that the person may be 1. 11.ID.; ID.—The forcible taking of these women from Manila by
proceeded against is also no bar to the institution of habeas officials of that city, who handed them over to other parties, who
corpus proceedings. Habeas corpus is the proper remedy. deposited them in a distant region, deprived these women of
freedom of locomotion just as effectively as if they had been
1. 3.ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.—These women, despite their being in a sense imprisoned. The restraint of liberty which began in Manila
lepers of society, are nevertheless not chattles, but Philippine continued until the aggrieved parties were returned to Manila and
citizens protected by the same constitutional guaranties as are released or until they freely and truly waived this right.
other citizens.
1. 12.ID.; ID.—The true principle should be that if the respondent is
1. 4.ID.; ID.—The privilege of domicile is a principle often protected within the jurisdiction of the court and has it in his power to obey
by constitutions and deeply imbedded in American jurisprudence. the order of the court, and thus to undo the wrong that he has
inflicted, he should be compelled to do so.
1. 5.HABEAS CORPUS; NATURE.—The writ of habeas corpus was
devised and exists as a speedy and effectual remedy to relieve 1. 13.ID.; ID.—Even if the party to whom the writ is addressed has
persons from unlawful restraint, and as the best and only illegally parted with the custody of a person before the
sufficient defense of personal freedom. application for the writ, is no reason why the writ should not
issue.
1. 6.ID. ; PARTIES.—Where it is impossible for a party to sign an
application for the writ of habeas corpus, it is proper for the writ 1. 14.ID. ; ID.—The place of confinement is not important to the relief
to be submitted by some person in his behalf. if the guilty party is within the reach of process so that by the
power of the court he can be compelled to release his grasp.

Page 1 of 13
 1. 15.ID.; COMPLIANCE WITH WRIT.—For respondents to fulfill the triumphant democracy, yet, after all, the cause presents no great difficulty
order of the court granting the writ of habeas corpus, three if there is kept in the forefront of our minds the basic principles of popular
courses were open: (1) They could have produced the bodies of government,. and if we give expression to the paramount purpose for
the persons according to the command of the writ; (2) they could which the courts, as an independent power of such a government, were
have shown by affidavit that on account of sickness or infirmity constituted. The primary question is—Shall the judiciary permit a
these ,persons could not safely be brought before the Court; or government of men instead of a government of laws to be set up in the
(3) they could have. presented affidavits to show that the parties Philippine Islands ?
in question or their attorney waived the right to be present. (Code Omitting much extraneous matter, of no moment to these proceedings,
of Criminal Procedure, sec. 87.) but which might prove profitable reading for other departments of the
government, the facts are these: The Mayor of the city of Manila, Justo
1. 16.CONTEMPT OF COURT.—The power to punish for contempt of Lukban, for the best of all reasons, to exterminate vice, ordered the
court should be exercised on the preservative and not on the segregated district for women of ill repute, which had been
vindictive principle. . Only occasionally should a court invoke its 781
inherent power in order to retain that respect without which the VOL. 39, MARCH 25, 1919. 781
administration of justice must falter or fail. Villavicencio vs. Lukban.
permitted for a number of years in the city of Manila, closed. Between
October 16 and October 25, 1918, the women were kept confined to their
780 houses in the district by the police. Presumably, during this period, the city
780 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED authorities quietly perfected arrangements with the Bureau of Labor for
Villavicencio vs. Lukban. sending the women to Davao, Mindanao, as laborers; with some
government office for the use of the coastguard
1. 17.ID.—When one is commanded to produce a certain person and
cutters Corregidor and Negros, and with the Constabulary for a guard of
does not do so, and does not offer a valid excuse, a court must, to
soldiers,. At any rate, about midnight of October 25, the police, acting
vindicate its authority, adjudge the respondent to be guilty of
pursuant to orders from the. chief of police, Anton Hohmann and the Mayor
contempt, and must order him either imprisoned or fined.
of the city of Manila, Justo Lukban, descended upon the houses, hustled
some 170 inmates into patrol wagons, and placed them aboard the
1. 18.ID.—An officer's failure to produce the body of a person in steamers that awaited their arrival. The women were given no opportunity
obedience to a writ -of habeas corpus, when he has power to do to collect their belongings, and apparently were under the impression that
so, is contempt committed in the face of the court. they were being taken to a police station for an investigation. They had no
knowledge that they were destined for a lif e in Mindanao. They had not
1. 19.GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS; A GOVERNMENT OF been asked if they wished to depart from that region and had neither
LAWS.—The Government of the Philippine Islands is a. directly nor indirectly given their consent to the deportation. The
government of laws. The court will assist in retaining it as a involuntary guests were received on board the steamers by a
government of laws and not of men. representative of the Bureau of Labor and a detachment of Constabulary
soldiers. The two steamers with their unwilling passengers sailed for Davao
during the night of October 25.
1. 20.ID, ; ID.—No official, however high, is above the law.
The vessels reached their destination at Davao on October 29. The
women were landed and receipted for as laborers by Francisco Sales,
1. 21.ID.; ID.—The courts are the forum which functionate to provincial governor of Davao, and by Feliciano Yñigo and Rafael Castillo.
safeguard individual liberty and to punish official transgressors. The governor and the hacendero Yñigo, who appear as parties in the case,
had no previous notification that the women were prostitutes who had
ORIGINAL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Habeas Corpus. been expelled from the city of Manila. The further happenings to these
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. women and the serious charges growing out of alleged ill-treatment are of
Alfonso Mendoza for petitioners. public interest, but are not essential to the disposition of this case. Suffice
City Fiscal Diaz for respondents. it to say, generally, that some of the women married, others assumed
MALCOLM, J.: more or less clandestine relations with men, others went to
782
The annals of juridical history fail to reveal a case quite as remarkable as 782 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED
the one which this application for habeas corpus submits for decision. Villavicencio vs. Lukban.
While hardly to be expected to be met with in this modern epoch of
Page 2 of 13
work in different capacities, others assumed a life unknown and alleging that it was not possible to fulfill the order of the Supreme Court
disappeared, and a goodly portion found means to return to Manila. because the women had never been under his control, because they were
To turn back in our narrative, just about the time the Corregidor and at liberty in the Province of Davao, and because they had married or
the Negros were putting in to Davao, the attorney for the relatives and signed contracts as laborers. Respondent Yñigo answered alleging that he
friends of a considerable number of the deportees presented an application did not have any of the women under his control and that therefore it was
f or habeas corpus to a member of the Supreme Court. Subsequently, the impossible for him to obey the mandate. The court, after due deliberation,
application, through stipulation of the parties, was made to include all of on December 10, 1918, promulgated a second order, which related that
the women who were sent away from Manila to Davao and, as the same the respondents had not complied with the original order to the
questions concerned them all, the application will be considered as satisfaction of the court nor explained their failure to do so, and therefore
including them. The application set forth the salient facts, which need not directed that those of the women not in Manila be brought before the court
be repeated, and alleged that the women were illegally restrained of their by respondents Lukban, Hohmann, Sales, and Yñigo on January 13, 1919,
liberty by Justo Lukban, Mayor of the city of Manila, Anton Hohmann, chief unless the women should, in written statements voluntarily made before
of police of the city of Manila, and by certain unknown parties. The writ was the judge of first instance of Davao or the clerk of that court, renounce the
made returnable before the full court. The city fiscal appeared f or the right, or unless
respondents, Lukban and Hohmann, admitted certain facts relative to 784
sequestration and deportation, and prayed that the writ should not be 784 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED
granted because the petitioners were not proper parties, because the Villavicencio vs. Lukban.
action should have been begun in the Court of First Instance for Davao, the respondents should demonstrate some other legal motives that made
Department of Mindanao and Sulu, because the respondents did not have compliance impossible. It was further stated that the question of whether
any of the women under their custody or control, and because their the respondents were in contempt of court would later be decided and the
jurisdiction did not extend beyond the boundaries of the city of. Manila. reasons for the order announced in the final decision.
