CONSTI 2 [G.R. No. 88211. September 15, 1989.] FERDINAND E. MARCOS, IMELDA R. MARCOS, FERDINAND R. MARCOS, JR., IRENE M. ARANETA, IMEE M.

MANOTOC, TOMAS MANOTOC, GREGORIO ARANETA, PACIFICO E. MARCOS, NICANOR YÑIGUEZ and PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION ASSOCIATION (PHILCONSA), represented by its President, CONRADO F. ESTRELLA, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE RAUL MANGLAPUS, CATALINO MACARAIG, SEDFREY ORDOÑEZ, MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO, FIDEL RAMOS, RENATO DE VILLA, in their capacity as Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Executive Secretary, Secretary of Justice, Immigration Commissioner, Secretary of National Defense and Chief of Staff, respectively, respondents.

LIBERTY OF ABODE AND TRAVEL President is not only clothed with extraordinary powers in times of emergency, but is also tasked with attending to the day-to-day problems of maintaining peace and order and ensuring domestic tranquillity in times when no foreign foe appears on the horizon. Wide discretion, within the bounds of law, in fulfilling presidential duties in times of peace is not in any way diminished by the relative want of an emergency specified in the commander-in-chief provision. 7.ID.; LIBERTY OF ABODE AND RIGHT TO TRAVEL; REQUEST TO BE ALLOWED TO RETURN TO THE PHILIPPINES; TO BE TREATED AS ADDRESSED TO THE RESIDUAL UNSTATED POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT. — The request or demand of the Marcoses to be allowed to return to the Philippines cannot be considered in the light solely of the constitutional provisions guaranteeing liberty of abode and the right to travel, subject to certain exceptions, or of case law which clearly never contemplated situations even remotely similar to the present one. It must be treated as a matter that is appropriately addressed to those residual unstated powers of the President which are implicit in and correlative to the paramount duty residing in that office to safeguard and protect general welfare. In that context, such request or demand should submit to the exercise of a broader discretion on the part of the President to determine whether it must be granted or denied. 8.ID.; JUDICIAL REVIEW; POWER TO DETERMINE GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION ON ANY BRANCH OR INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE GOVERNMENT. — The present Constitution limits resort to the political question doctrine and broadens the scope of judicial inquiry into areas which the Court, under previous constitutions, would have normally left to the political departments to decide. The deliberations of the Constitutional Commission cited by petitioners show that the framers intended to widen the scope of judicial review but they did not intend courts of justice to settle all actual controversies before them. When political questions are involved, the Constitution limits the determination to whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the official whose action is being questioned. 9.ID.; LIBERTY OF ABODE AND RIGHT TO TRAVEL; DENIAL OF REQUEST TO BE ALLOWED TO RETURN TO THE PHILIPPINES, NOT A GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION. — We find that from the pleadings filed by the parties, from their oral arguments, and the facts revealed during the briefing in chambers by the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the National Security Adviser, wherein petitioners and respondents were represented, there exist factual bases for the President's decision. The documented history of the efforts of the Marcoses and their followers to destabilize the country, as earlier narrated in this ponencia bolsters the conclusion that the return of the Marcoses at this time would only exacerbate and intensify the violence directed against the State and instigate more chaos. With these before her, the President cannot be said to have acted arbitrarily and capriciously and whimsically in determining that the return of the Marcoses poses a serious threat to the national interest and welfare and in prohibiting their return. GUTIERREZ, JR., J.: dissenting: 1.CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; CONSTITUTION; ITS PROVISIONS PROTECT ALL MEN, AT ALL TIMES AND UNDER ALL CIRCUMSTANCES. — "The Constitution . . . is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine involving more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government." (Ex Parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2; 18 L. Ed. 281 [1866]). 2.ID.; POLITICAL QUESTIONS; OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF JUDICIAL DETERMINATION. — It is a well-settled doctrine that political questions are not within the province of the judiciary, except to the extent that power to deal with such questions has been conferred on the courts by express constitutional or statutory provisions. 3.ID.; ID.; CONSTRUED. — It is not so easy, however, to define the phrase political question, nor to

SYLLABUS