According to an exhibit attached to the answer of the fiscal, the 170 Before January 13, 1919, f urther testimony including that of a number
women were destined to be laborers, at good salaries, on the haciendasof of the women, of certain detectives and policemen, and of the provincial
Yñigo and Governor Sales. In open court, the fiscal admitted, in answer to a governor of Davao, was taken before the clerk of the Supreme Court sitting
question of a member of the court, that these women had been sent out of as commissioner and the clerk of the Court of First Instance of Davao
Manila without their consent. The court awarded the writ, in an order of acting in the same capacity. On January 13, 1919, the respondents
November 4, that directed Justo Lukban, Mayor of the city of Manila, Anton technically presented before the Court the women who had returned to the
Hohmann, chief of police of the city of Manila, Francisco Sales, governor of city through their own efforts and eight others who had been brought to
the province of Davao, and Feliciano Yñigo, an hacendero of Davao, to Manila by the respondents. Attorneys for the respondents, by their returns,
bring bef ore once again recounted the facts and further endeavored to account for all of
783 the persons involved in the habeas corpus. In subStance, it was stated that
VOL. 39, MARCH 25, 1919. 783 the respondents, through their representatives and agents, had succeeded
Villavicencio vs. Lukban. in bringing from Davao with their consent eight women; that eighty-one
the court the persons therein named, alleged to be deprived of their women were found in Davao who, on notice that if they desired they could
liberty, on December 2, 1918. return to Manila, transportation free, renounced the right through sworn
Before the date mentioned, seven of the women had returned to Manila statements; that fiftynine had already returned to Manila by other means,
at their own expense. On motion of counsel for petitioners, their testimony and that despite all efforts to find them twenty-six could not be located.
was taken before the clerk of the Supreme Court sitting as commissioner. Both counsel for petitioners and the city fiscal were permitted to submit
On the day named in the order, December 2d, 1918, none of the persons in memoranda. The first formally asked the court to find Justo Lukban, Mayor
whose behalf the writ was issued were produced in court by the of the city of Manila, Anton Hohmann, chief of police of the city of Manila,
respondents. It has since been shown that three of those who had been Jose Rodriguez and Fernando Ordax, members of the police f orce of the
able to come back to Manila through their own efforts, were notified by the city of Manila, Feliciano Yñigo, an hacendero of Davao, Modesto Joaquin,
police and the secret service to appear before the court. The fiscal the attorney for the Bureau of Labor, and Anacleto Diaz, fiscal of the city of
appeared, repeated the facts more comprehensively, reiterated the stand Manila, in contempt of court. The city fiscal requested that the réplica, al
taken by him when pleading to the original petition. copied a telegram f memorandum de los recurridos, (reply to respondents' memorandum)
rom the Mayor of the city of Manila to the provincial governor of Davao and dated January 25, 1919, be struck from the record.
the answer thereto, and telegrams that had passed between the Director 785
of Labor and the attorney for that Bureau then in Davao, and offered VOL. 39, MARCH 25, 1919. 785
certain affidavits showing that the women were contented with their life in Villavicencio vs. Lukban.
Mindanao and did not wish to return to Manila. Respondent Sales answered
Page 3 of 13
In the second order, the court promised to give the reasons for granting acts within a sphere of delegated powers. If the mayor and the chief of
the writ of habeas corpus in the final decision. We will now proceed to do police could, at their mere behest or even for the most praiseworthy of
so. motives, render the liberty of the citizen so insecure, then the presidents
One f act, and one fact only, need be recalled—these one hundred and and chiefs of police of one thousand other municipalities of the Philippines
seventy women were isolated from society, and then at night, without their have the same privilege. If these officials can take to themselves such
consent and without any opportunity to consult with friends or to defend power, then any other official can do the same. And if any official can
their rights, were forcibly hustled on board steamers for transportation to exercise the power, then all persons would have just as much right to do
regions unknown. Despite the feeble attempt to prove that the women left so. And if a prostitute could be sent against her wishes and under no law f
voluntarily and gladly, that such was not the case is shown by the mere rom one locality to another within the country, then officialdom can hold
fact that the presence of the police and the constabulary was deemed the same club over the head of any citizen.
necessary and that these officers of the law chose the shades of night to Law defines power. Centuries ago Magna Charta decreed that—"No
cloak their secret and stealthy acts. Indeed, this is a fact impossible to freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or be
refute and practically admitted by the respondents. 787
With this situation, a court would next expect to resolve the question— VOL. 39, MARCH 25, 1919. 787
By authority of what law did the Mayor and the Chief of Police presume to Villavicencio vs. Lukban.
act in deporting by duress these persons from Manila to another distant disseized of his freehold, or liberties, or free customs, or be outlawed, or
locality within the Philippine Islands? We turn to the statutes and we find— exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will we pass upon him nor
Alien prostitutes can be expelled from the Philippine Islands in condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the
conformity with an Act of Congress. The Governor-General can order the land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or def er to any man either
eviction of undesirable aliens after a hearing from the Islands. Act No. 519 justice or right." (Magna Charta, 9 Hen., 111, 1225, Cap. 29; 1 Eng. Stat. at
of the Philippine Commission and section 733 of the Revised Ordinances of Large, 7.) No official, no matter how high, is above the law. The courts are
the city of Manila provide for the conviction and punishment by a court of the forum which functionate to safeguard individual liberty and to punish
justice of any person who is a common prostitute. Act No, 899 authorizes official transgressors. "The law," said Justice Miller, delivering the opinion
the return of any citizen of the United States, who may have been of the Supreme Court of the United States, "is the only supreme power in
convicted of vagrancy, to the homeland. New York and other States have our system of government, and every man who by accepting office
statutes providing for the commitment to the House of Refuge of women participates in its functions is only the more strongly bound to submit to
convicted of being common prostitutes. Always a law! Even when the that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes upon the
health authorities compel vaccination, or establish a quarantine, or place a exercise of the authority which it gives." (U. S. vs. Lee [1882], 106 U. S.,
leprous person in the Culion leper colony, it is done pur- 196, 220.) "The very idea," said Justice Matthews of the same high tribunal
786 in another case, "that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the
786 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at
Villavicencio vs. Lukban. the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where
suant to some law or order. But one can search in vain for any law, order, freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself." (Yick
or regulation, which even hints at the right of the Mayor of the city of Wo vs. Hopkins[1886], 118 U. S., 356, 370.) All this explains the motive in
Manila or the chief of police of that city to force citizens of the Philippine issuing the writ of habeas corpus, and makes clear why we said in the very
Islands—and these women despite their being in a sense lepers of society beginning that the primary question was whether the courts should permit
are nevertheless not chattels but Philippine citizens protected by the same a government of men or a government of laws to be established in the
constitutional guaranties as are other citizens—to change their domicile Philippine Islands.
from Manila to another locality. On the contrary, Philippine penal law What are the remedies of the unhappy victims of official oppression?
specifically punishes any public officer who, not being expressly authorized The remedies of the citizen are three: (1) Civil action; (2) criminal action,
by law or regulation, compels any person to change his residence. and (3) habeas corpus.
In other countries, as in Spain and Japan, the privilege of domicile is The first is an optional but rather slow process by which the aggrieved
deemed so important as to be found in the Bill of Rights of the party may recoup money damages. It may still rest with the parties in
Constitution. Under the American constitutional system, liberty of abode is interest to pursue such an action, but it was never intended effectively and
a principle so deeply imbedded in jurisprudence and considered so promptly to meet any such situation as that now before us.
elementary in nature as not even to require a constitutional sanction. Even 788
the Governor-General of the Philippine Islands, even the President of the 788 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED
United States, who has often been said to exercise more power than any Villavicencio vs. Lukban.
king or potentate, has no such arbitrary prerogative, either inherent or As to criminal responsibility, it is true that the Penal Code in force in these
express. Much less, therefore, has the executive of a municipality, who Islands provides:
Page 4 of 13
"Any public officer not thereunto authorized by law or by regulations of a liberty, though no application be made therefor. (Code of Criminal
general character in force in the Philippines who shall banish any person to Procedure, sec. 93.) Petitioners had standing in court.
a place more than two hundred kilometers distant from his domicile, The fiscal next contended that the writ should have been asked f or in
except it be by virtue of the judgment of a court, shall be punished by a the Court of First Instance of Davao or should have been made returnable
fine of not less than three hundred and twenty-five and not more than before that court. It is a general rule of good practice that, to avoid
three thousand two hundred and fifty pesetas. unnecessary expense and inconvenience, petitions for habeas corpus
"Any public officer not thereunto expressly authorized by law or by should be presented to the nearest judge of the court of first instance. But
regulation of a general character in force in the Philippines who shall this is not a hard and fast rule. The writ of habeas corpus may be granted
compel any person to change his domicile or residence shall suffer the by the Supreme Court or any judge thereof enforcible anywhere in the
penalty of destierro and a fine of not less than six hundred and twenty-five Philippine Islands. (Code of Criminal Procedure, sec. 79; Code of Civil
and not more than six thousand two hundred and fifty pesetas" (Art. 211.) Procedure, sec. 526.) Whether the writ shall be made returnable
790
We entertain no doubt but that, if, after due investigation, the proper 790 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED
prosecuting officers find that any public officer has violated this provision Villavicencio vs. Lukban.
of law, these prosecutors will institute and press a criminal prosecution just before the Supreme Court or before an inferior court rests in the discretion
as vigorously as they have defended the same official in this action. of the Supreme Court and is dependent on the particular circumstances. In
Nevertheless, that the act may be a crime and that the persons guilty this instance it was not shown that the Court of First Instance of Davao was
thereof can be proceeded against, is no bar to the instant proceedings. To in session, or that the women had any means by which to advance their
quote the words of Judge Cooley in a case which will later be referred to plea bef ore that court. On the other hand, it was shown that the
—"It would be a monstrous anomaly in the law if to an application by one petitioners with their attorneys, and the two original respondents with their
unlawfully confined, to be restored to his liberty, it could be a sufficient attorney, were in Manila; it was shown that the case involved parties
answer that the confinement was a crime, and therefore might be situated in different parts of the Islands; it was shown that the women
continued indefinitely until the guilty party was tried and punished therefor might still be imprisoned or restrained of their liberty; and it was shown
by the slow process of criminal procedure." (In the matter of Jackson that if the writ was to accomplish its purpose, it must be taken cognizance
[1867], 15 Mich., 416, 434.) The writ of habeas corpus was devised and of and decided immediately by the appellate court. The failure of the
exists as a speedy and effectual remedy to relieve persons from unlawful superior court to consider the application and then to grant the writ would
restraint, and as the best and only sufficient defense of personal freedom. have amounted to a denial of the benefits of the writ.
Any further rights of the parties are left untouched by The last argument of the fiscal is more plausible and more difficult to
789 meet. When the writ was prayed for, says counsel, the parties in whose
VOL. 39, MARCH 25, 1919. 789 behalf it was asked were under no restraint; the women, it is claimed, were
Villavicencio vs. Lukban. free in Davao, and the jurisdiction of the mayor and the chief of police did
decision on the writ, whose principal purpose is to set the individual at not extend beyond the city limits. At first blush, this is a tenable position.
liberty. On closer examination, acceptance of such dictum is f ound to be
Granted that habeas corpus is the proper remedy, respondents have perversive of the first principles of the writ of habeas corpus.
raised three specific objections to its issuance in this instance. The fiscal A prime specification of an application for a writ of habeas corpus is
has argued (1) that there is a defect in parties petitioners, (2) that the restraint of liberty. The essential object and purpose of the writ of habeas
Supreme Court should not assume jurisdiction, and (3) that the persons in corpus is to inquire into all manner of involuntary restraint as distinguished
question are not restrained of their liberty by respondents, It was finally from voluntary, and to relieve a person therefrom if such restraint is illegal.
suggested that the jurisdiction of the Mayor and the chief of police of the Any restraint which will preclude freedom of action is sufficient. The
city of Manila only extends to the city limits and that perf orce they could forcible taking of these women from Manila by officials of that city, who
not bring the women from Davao. handed them over to other parties, who deposited them in a distant region,
The first defense was not pressed with any vigor by counsel. The deprived these women of freedom of locomotion just as effectively as if
petitioners were relatives and friends of the deportees. The way the they had been imprisoned. Placed in Davao without either money or
expulsion was conducted by the city officials made it impossible for the personal belongings, they were prevented from exercising the liberty of
women to sign a petition for habeas corpus. It was consequently proper for going when
the writ to be submitted by persons in their behalf. (Code of Criminal 791
Procedure, sec. 78; Code of Civil Procedure, sec. 527.) The law, in its VOL. 39, MARCH 25, 1919. 791
zealous regard for personal liberty, even makes it the duty of a court or Villavicencio vs. Lukban.