1.CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; BILL OF RIGHTS; RIGHT TO RETURN TO ONE'S COUNTRY, NOT AMONG THE RIGHTS GUARANTEED. — The right to return to one's country is not among the rights specifically guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, which treats only of the liberty of abode and the right to travel. 2.ID.; ID.; RIGHT TO RETURN CONSIDERED AS A GENERALLY ACCEPTED PRINCIPLE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW. — It is the court's well-considered view that the right to return may be considered, as a generally accepted principle of international law and under our Constitution, is part of the law of the land [Art. II Sec. 2 of the Constitution.] 3.ID.; ID.; RIGHT TO RETURN, DISTINCT AND SEPARATE FROM THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL. — It is distinct and separate from the right to travel and enjoys a different protection under the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, i.e., against being "arbitrarily deprived" thereof [Art. 12 (4).] 4.ID.; ALLOCATION OF POWER IN THE THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT A GRANT OF ALL THE POWERS INHERENT THERETO. — As the Supreme Court in Ocampo v. Cabangis [15 Phil. 626 (1910)] pointed out "a grant of the legislative power means a grant of all legislative power; and a grant of the judicial power means a grant of all the judicial power which may be exercised under the government." [At 631-632.] If this can be said of the legislative power which is exercised by two chambers with a combined membership of more than two hundred members and of the judicial power which is vested in a hierarchy of courts, it can equally be said of the executive power which is vested in one official — the President. 5.ID.; PRESIDENT'S POWER UNDER THE 1987 CONSTITUTION; EXTENT AND LIMITATION. — Consideration of tradition and the development of presidential power under the different constitutions are essential for a complete understanding of the extent of and limitations to the President's powers under the 1987 Constitution. Although the 1987 Constitution imposes limitations on the exercise of specific powers of the President, it maintains intact what is traditionally considered as within the scope of "executive power." Corollarily, the powers of the President cannot be said to be limited only to the specific powers enumerated in the Constitution. In other words, executive power is more than the sum of specific powers so enumerated. 6.ID.; PRESIDENT'S RESIDUAL POWER TO PROTECT THE GENERAL WELFARE OF THE PEOPLE; THE POWERS INVOLVED. — The power involved is the President's residual power to protect the general welfare of the people. It is founded on the duty of the President, as steward of the people. To paraphrase Theodore Roosevelt, it is not only the power of the President but also his duty to do anything not forbidden by the Constitution or the laws that the needs of the nation demand. The

CONSTI 2 determine what matters fall within its scope. It is frequently used to designate all questions that lie outside the scope of the judicial power. More properly, however, it means those questions which, under the constitution, are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the government. 4.ID.; ID.; CONSTITUTIONAL POWER VESTED EXCLUSIVELY IN THE PRESIDENT OR CONGRESS, BEYOND PROHIBITION OR EXAMINATION BY THE COURT REQUIRED FOR ITS EXISTENCE. — For a political question to exist, there must be in the Constitution a power vested exclusively in the President or Congress, the exercise of which the court should not examine or prohibit. A claim of plenary or inherent power against a civil right which claim is not found in a specific provision is dangerous. Neither should we validate a roving commission allowing public officials to strike where they please and to override everything which to them represents evil. The entire Government is bound by the rule of law. The authority implied in Section 6 of the Bill of Rights itself does not exist because no law has been enacted specifying the circumstances when the right may be impaired in the interest of national security or public safety. The power is in Congress, not the Executive. 5.ID.; LIBERTY OF ABODE AND RIGHT TO TRAVEL; RIGHT TO TRAVEL INCLUDES RIGHT TO TRAVEL OUT OF OR BACK TO THE PHILIPPINES. — Section 6 of the Bill of Rights states categorically that the liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law may be impaired only upon a lawful order of a court. Not by an executive officer. Not even by the President. Section 6 further provides that the right to travel, and this obviously includes the right to travel out of or back into the Philippines, cannot be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law. 6.ID.; POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE NO LONGER UTILIZED BY THE COURT; COURT COMPELLED TO DECIDE THE CASE UNDER THE 1987 CONSTITUTION. — The framers of the Constitution believed that the free use of the political question doctrine allowed the Court during the Marcos years to fall back on prudence, institutional difficulties, complexity of issues, momentousness of consequences or a fear that it was extravagantly extending judicial power in the cases where it refused to examine and strike down an exercise of authoritarian power. Parenthetically, at least two of the respondents and their counsel were among the most vigorous critics of Mr. Marcos (the main petitioner) and his use of the political question doctrine. The Constitution was accordingly amended. We are now precluded by its mandate from refusing to invalidate a political use of power through a convenient resort to the political question doctrine. We are compelled to decide what would have been non-justiceable under our decisions interpreting earlier fundamental charters. 7.ID.; LIBERTY OF ABODE AND RIGHT TO TRAVEL; DENIAL A GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION. — We do not have to look into the factual bases of the ban Marcos policy in order to ascertain whether or not the respondents acted with grave abuse of discretion. Nor are we forced to fall back upon judicial notice of the implications of a Marcos return to his home to buttress a conclusion. In the first place, there has never been a pronouncement by the President that a clear and present danger to national security and public safety will arise if Mr. Marcos and his family are allowed to return to the Philippines. It was only after the present petition was filed that the alleged danger to national security and public safety conveniently surfaced in the respondents' pleadings. Secondly, President Aquino herself limits the reason for the ban Marcos policy to (1) national welfare and interest and (2) the continuing need to preserve the gains achieved in terms of recovery and stability. Neither ground satisfies the criteria of national security and public safety. The "confluence theory" of the Solicitor General or what the majority calls "catalytic effect," which alone sustains the claim of danger to national security is fraught with perilous implications. Any difficult problem or any troublesome person can be substituted for the Marcos threat as the catalysing factor. It was precisely the banning by Mr. Marcos of the right to travel by Senators Benigno Aquino, Jr., Jovito Salonga, and scores of other "undesirables" and "threats to national security" during that unfortunate period which led the framers of our present Constitution not only to re-enact but to strengthen the declaration of this

LIBERTY OF ABODE AND TRAVEL right. DECISION CORTES, J p: Before the Court is a controversy of grave national importance. While ostensibly only legal issues are involved, the Court's decision in this case would undeniably have a profound effect on the political, economic and other aspects of national life. We recall that in February 1986, Ferdinand E. Marcos was deposed from the presidency via the nonviolent "people power" revolution and forced into exile. In his stead, Corazon C. Aquino was declared President of the Republic under a revolutionary government. Her ascension to and consolidation of power have not been unchallenged. The failed Manila Hotel coup in 1986 led by political leaders of Mr. Marcos, the takeover of television station Channel 7 by rebel troops led by Col. Canlas with the support of "Marcos loyalists" and the unsuccessful plot of the Marcos spouses to surreptitiously return from Hawaii with mercenaries aboard an aircraft chartered by a Lebanese arms dealer [Manila Bulletin, January 30, 1987] awakened the nation to the capacity of the Marcoses to stir trouble even from afar and to the fanaticism and blind loyalty of their followers in the country. The ratification of the 1987 Constitution enshrined the victory of "people power" and also clearly reinforced the constitutional moorings of Mrs. Aquino's presidency. This did not, however, stop bloody challenges to the government. On August 28, 1987, Col. Gregorio Honasan, one of the major players in the February Revolution, led a failed coup that left scores of people, both combatants and civilians, dead. There were several other armed sorties of lesser significance, but the message they conveyed was the same — a split in the ranks of the military establishment that threatened civilian supremacy over the military and brought to the fore the realization that civilian government could be at the mercy of a fractious military. But the armed threats to the Government were not only found in misguided elements in the military establishment and among rabid followers of Mr. Marcos. There were also the communist insurgency and the secessionist movement in Mindanao which gained ground during the rule of Mr. Marcos, to the extent that the communists have set up a parallel government of their own in the areas they effectively control while the separatists are virtually free to move about in armed bands. There has been no let up in these groups' determination to wrest power from the government. Not only through resort to arms but also through the use of propaganda have they been successful in creating chaos and destabilizing the country. Nor are the woes of the Republic purely political. The accumulated foreign debt and the plunder of the nation attributed to Mr. Marcos and his cronies left the economy devastated. The efforts at economic recovery, three years after Mrs. Aquino assumed office, have yet to show concrete results in alleviating the poverty of the masses, while the recovery of the ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses has remained elusive. Now, Mr. Marcos, in his deathbed, has signified his wish to return to the Philippines to die. But Mrs. Aquino, considering the dire consequences to the nation of his return at a time when the stability of government is threatened from various directions and the economy is just beginning to rise and move forward, has stood firmly on the decision to bar the return of Mr. Marcos and his family. The Petition This case is unique. It should not create a precedent, for the case of a dictator forced out of office and into exile after causing twenty years of political, economic and social havoc in the country and who within the short space of three years seeks to return, is in a class by itself.