judge to grant a writ of habeas corpus if there is evidence that within the
court's jurisdiction a person is unjustly imprisoned or restrained of his

Page 5 of 13
and where they pleased. The restraint of liberty which began in Manila rivers of blood shed for its establishment; after its many confirmations,
continued until the aggrieved parties were returned to Manila and released until Coke could declare in his speech on the petition of right that 'Magna
or until they freely and truly waived this right. Charta was such a fellow that he will have no sovereign,' and after the
Consider for a moment what an agreement with such a defense would extension of its benefits and securities by the petition of right, bill of rights
mean. The chief executive of any municipality in the Philippines could and habeas corpus acts, it should now be discovered that evasion of that
forcibly and illegally take a private citizen and place him beyond the great clause for the protection of personal liberty, which is; the life and
boundaries of the municipality, and then, when called upon to defend his soul of the whole instrument, is so easy as is claimed here. If it is so, it is
official action, could calmly fold his hands and claim that the person was important that it be determined without delay, that the legislature may
under no restraint and that he, the official, had no jurisdiction over this apply the proper remedy, as I can not doubt they would, on the subject
other municipality. We believe the true principle should be that, if the being brought to their notice. * * *
respondent is within the jurisdiction of the court and has it in his power to "The second proposition—that the statutory provisions are confined to
obey the order of the court and thus to undo the wrong that he has the case of imprisonment within the state—seems to me to be based upon
inflicted, he should be compelled to do so. Even if the party to whom the a misconception as to the source of our jurisdiction. It was never the case
writ is addressed has illegally parted with the custody of a person before in England that the court of king's bench derived its jurisdiction to
the application for the writ is no reason why the writ should not issue. If the
mayor and the chief of police, acting under no authority of law, could 793
deport these women from the city of Manila to Davao, these same officials VOL. 39, MARCH 25, 1919. 793
must necessarily have the same means to return them from Davao to Villavicencio vs. Lukban.
Manila. The respondents, within the reach of process, may not be issue and enforce this writ from the statute. Statutes were not passed to
permitted to restrain a fellow citizen of her liberty by forcing her to change give the right, but to compel the observance of rights which existed. * * *
her domicile and to avow the act with impunity in the courts, while the "The important f act to be observed in regard to the mode of procedure
person who has lost her birthright of liberty has no effective recourse. The upon this writ is, that it is directed to and served upon, not the person
great writ of liberty may not thus be easily evaded. confined, but his jailor. It does not reach the former except through the
It must be that some such question has heretofore been presented to latter. The officer or person who serves it does not unbar the prison doors,
the courts for decision. Nevertheless, strange as it may seem, a close and set the prisoner free, but the court relieves him by compelling the
examination of the authorities f ails to reveal any analogous case. Certain oppressor to release his constraint The whole force of the writ is spent
decisions of respectable courts are however very persuasive in nature. upon the respondent, and if he fails to obey it, the means to be resorted to
A question came before the Supreme Court of the State of Michigan at for the purposes of compulsion are fine and imprisonment. This is the
an early date as to whether or not a writ of habeas corpus would issue ordinary mode of affording relief, and if any other means are resorted to,
from the Supreme Court to a person within the jurisdiction of the State to they are only auxiliary to those which are usual. The place of confinement
bring into the is, therefore, not important to the relief, if the guilty party is within reach
792 of process, so that by the power of the court he can be compelled to
792 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED release his grasp. The difficulty of affording redress is not increased by the
Villavicencio vs. Lukban. confinement being beyond the limits of the state, except as greater
State a minor child under guardianship in the State, who has been and distance may affect it. The important question is, where is the power of
continues to be detained in another State. The membership of the control exercised? And I am aware of no other remedy." (In the matter of
Michigan Supreme Court at this time was notable. It was composed of Jackson [1867], 15 Mich., 416.)
Martin, chief justice, and Cooley, Campbell, and Christiancy, justices. On
The opinion of Judge Cooley has since been accepted as authoritative by
the question presented the court was equally divided. Campbell, J,, with
other courts. (Rivers vs. Mitchell [1881], 57 Iowa,
whom concurred Martin, C. J., held that the writ should be quashed. Cooley,
193; Breene vs, People [1911], Colo., 117 Pac. Rep., 1000; Ex parte Young
J., one of the most distinguished American judges and law-writers, with
[1892], 50 Fed., 526.)
whom concurred Christiancy, J., held that the writ should issue. Since the
The English courts have given careful consideration to the subject.
opinion of Justice Campbell was predicated to a large extent on his
Thus, a child had been taken out of England by the respondent. A writ of
conception of the English decisions, and since, as will hereafter appear, the
habeas corpus was issued by the Queen's Bench Division upon the
English courts have taken a contrary view, only the f ollowing eloquent
application of the mother and her husband directing the defendant to
passages from the opinion of Justice Cooley are quoted:
produce the child. The judge at chambers gave defendant until a certain
"I have not yet seen sufficient reason to doubt the power of this court to
date to produce the child, but he did not do so. His return stated that the
issue the present writ on .the petition which was laid before us. * * *
child before the issuance of the writ had been handed over by him to
"It would be strange indeed if, at this late day, after the eulogiums of
another; that it was no longer in his custody or control, and that it was
six centuries and a half have been expended upon the Magna Charta, and
impossible
Page 6 of 13
 794 We find, therefore, both on reason and authority, that no one of the
794 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED defenses offered by the respondents constituted a legitimate bar to the
Villavicencio vs. Lukban. granting of the writ of habeas corpus.
for him to obey the writ. He was found in contempt of court. On appeal, the There remains to be considered whether the respondents complied with
court, through Lord Esher, M. R., said: the two orders of the Supreme Court awarding the writ of habeas corpus,
"A writ of habeas corpus was ordered to issue, and was issued on January 'and if it be found that they did not, whether the contempt should be
22. That writ commanded the defendant to have the body of the child punished or be taken as purged.
before a judge in chambers at the Royal Courts of Justice immediately after The first order, it will be recalled, directed Justo Lukban, Anton
the receipt of the writ, together with the cause of her being taken and Hohmann, Francisco Sales, and Feliciano Yñigo to present the persons
detained. That is a command to bring the child before the judge and must named in the writ bef ore the court on December 2,1918. The order was
be obeyed, unless some lawful reason can be shown to excuse the dated November 4, 1918. The respondents were thus given ample time,
nonproduction of the child. If it could be shown that by reason of his practically one month, to comply with the writ. As far as the record
having lawfully parted with the possession of the child before the issuing of discloses, the Mayor of the city of Manila waited until the 21st of November
the writ, the defendant had no longer power to produce the child, that before sending a telegram to the provincial governor of Davao. According
might be an answer; but in the absence of any lawful reason he is bound to to the response of the attorney for the Bureau of Labor to the telegram of
produce the child, and, if he does not, he is in contempt of the Court for his chief, there were then in Davao women who desired to return to Manila,
not obeying the writ without lawful excuse. Many efforts have been made but who should not be permitted to do so because of having contracted
in argument to shift the question of contempt to some anterior period f or debts. The half-hearted effort natur-
the purpose of showing that what was done at some time prior to the writ 796
cannot be 'a contempt. But the question is not as to what was done bef ore 796 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED
the issue of the writ. The question is whether there has been a contempt in Villavicencio vs. Lukban.
disobeying the writ after it was issued by not producing the child in ally resulted in none of the parties in question being brought bef ore the
obedience to its commands." (The Queen vs.Barnardo [1889], 23 Q. B. D., court on the day named.
305. See also to the same effect the Irish case of In re Matthews, 12 Ir. For the respondents to have fulfilled the court's order, three optional
Com. Law Rep. [N. S.], 233; The Queen vs. Barnardo, Gossage's Case courses were open: (1) They could have produced the bodies of the
[1890], 24 Q. B. D., 283.) persons according to the command of the writ; or (2) they could have
shown by affidavit that on account of sickness or infirmity those persons
A decision coming from the Federal Courts is also of interest. A habeas could not safely be brought before the court; or (3) they could have
corpus was directed to 'the defendant to have before the circuit court of presented affidavits to show ,that the parties in question or their attorney
the District of Columbia three colored persons, with the cause of their waived the right to be present. (Code of Criminal Procedure, sec. 87.) They
detention. Davis, in his return to the writ, stated on oath that he had did not produce the bodies of the persons in whose behalf the writ was
purchased the negroes as slaves in the city of Washington; that, as he granted; they did not show impossibility of performance; and they did not
believed, they were removed beyond the District of Columbia before the present writings that waived the right to be present by those interested.
service of the writ of habeas corpus, Instead a few stereotyped affidavits purporting to show that the women
795 were contented with their life in Davao, some of which have since been
VOL. 39, MARCH 25, 1919. 795 repudiated by the signers, were appended to the return. That through
Villavicencio vs. Lukban. ordinary diligence a considerable number of the women, at least sixty,
and that they were then beyond his control and out of his custody. The could have been brought back to Manila is demonstrated by the fact that
evidence tended to show that Davis had removed the negroes because he during this time they were easily to be found in the municipality of Davao,
suspected they would apply for a writ of habeas corpus. The court held the and that about this number either returned at their own expense or were
return to be evasive and insufficient, and that Davis was bound to produce produced at the second hearing by the respondents.
the negroes, and Davis being present in court, and refusing to produce The court, at the time the return to its first order was made, would have
them, ordered that he be committed to the custody of the marshall until he been warranted summarily in finding the respondents guilty of contempt of
should produce the negroes, or be otherwise discharged in due course of court, and in sending them to jail until they obeyed the order. Their
law. The court afterwards ordered that Davis be released upon the excuses for the non-production of the persons were far from sufficient. The
production of two of the negroes, for one of the negroes had run away and authorities cited herein pertaining to somewhat similar facts all tend to
been lodged in jail in Maryland. Davis produced the two negroes on the last indicate with what exactitude a habeas corpus writ must be fulfilled. For
day of the term. (United States vs. Davis [1839], 5 Cranch C. C., 622, Fed. example, in Gossage's case, supra, the Magistrate in referring to an earlier
Cas. No. 14926. See also Robb vs. Connolly [1883], 111 U. S., 624; Church decision of the Court, said: "We thought that, having brought about that
on Habeas Corpus, 2nd ed., p. 170.) state of things by his own illegal act, he must take the consequences; and
Page 7 of 13
we said that he was bound to use every effort to get the child back; that he With all the facts and circumstances in mind, and with judicial regard
must do much more than for human imperfections, we cannot say that any of the respondents, with
797 the possible exception of the first named, has flatly disobeyed the court by
VOL. 39, MARCH 25, 1919. 797 acting in opposition to its authority, Respondents Hohmann, Rodriguez,
Villavicencio vs. Lukban. Ordax, and Joaquin only followed the orders of their chiefs, and while,
write letters for the purpose; that he must advertise in America, and even under the law of public officers, this does not exonerate them entirely, it is
if necessary himself go after the child, and do everything that mortal man nevertheless a powerful mitigating circumstance. The hacendero Yñigo
could do in the matter; and that the court would only accept clear proof of appears to have been drawn into the case through a misconstruction by
an absolute impossibility by way of excuse." In other words, the return did counsel of telegraphic communications. The city fiscal, Anacleto Diaz,
not show that every possible effort to produce the women was made by would seem to have done no more than to fulfill his duty as the legal
the respondents. That the court forebore at this time to take drastic action representative of the city government. Finding him innocent of any
was because it did not wish to see presented to the public gaze the disrespect to the court, his counter-motion to strike from the record the
spectacle of a clash between executive officials and the judiciary, and memorandum of attorney for the petitioners, which brings him into this
because it desired to give the respondents another chance to demonstrate undesirable position, must be granted. When all is said and done, as far as
their good faith and to mitigate their wrong. this record discloses, the official who was primarily responsible for the
In response to the second order of the court, the respondents appear to unlawful deportation, who ordered the police to accomplish the same, who
have become more zealous and to have shown a better spirit. Agents were made arrangements for the steamers and the constabulary, who
dispatched to Mindanao, placards were posted, the constabulary and the conducted the negotiations with the
municipal police joined in rounding up the women, and a steamer with free 799
transportation to Manila was provided. While charges and counter-charges VOL. 39, MARCH 25, 1919. 799
in such a bitterly contested case are to be expected, and while a critical Villavicencio vs. Lukban.
reading of the record might reveal a failure of literal fulfillment with our Bureau of Labor, and who later, as the head of the city government, had it
mandate, we come to conclude that there is a substantial compliance with within his power to facilitate the return of the unfortunate women to
it. Our finding to this effect may be influenced somewhat by our sincere Manila, was Justo Lukban, the Mayor of the city of Manila. His intention to
desire to see this unhappy incident finally closed. If any wrong is now being suppress the social evil was commendable. His methods were unlawful. His
perpetrated in Davao, it should receive an executive investigation. If any regard for the writ of habeas corpus issued by the court was only tardily
particular individual is still restrained of her liberty, it can be made the and reluctantly acknowledged. It would be possible to turn to the
object of separate habeas corpus proceedings. provisions of section 546 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which relates to
Since the writ has already been granted, and since we find a substantial the penalty for disobeying the writ, and in pursuance thereof to require
compliance with it, nothing further in this connection remains to be done. respondent Lukban to forfeit to the parties aggrieved as much as P400
The attorney for the petitioners asks that we find in contempt of court each, which would reach to many thousands of pesos, and in addition to
Justo Lukban, Mayor of the city of Manila, Anton Hohmann, chief of police deal with him as for a contempt. Some members of the court are inclined
of the city of Manila, Jose Rodriguez, and Fernando Ordax, members of the to this stern view. It would also be possible to find that since respondent
police force of the city. of Manila, Modesto Joaquin, the attorney for the Lukban did comply substantially with the second order of the court, he has
Bureau of Labor, Feliciano Yñigo, an purged his contempt of the first order. Some members of the court are
798 inclined to this merciful view. Between the two extremes appears to lie the
798 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED correct finding. The failure of respondent Lukban to obey the first mandate
Villavicencio vs. Lukban. of the court tended to belittle and embarrass the administration of justice
hacendero of Davao, and Anacleto Diaz, Fiscal of the city of Manila. to such an extent that his later activity may be considered only as
The power to punish for contempt of court should be exercised on the extenuating his conduct. A nominal fine will at once command such respect
preservative and not on the vindictive principle. Only occasionally should without being unduly oppressive—such an amount is P100.
the court invoke its inherent power in order to retain that respect without In résumé—as before stated, no further action on the writ of habeas
which the administration of justice must falter or fail. Nevertheless when corpus is necessary. The respondents Hohmann, Rodriguez, Ordax,
one is commanded to produce a certain person and does not do so, and Joaquin, Yñigo, and Diaz are found not to be in contempt of court.
does not offer a valid excuse, a court must, to vindicate its authority, Respondent Lukban is found in contempt of court and shall pay into the
adjudge the respondent to be guilty of contempt, and must order him office of the clerk of the Supreme Court within five days the sum of one
either imprisoned or fined. An officer's failure to produce the body of a hundred pesos (P100). The motion of the fiscal of the city of Manila to
person in obedience to a writ of habeas corpus when he has power to do strike from the record the Réplica al Memorandum de los Recurridos of
so, is a contempt committed in the face of the court. (Ex parte Sterns January 25, 1919, is granted. Costs shall be taxed against respondents! So
[1888], 77 Cal., 156; In rePatterson [1888], 99 N. C., 407.) ordered.