or public health. public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others. liberty. The petitioners further assert that under international law.(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. The Issue The issue is basically one of power: whether or not. the respondents' principal argument is that the issue in this case involves a political question which is non-justiciable. They advance the view that before the right to travel may be impaired by any authority or agency of the government. the resolution of the case would depend on the resolution of the following issues: 1. and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant. public safety. Has the President made a finding that the return of former President Marcos and his family to the Philippines is a clear and present danger to national security. public safety. as may be provided by law. — i. public safety or public health" — a. Marcos and his family have the right to travel and liberty of abode. the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. or with grave abuse of discretion. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security. there must be legislation to that effect. the question is not a The case for petitioners is founded on the assertion that the right of the Marcoses to return to the Philippines is guaranteed under the following provisions of the Bill of Rights.] LIBERTY OF ABODE AND TRAVEL Section 6. The petitioners contend that the President is without power to impair the liberty of abode of the Marcoses because only a court may do so "within the limits prescribed by law. Assuming that she has made that finding. pp. (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country. public safety. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides: Article 13. to wit: Section 1. Rollo. in implementing the President's decision to bar the return of former President Marcos and his family. Is this a political question? Assuming that the President has the power to bar former President Marcos and his family from returning to the Philippines. It may be conceded that as formulated by petitioners. or public health. or public health a political question? d.The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Is the President's determination that the return of former President Marcos and his family to the Philippines is a clear and present danger to national security.CONSTI 2 This petition for mandamus and prohibition asks the Court to order the respondents to issue travel documents to Mr. pp. Marcos and his family to return to the Philippines is guaranteed.No person shall be deprived of life. According to the petitioners. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country. public safety or public health? b. have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence. xxx xxx xxx . Petitioners invoke these constitutional rights in vacuo without reference to attendant circumstances." Nor may the President impair their right to travel because no law has authorized her to do so. including his own. Has there been prior notice to petitioners? iii. 2) 3) 4) 3. provides: Article 12 1) Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall. Marcos and the immediate members of his family and to enjoin the implementation of the President's decision to bar their return to the Philippines. acted and would be acting without jurisdiction. Assuming that notice and hearing may be dispensed with. has the President's decision. within that territory. including the grounds upon which it was based. 5-7. 234-236. public order (order public). the right of Mr. the President may prohibit the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines. Has there been a hearing? iv. including his own. in performing any act which would effectively bar the return of former President Marcos and his family to the Philippines? [Memorandum for Petitioners. Have the requirements of due process been complied with in making such finding? ii. or property without due process of law. and to return to his country. in the interest of "national security. Likewise. or in excess of jurisdiction. which had been ratified by the Philippines. According to the Solicitor General: As petitioners couch it. nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws. have respondents established such fact? Have the respondents. the issue is whether or not petitioners Ferdinand E. Assuming that the Court may inquire as to whether the return of former President Marcos and his family is a clear and present danger to national security. been made known to petitioners so that they may controvert the same? c. The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law. Everyone shall be free to leave any country. Marcos and family have the right to return to the Philippines and reside here at this time in the face of the determination by the President that such return and residence will endanger national security and public safety. Respondents submit that in its proper formulation. Does the President have the power to bar the return of former President Marcos and his family to the Philippines? a. 2. in the exercise of the powers granted by the Constitution. are necessary to protect national security. On the other hand. the question involved is simply whether or not petitioners Ferdinand E. therefore.