Page 8 of 13
 In concluding this tedious and disagreeable task, may detained, but because on the first days there were no houses in which they
800 could live with a relative independent from one another, and as a proof
800 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED that they were free a number of them returned to Manila and the others
Villavicencio vs. Lukban. succeeded in living separate from their companions who continued living
we not be permitted to express the hope that this decision may serve to together.
bulwark the f ortifications of an orderly government of laws and to protect. To determine whether or not the mayor acted with a good purpose and
individual liberty from illegal encroachment. legal object and whether he has acted in good or bad faith in proceeding to
Arellano, C. J., Avanceña, and Moir, JJ., concur. dissolve the said community of prostitutes and to oblige them to change
Johnson, and Street, JJ., concur in the result. their domicile, it is necessary to consider not only the rights and interests
of the said women and especially of the patrons who have been directing
TORRES, J., dissenting: and conducting such a reproachable enterprise and shameful business in
one of the suburbs of this city, but also the rights and interests of the very
The undersigned does not entirely agree to the opinion of the majority in numerous people of Manila where relatively a few transients accidentally
the decision of the habeas corpus proceeding against Just Lukban, the and for some days reside, the inhabitants thereof being more than three
mayor of this city. hundred thousand (300,000) who can not, with indifference and without
There is nothing in the record that shows the motive which impelled repugnance, live in the same place with so many unfortunate women
Mayor Lukban to oblige a great number of women of various ages, inmates dedicated to prostitution.
of the houses of prostitution situated in Gardenia Street, district of If the material and moral interests of the community as well as the
Sampaloc, to change their residence. demands of social morality are to be taken into account, it is not possible
We know no express law, regulation, or ordinance which clearly to sustain that it is legal and permissible to establish a house of pandering
prohibits the opening of public houses of prostitution, as those in the said or prostitution in the midst of an enlightened population, for, although
Gardenia Street, Sampaloc. For this reason, when more than one hundred there were no positive laws prohibiting the existence of such
and fifty women were assembled and placed aboard a steamer and 802
transported to Davao, considering that the existence of the said houses of 802 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED
prostitution has been tolerated for so long a time, it is undeniable that the Villavicencio vs. Lukban.
mayor of the city, in proceeding in the manner shown, acted without houses within a district of Manila, the dictates of common sense and
authority of any legal provision which constitutes an exception to the laws dictates of conscience of its inhabitants are sufficient to warrant the public
guaranteeing the liberty and the individual rights of the residents of the administration, acting correctly, in exercising the inevitable duty of
city of Manila. ordering the closing and abandonment of a house of prostitution ostensibly
We do not believe in the pomp and ostentation of force displayed by open to the public, and of obliging the inmates thereof to leave it, although
the police in complying with the order of the mayor of the city; neither do such a house is inhabited by its true owner who invokes in his behalf the
we believe in the necessity of taking them to the distant district of Davao. protection of the constitutional law guaranteeing his liberty, ,his individual
The said governmental authority, in carrying out his intention to suppress rights, and his right to property.
the segregated district or the community formed by those women in A cholera patient, a leper, or any other person affected by a known
Gardenia Street, could have obliged the said women to return to their contagious disease cannot invoke in his favor the constitutional law which
former residences in this city or in the provinces, without the necessity of guarantees his liberty and individual rights, should the administrative
transporting them to Mindanao; hence the said official is obliged to bring authority order his hospitalization, reclusion, or concentration in a certain
back the women who are still in Davao so that island or distant point in order to free from contagion the great majority of
801 the inhabitants of the country who fortunately do not have such diseases.
VOL. 39, MARCH 25, 1919. 801 The same reasons exist or stand good with respect to the unfortunate
Villavicencio vs. Lukban. women dedicated to prostitution, and such reasons become stronger
they may return to the places in which they lived prior to their becoming because the first persons named have contracted their diseases without
inmates of certain houses in Gardenia Street. their knowledge and even against their will, whereas the unfortunate
As regards the manner whereby the mayor complied with the orders of prostitutes voluntarily adopted such manner of living and spontaneously
this court, we do not find any apparent disobedience and marked absence accepted all its consequences, knowing positively that their constant
of respect in the steps taken by the mayor of the city and his subordinates, intercourse with men of all classes, notwithstanding the cleanliness and
if we take into account the difficulties encountered in bringing the said precaution which they are wont to adopt, gives way to the spread or
women who were free at Davao and presenting them before this court multiplication of the disease known as syphilis, a venereal disease, which,
within the time fixed, inasmuch as it does not appear that the said women although it constitutes a secret disease among men and women, is still
were living together in a given place. It was not because they were really prejudicial to the human species in the same degree, scope, and
Page 9 of 13
seriousness as cholera, tuberculosis, leprosy, pest, typhoid, and other individual rights of every Filipino, inasmuch as the women petitioners do
contagious diseases which produce great mortality and very serious not absolutely enjoy the said liberty and rights, the exercise of which they
prejudice to poor humanity. have voluntarily renounced in exchange for the free practice of their
If a young woman, instead of engaging in an occupation or works shameful profession.
suitable to her sex, which can give her sufficient remuneration for her In very highly advanced and civilized countries, there have been
subsistence, prefers to put herself adopted by the administrative authorities similar measures, more or less
803 rigorous, respecting prostitutes, considering them prejudicial to the people,
VOL. 39, MARCH 25, 1919. 803 although it is true that in the execution of such measures more
Villavicencio vs. Lukban. humane :and less drastic procedures, fortiter in re et suaviter in
under the will of another woman who is usually older than she is and who forma, have been adopted, but such procedures have always had in view
is the manager or owner of a house of prostitution, or spontaneously the ultimate object of the Government for the sake of the community, that
dedicates herself to this shameful profession, it is undeniable that she is, putting an end to the living together in a certain place of women
voluntarily and with her own knowledge renounces her liberty and dedicated to prostitution and changing their domicile, with the
individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution, because it is evident that problematical hope that they adopt another manner of living which is
she can not join the society of decent women nor can she expect to get the better and more useful to themselves and to society.
same respect that is due to the latter, nor is it possible for her to live within In view of the foregoing remarks, we should hold, as we hereby hold,
the community or society with the same liberty and rights enjoyed by that Mayor Justo Lukban is obliged to take back and restore the said
every citizen. Considering her dishonorable conduct and life, she should women who are at present found in Davao, and who desire to return to
therefore be comprised within that class which is always subject to the their former respective residences, not in Gardenia Street, Sampaloc
police and sanitary regulations conducive to the maintenance of public District, with the exception of the prostitutes who should expressly make
decency and morality and to the conservation of public health, and for this known to the clerk of court their preference to reside in Davao, which
reason it should not be permitted that the unfortunate women dedicated to manifestation must be made under oath. This resolution must be
prostitution evade the just orders and resolutions adopted by the transmitted to the mayor within the shortest time possible f or its due
administrative authorities. compliance. The costs shall be charged de officio.
It is regrettable that unnecessary rigor was employed against the said 805
poor women, but those who have been worrying so much about the VOL. 39, MARCH 25, 1919. 805
prejudice resulting from a governmental measure, which being a very Villavicencio vs. Lukban.
drastic remedy may be considered arbitrary, have failed to consider with ARAULLO, J., dissenting in part:
due reflection the interests of the inhabitants of this city in general and
particularly the duties and responsibilities weighing upon the authorities 1 regret to dissent from the respectable opinion of the majority in the
which administer and govern it; they have forgotten that many of those decision rendered in these proceedings, with respect to the finding as to
who criticize and censure the mayor are fathers of families and are in duty the importance of the contempt committed, according to the same
bound to take care of their children. decision, by Justo Lukban, Mayor of the city of Manila, and the consequent
For the foregoing reasons, we reach the conclusion that when the imposition upon him of a nominal fine of ?100.
petitioners, because of the abnormal life they assumed, were obliged to In the said decision, it is said:
change their residence not by a private citizen but by the mayor of the city "The first order, it will be recalled, directed Justo Lukban, Anton Hohmann,
who is directly responsible for the conservation of public health and social Francisco Sales, and Feliciano Yñigo to present the persons named in the
morality, the latter could take the step he had taken, availing himself of writ before the court on December 2,1918. The order was dated November
the services of the police in good faith and only with the purpose of 4, 1918. The respondents were thus given ample time, practically one
protecting the immense majority of the month, to comply with the writ. As far as the record discloses, the mayor of
804 the city of Manila waited until the 21st of November before sending a
804 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED telegram to the provincial governor of Davao. According to the response of
Villavicencio vs. Lukban. the Attorney for the Bureau of Labor to the telegram of his chief, there
population from the social evils and diseases which the houses of were then in Davao women who desired to return to Manila, but who
prostitution situated in Gardenia Street have been producing, which should not be permitted to do so because of having contracted debts. The
houses have been constituting for years a true center for the propagation half-hearted effort naturally resulted in none of the parties in question
of veneral diseases and other evils derived therefrom. Hence, in ordering being brought before the court on the day named."
the dissolution and abandonment of the said houses of prostitution and the
change of the domicile of the inmates thereof, the mayor did not in bad In accordance with section 87 of General Orders No. 58, as is said in the
faith violate the constitutional law which guarantees the liberty and the same decision, the respondents, for the purpose of complying with the

Page 10 of 13
order of the court, could have, (1) produced the bodies of the persons tested case are to be expected, and while a critical reading of the record
according to the command of the writ; (2) shown by affidavits that on might reveal a failure of literal fulfilment with our mandate, we come to
account of sickness or infirmity the said women could not safely be conclude that there is a substantial compliance with it."
brought before this court; and (3) presented affidavits to show that the
parties in question or their lawyers waived their right to be present. I do not agree to this conclusion.
According to the same decision, the said respondents "* * * did not The respondent mayor of the city of Manila, Justo Lukban, let 17 days
produce the bodies of the persons in whose behalf the writ was granted; elapse from the date of the issuance of the first order on November 4th till
did not show impossibility of performance; and did not present writings the 21st of the same month bef ore taking the first step f or compliance
that waived the right to be present by those interested. Instead, a few with the mandate of the said order; he waited till the 21st of November, as
stereotyped the decision says, before he sent a telegram to the provincial governor of
806 Davao and naturally this half-hearted effort, as is so qualified in the
806 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED decision, resulted in that none of the women appeared before this court on
Villavicencio vs. Lukban. December 2d. Thus, the said order was not complied with, and in addition
affidavits purporting to show that the women were contented with their life to this noncompliance there was the circumstance that seven of the said
in Davao, some of which have since been repudiated by the signers, were women having returned to Manila at their own expense before the said
appended to the return. That through ordinary diligence a considerable second day of December and being in the antechamber of the court room,
number of the women, at least sixty, could have been brought back to which fact was known to Chief of Police Hohmann, who was then present at
Manila is demonstrated by the fact that during this time they were easily to the trial and to the attorney for the respondents, were not produced before
be found in ,the municipality of Davao, and that about this number either the court by the respondents nor did the latter show any effort to present
returned at their own expense or were produced at the second hearing by them, in spite of the fact that their attention was called to this particular by
the respondents." the undersigned.
The majority opinion also recognized that, "The court, at the time the The result of the said second order was, ,as is said in the same
return to its first order was made, would have been warranted summarily decision, that the respondents, on January 13th, the day fixed for the
in finding the respondent guilty of contempt of court, and in sending them production of the women before this court, presented technically the seven
to jail until they obeyed the order. Their excuses for the non production of (7) women above-mentioned who had returned to the city at their own
the persons were far from sufficient." To corroborate this, the majority expense and the other eight (8) women whom the respondents themselves
decision cites the case of the Queen vs.Barnardo, Gossage's Case ([1890], brought to Manila, alleging moreover that their agents and subordinates
24 Q. B. D., 283) and added "that the return did not show that every succeeded in bringing them from Davao with their consent; that in Davao
possible effort to produce the women was made by the respondents." they found eighty-one (81) women who, when asked if they desired to
When the said return by the respondents was made to this court in return to Manila with free transportation, renounced such a right, as is
banc and the case discussed, my opinion was that Mayor Lukban should shown in the affidavits presented by the respondents to this effect; that,
have been immediately punished for contempt. Nevertheless, a second through other means, fifty-nine (59) women have
order referred to in the decision was issued on December 10, 1918, 808
requiring the respondents to produce before the court, on January 13, 808 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED
1919, the women who were not in Manila, unless they could show that it Villavicencio vs. Lukban.
was impossible to comply with the said order on the two grounds already returned to Manila, but notwithstanding the efforts made to find
previously mentioned. With respect to this second order, the same decision them it was not possible to locate the whereabouts of twenty-six (26) of
has the following to say: them. Thus, in short, out of the one hundred and eighty-one (181) women
"In response to the second order of the court, the respondents appear to who, as has been previously said, have been illegally detained by Mayor
have become more zealous and to have shown a better spirit. Agents were Lukban and Chief of Police Hohmann and transported to Davao against
dispatched to Mindanao, placards were posted, the constabulary and the their will, only eight (8) have been brought to Manila and presented before
municipal police joined in rounding up the women, and a steamer with free this court by the respondents in compliance with the said two orders. Fifty-
transportation to Manila was provided. While charges and countercharges nine (59) of them have returned to Manila through other means not
in such a bitterly con- furnished by the respondents, twenty-six of whom were brought by the
attorney for the petitioners, Mendoza, on his return from Davao. The said
807 attorney paid out of his own pocket the transportation of the said twenty-
VOL. 39, MARCH 25, 1919. 807 six women. Adding to these numbers the other seven (7) women who
Villavicencio vs. Lukban. returned to this city at their own expense before January 13 we have a
total of sixty-six (66), which evidently proves, on the one hand, the falsity
of the allegation by the respondents in their first answer at the trial of

Page 11 of 13
December 2, 1918, giving as one of the reasons for their inability to 810
present any of the said women that the latter were content with their life in 810 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED
Mindanao and did not desire to return to Manila; and, on the other,.that the Villavicencio vs. Lukban.