101 SCt. Fulgencio Batista of Cuba. Section 1. 13(1)] separately from the "right to leave any country.The maintenance of peace and order. Cdpr Consequently. The Government may call upon the people to defend the State and. the right to leave a country. pursuant to the express power of the Court under the Constitution in Article VIII. 26-32. Marcos and his family from returning to the Philippines for reasons of national security and public safety has international precedents. 2d 1204] and Haig v. we are not bound by its narrow confines in arriving at a solution to the controversy. they cite Article II of the Constitution.] However. and Marcos Perez Jimenez of Venezuela were among the deposed dictators whose return to their homelands was prevented by their governments. At the outset. pp.e. the protection of life. under our Constitution.CONSTI 2 political question as it involves merely a determination of what the law provides on the matter and application thereof to petitioners Ferdinand E. the Universal Declaration of Humans Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights treat the right to freedom of movement and abode within the territory of a state. whether or not the President acted arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when she determined that the return of the Marcoses to the Philippines poses a serious threat to national interest and welfare and decided to bar their return.S. view this issue in a different light. to render personal. the Covenant guarantees the "right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence" [Art. Marcos and family shall return to the Philippines and establish their residence here? This is now a political question which this Honorable Court can not decide for it falls within the exclusive authority and competence of the President of the Philippines. Although we give due weight to the parties' formulation of the issues. 2 L Ed. cdrep There are thus gradations to the question. a totally distinct right under international law. Jr. An appropriate case for its resolution will have to be awaited. 2766. Essentially. 69 L Ed. as a generally accepted principle of international law and. Marcos and family have their right to return to the Philippines and reestablish their residence here even if their return and residence here will endanger national security and public safety? This is still a justiciable question which this Honorable Court can decide. but it is our well-considered view that the right to return may be considered. In support thereof. Rollo. quoted in Memorandum for Respondents. the 1987 Constitution explicitly provides that "[t]he legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines" [Art. 139 (1936)]. which treats only of the liberty of abode and the right to travel. It must be emphasized that the individual right involved is not the right to travel from the Philippines to other countries or within the Philippines. Do petitioners Ferdinand E. 2 of the Constitution. and property. liberty. pp. Agee [453 U. Rollo. But when the question is whether the two rights claimed by petitioners Ferdinand E..] It would therefore be inappropriate to construe the limitations to the right to return to one's country in the same context as those pertaining to the liberty of abode and the right to travel. Thus. and the promotion of the general welfare are essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of democracy. which refer to the issuance of passports for the purpose of effectively exercising the right to travel are not determinative of this case and are only tangentially material insofar as they relate to a conflict between executive action and the exercise of a protected right. pp. We shall first resolve whether or not the President has the power under the Constitution. public order. under conditions provided by law. we shall determine. 9-11. "[t]he executive power shall be vested in the President of the . 1]. and to return to his country. 78 SCt. allotment of power to the executive. "the Constitution has blocked but with deft strokes and in bold lines. Having clarified the substance of the legal issue. Dulles [357 U. we must state that it would not do to view the case within the confines of the right to travel and the import of the decisions of the U. or civil service. including his own. Marcos and family have the right to return to the Philippines and reestablish their residence here? This is clearly a justiciable question which this Honorable Court can decide. Maximiliano Hernandez Martinez of El Salvador.The prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect the people. 12 (4). resolution by the Court of the well-debated issue of whether or not there can be limitations on the right to travel in the absence of legislation to that effect is rendered unnecessary. Marcos and family impinge on or collide with the more primordial and transcendental right of the State to security and safety of its nationals. military. 12(2)] which rights may be restricted by such laws as "are necessary to protect national security. King Farouk of Egypt. however. and even in American jurisprudence. We. 2d LIBERTY OF ABODE AND TRAVEL 640) which affirmed the right to travel and recognized exceptions to the exercise thereof. 12(1)] and the right to "be free to leave any country. the rulings in the cases of Kent and Haig.S. 297-299.] The parties are in agreement that the underlying issue is one of the scope of presidential power and its limits. 314-319. The issue before the Court is novel and without precedent in Philippine. 13(2). Anastacio Somoza. i." [At 157. VI. 116. all citizens may be required. These are what the right to travel would normally connote. the right involved is the right to return to one's country. against being "arbitrarily deprived" thereof [Art. we find now a need to explain the methodology for its resolution." [Art. Electoral Commission [63 Phil. Supreme Court in the leading cases of Kent v. and the right to enter one's country as separate and distinct rights. To recall the words of Justice Laurel in Angara v. Manglapus. Then.] Thus. the legislative and the judicial departments of the government. [See Statement of Foreign Affairs Secretary Raul S. public health or morals or the separate rights and freedoms of others. in the fulfillment thereof. II.] On the other hand. The right to return to one's country is not among the rights specifically guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. Our resolution of the issue will involve a two-tiered approach. Rafael Trujillo of the Dominican Republic.] Thus." [Art.S. Section 5. Jorge Ubico of Guatemala." [Art. Sec. is part of the law of the land [Art. Is there danger to national security and public safety if petitioners Ferdinand E. to wit: Section 4. Marcos and family. Executive Power The 1987 Constitution has fully restored the separation of powers of the three great branches of government. The Declaration speaks of the "right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state" [Art. of Nicaragua." [Art. respectively. [Memorandum for Respondents. 280.] Respondents argue for the primacy of the right of the State to national security over individual rights. to bar the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines. Respondents also point out that the decision to ban Mr. Sec. it is distinct and separate from the right to travel and enjoys a different protection under the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights. the question becomes political and this Honorable Court can not consider it. pp. 1113. 12(4). 12(3)] as distinguished from the "right to enter his own country" of which one cannot be "arbitrarily deprived. to wit: Do petitioners Ferdinand E. including his own. independent from although related to the right to travel.

It would not be accurate. Thus. to those who think that constitution makers ought to leave considerable leeway for the future play of political forces. and a grant of the judicial power means a grant of all the judicial power which may be exercised under the government." [At 30. the power to grant amnesty with the concurrence of Congress. Each President's distinctive temperament and character. it can equally be said of the executive power which is vested in one official — the President. 1]. we hold the view that although the 1987 Constitution imposes limitations on the exercise of specific powers of the President. the power to submit the budget to Congress. in the landmark decision of Springer v. that the consideration of tradition and the development of presidential power under the different constitutions are essential for a complete understanding of the extent of and limitations to the President's powers under the 1987 Constitution. The thrust of the office. President were exercised by the different persons who held the office from Washington to the early 1900's.g. The 1987 Constitution. to earn and hold the confidence of the electorate and to render an accounting to the nation and posterity determined whether he strengthened or weakened the constitutional order. Sec.] These provisions not only establish a separation of powers by actual division [Angara v. compulsions. In other words. taking its color from the character and personality of the President. but through numerous amendments. Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. ** Corwin. and what is not enumerated is impliedly denied to her." Corollarily. . they assert: "The President has enumerated powers. But.] We do not say that the presidency is what Mrs. executive power is more than the sum of specific powers so enumerated. said Clark Clifford. Rollo p. and the power to address Congress [Art. 626 (1910)] pointed out "a grant of the legislative power means a grant of all legislative power. the President became even more powerful. S. It remained. it changed shape. more than most LIBERTY OF ABODE AND TRAVEL agencies of government.. for the President is head of state as well as head of government and whatever powers inhere in such positions pertain to the office unless the Constitution itself withholds it. and still more clear that they are not judicial. pp.] If this can be said of the legislative power which is exercised by two chambers with a combined membership of more than two hundred members and of the judicial power which is vested in a hierarchy of courts. The inevitable question then arises: by enumerating certain powers of the President did the framers of the Constitution intend that the President shall exercise those specific powers and no other? Are these enumerated powers the breadth and scope of "executive power"? Petitioners advance the view that the President's powers are limited to those specifically enumerated in the 1987 Constitution. its impact on the constitutional order. Electoral Commission. Government of the Philippine Islands. the Constitution itself provides that the execution of the laws is only one of the powers of the President. Here the members of the legislature who constitute a majority of the "board" and "committee" respectively. VII. the power to grant reprieves. was a chameleon. 