respondents, especially the first named, that is Mayor Justo Lukban, who "It is contempt to employ a subterfuge to evade the judgment of the court,
acted as chief and principal in all that refers to the compliance with the or to obstruct or attempt to obstruct the service of legal process. If a
orders issued by this court, could bring before December 2d, the date of person hinders or prevents the service of process by deceiving the officer
the first hearing of the case, as well as before January 13th, the date fixed or circumventing him by any means, the result is the same as though he
for the compliance with the second order, if not the seventy-four (74) had obstructed by some direct means." (Ruling Case Law, vol. 6, p. 503.)
women already indicated, at least a great number of them, or at least sixty "While it may seem somewhat incongruous to speak, as the courts
(60) of them, as is said in the majority decision, inasmuch as the said often do, of enforcing respect for the law and for the means it has provided
respondent could count upon the aid of the Constabulary forces and the in civilized communities for establishing justice, since true respect never
municipal police, and had transportation facilities for the purpose. But the comes in that way, it is apparent nevertheless that the power to enforce
said respondent mayor brought only eight (8) of the women before this decorum in the courts and obedience to their orders and just measures is
court on January 13th. This fact can not, in my judgment, with due respect so essentially a part of the life of the courts that it would be difficult to
to the majority opinion, justify the conceive of their usefulness or efficiency as existing without it. Therefore it
809 may be said generally that where due respect f or the courts as ministers
VOL. 39, MARCH 25, 1919. 809 of the law is wanting, a necessity arises for the use of compulsion, not,
Villavicencio vs. Lukban. however, so much to excite individual respect as to compel obedience or
conclusion that the said respondent has substantially complied with the to remove an unlawful or unwarranted interference with the administration
second order of this court, but on the other hand demonstrates that he has of justice." /Ruling Case Law, vol. 6, p. 487.)
not complied with the mandate of this court in its first and second orders; "The power to punish for contempt is as old as the law itself, and has
that neither of the said orders has been complied with by the respondent been exercised from the earliest times. In England it has been exerted
Justo Lukban, Mayor of the city of Manila, who is, according to the majority when the contempt consisted of scandalizing the sovereign or his
decision, principally responsible f or the contempt, to which conclusion I ministers, :the law-making power, or the courts. In the American states the
agree. The conduct of the said respondent with respect to the second order power to punish for contempt, so far as the executive department and the
confirms the contempt committed by non-compliance with the first order ministers of state are concerned, and in some degree so f ar as the
and constitutes a new contempt because of non-compliance with the legislative department is concerned, is obsolete. but it has been almost
second, because the production of only eight (8) of the one hundred and universally preserved so far as regards the judicial department. The power
eighty-one (181) women who have been illegally detained by virtue of his which the courts have of vindicating their own authority is a necessary
order and transported to Davao against their will, committing the twenty- incident to every court of justice, whether of record or not; and the
six (26) women who could not be found in Davao, demonstrates in my authority for issuing attachments in a proper case for contempts out of
opinion that, notwithstanding the nature of the case which deals with the court, it has been declared, stands upon the same immemorial usage as
remedy of habeas corpus, presented by the petitioners and involving the supports the whole fabric
question whether they should or not be granted their liberty, the
respondent has not given due attention to the same nor has he made any 811
effort to comply with the second order. In other words, he has disobeyed VOL. 39, MARCH 25, 1919. 811
the said two orders; has despised the authority of this court; has failed to Villavicencio vs. Lukban.
give the respect due to justice; and lastly, he has created and placed of the common law. * * *" (Ruling Case Law, vol. 6, p. 489.)
obstacles to the administration of justice in the said habeas
corpusproceeding, thus preventing, because of his notorious disobedience, The undisputed importance of the orders of this court which have been
the resolution of the said proceeding with the promptness which the nature disobeyed; the loss of the prestige of the authority of the court which
of the same required. issued the said orders, which loss might have been caused by
"Contempt of court has been defined as a despising of the authority, noncompliance with the. same orders on the part of the respondent Justo
justice, or dignity of the court; and he is guilty of contempt whose conduct Lukban; the damages which might have been suffered by some of the
is such as tends to bring the authority and administration of the law into women illegally detained, in view of the f act that they were not brought to
disrespect or disregard. * * *" (Ruling Case Law, vol. 6, p. 488.) Manila by the respondents to be presented before the court and of the
"It is a general principle that a disobedience of any valid order of the further fact that some of them were obliged to come to this city at their
court constitutes contempt, unless the defendant is unable to comply own expense while still others were brought to Manila by the attorney for
therewith." (Ruling Case Law vol. 6, p. 502.) the petitioners, who paid out of his own pocket the transportation of the
said women; and the delay which was necessarily incurred in the resolution
of the petition interposed by the said petitioners and which was due to the
Page 12 of 13
fact that the said orders were not opportunely and duly obeyed and
complied with, are circumstances which should be taken into account in
imposing upon the respondent Justo Lukban the penalty corresponding to
the contempt committed by him, a penalty which, according to section 236
of the Code of Civil Procedure, should consist of a fine not exceeding
P1,000 or imprisonment not exceeding six months, or both such fine and
imprisonment. In the imposition of the penalty, there should also be taken
into consideration the special circumstance that the contempt was
committed by a public authority, the mayor of the city of Manila, the first
executive authority of the city, and consequently, the person obliged to be
the first in giving an example of obedience and respect for the laws and
the valid and just orders of the duly constituted authorities as well as for
the orders emanating from the courts of justice, and in giving help and aid
to the said courts in order that justice may be administered with
promptness and rectitude.
I believe, therefore, that instead of the fine of one hundred pesos
(P100), there should be imposed upon the re-
812
812 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED
Rodriguez and Juta vs. Municipal Council of Tagig.
spondent Justo Lukban a fine of five hundred pesos (P500), and all the
costs should be charged against him. Lastly, I believe it to be my duty to
state here that the records of this proceeding should be transmitted to the
AttorneyGeneral in order that, after a study of the same and deduction
from the testimony which he may deem necessary, and the proper
transmittal of the same to the fiscal of the city of Manila and to the
provincial fiscal of Davao, both the latter shall present the corresponding
informations for the prosecution and punishment of the crimes which have
been committed on the occasion when the illegal detention of the women
was carried into effect by Mayor Justo Lukban of the city of Manila and
Chief of Police Anton Hohmann, and also of those crimes committed by
reason of the same detention and while the women were in Davao. This
will be one of the means whereby the just hope expressed in the majority
decision will be realized, that is, that in the Philippine Islands there should
exist a government of laws and not a government of men and that this
decision may serve to bulwark the fortifications of an orderly Government
of laws and to protect individual liberty from illegal encroachments.
Writ granted.
_____________

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Page 13 of 13