4. 1. VII. his power over the country's foreign relations.S. The executive branch. Furthermore. However. however. an agency of government subject to unvarying demands and duties no matter who was President. idiosyncrasies. the powers under the commander-in-chief clause. Above all. the Constitution provides that "[t]he executive power shall be vested in the President of the Philippines." . . 3-4. and "[t]he judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law" [Art. It has been advanced that whatever power inherent in the government that is neither legislative nor judicial has to be executive. his values. We encounter this characteristic of Article II in its opening words: "The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. 1].S.] Reviewing how the powers of the U. therefore altered from President to President. On these premises. executive and judicial powers subject only to limitations provided in the Constitution. executive and judicial powers by their actual distribution among three distinct branches of government with provision for checks and balances.. expectations. It also grants the President other powers that do not involve the execution of any provision of law. The 1935 Constitution created a strong President with explicitly broader powers than the U. He said: Article II is the most loosely drawn chapter of the Constitution. the power to contract or guarantee foreign loans. to the point that he was also the de facto Legislature. the power to enter into treaties or international agreements. bureaus and offices. said: . with the President as a mere figurehead. Cabangis [15 Phil.] This view is shared by Schlesinger. intensity and ethos according to the man in charge. President." [Art. 14-23]. The 1973 Constitution attempted to modify the system of government into the parliamentary type. VII. 189 (1928). Secs. standards. e. phobias recast the White House and pervaded the entire government. Aquino says it is or what she does but. 277 U. his habits. style. the U. the power of control over all executive departments. in his monumental volume on the President of the United States grappled with the same problem. it should be a vision realized. .S. who wrote in The Imperial Presidency: For the American Presidency was a peculiarly personal institution. the powers of the President cannot be said to be limited only to the specific powers enumerated in the Constitution. The fact that they do not fall within the authority of either of these two constitutes logical ground for concluding that they do fall within that of the remaining one among which the powers of government are . it does not define what is meant by "executive power" although in the same article it touches on the exercise of certain powers by the President. Supreme Court." [Memorandum for Petitioners. As stated above. and the swing from the presidency by commission to Lincoln's dictatorship.CONSTI 2 Philippines" [Art. . Thus.S. [The President: Office and Powers. For as the Supreme Court in Ocampo v. 1787-1957. To those who think that a constitution ought to settle everything beforehand it should be a nightmare. the power to execute the laws. the way each President understood it as his personal obligation to inform and involve the Congress.] This argument brings to mind the institution of the U.e. Putting aside for the moment the question whether the duties devolved upon these members are vested by the Organic Act in the Governor-General. in upholding the power of the Governor-General to do so. Sec. i. are not charged with the performance of any legislative functions or with the doing of anything which is in aid of performance of any such functions by the legislature. the appointing power. on the issue of who between the Governor-General of the Philippines and the Legislature may vote the shares of stock held by the Government to elect directors in the National Coal Company and the Philippine National Bank. it maintains intact what is traditionally considered as within the scope of "executive power. 233. rather. it is clear that they are not legislative in character. however. [At 212-213. VIII. by the same token. he concluded that "what the presidency is at any particular moment depends in important measure on who is President. Sec. commutations and pardons. to state that "executive power" is the power to enforce the laws." [At 631-632. Presidency after which ours is legally patterned. p. supra] but also confer plenary legislative. brought back the presidential system of government and restored the separation of legislative. of course.

To paraphrase Theodore Roosevelt.] The Resolution does not question the President's power to bar the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines. or that the Constitution requires. But nonetheless there remain issues beyond the Court's jurisdiction the determination of which is exclusively for the President.] Given this wording.] We are not unmindful of Justice Holmes' strong dissent. What we are saying in effect is that the request or demand of the Marcoses to be allowed to return to the Philippines cannot be considered in the light solely of the constitutional provisions guaranteeing liberty of abode and the right to travel." [House Resolution No. although couched in absolute terms. 4 and 5. judicial power includes the duty to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. rather. service and protection of the people. Marcos to return to the Philippines "as a genuine unselfish gesture for true national reconciliation and as irrevocable proof of our collective adherence to uncompromising respect for human rights under the Constitution and our laws." [Art. under the Constitution. It must be borne in mind that the Constitution. G. . The President is not only clothed with extraordinary powers in times of emergency. as steward of the people. The present Constitution limits resort to the political question doctrine and broadens the scope of judicial inquiry into areas which the Court. The power of the President to keep the peace is not limited merely to exercising the commander-in-chief powers in times of emergency or to leading the State against external and internal threats to its existence. would have normally left to the political departments to decide. under previous constitutions. 79690-707. liberty and property. 321. were it ever so desirable to do so. VIII. and the promotion of the general welfare are essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of democracy. The American President. More particularly. But in his enduring words of dissent we find reinforcement for the view that it would indeed be a folly to construe the powers of a branch of government to embrace only what are specifically mentioned in the Constitution: The great ordinances of the Constitution do not establish and divide fields of black and white. this case calls for the exercise of the President's powers as protector of the peace. the Constitution reminds everyone that "[s]overeignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them. The constitutional guarantees they invoke are neither absolute nor inflexible. we cannot agree with the Solicitor General that the issue constitutes a political question which is beyond the jurisdiction of the Court to decide. and is manifested by the Resolution proposed in the House of Representatives and signed by 103 of its members urging the President to allow Mr. or suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or declaring martial law. It must be treated as a matter that is appropriately addressed to those residual unstated powers of the President which are implicit in and correlative to the paramount duty residing in that office to safeguard and protect general welfare. xxx xxx xxx It does not seem to need argument to show that however we may disguise it by veiling words we do not and cannot carry out the distinction between legislative and executive action with mathematical precision and divide the branches into watertight compartments. the President is. admits of limits and must be adjusted to the requirements of equally important public interests [Zaldivar v. Sec. Nos. More than that. supra. within the bounds of law. It is a power borne by the President's duty to preserve and defend the Constitution. aside from being an allocation of power is also a social contract whereby the people have surrendered their sovereign powers to the State for the common good. and adhere to them. the problem is one of balancing the general welfare and the common good against the exercise of rights of certain individuals. II. in making any decision as President of the Republic.] Admittedly. [Rossiter. The power involved is the President's residual power to LIBERTY OF ABODE AND TRAVEL protect the general welfare of the people. and property.R. It is founded on the duty of the President." [Art.] The resolution of the problem is made difficult because the persons who seek to return to the country are the deposed dictator and his family at whose door the travails of the country are laid and from whom billions of dollars believed to be ill-gotten wealth are sought to be recovered. which I am far from believing that it is. 1. To the President. Even the more specific of them are found to terminate in a penumbra shading gradually from one extreme to the other. It also may be viewed as a power implicit in the President's duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed [see Hyman. That the President has the power under the Constitution to bar the Marcoses from returning has been recognized by members of the Legislature. Sec. lest the officers of the Government exercising the powers delegated by the people forget and the servants of the people become rulers. Sandiganbayan. But such does not mean that they are empty words. . 1988]. in drawing a plan of government. 1.] The Power Involved The Constitution declares among the guiding principles that "[t]he prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect the people" and that "[t]he maintenance of peace and order. among other things. the maintenance of peace and order. for Congress or for the people . in fulfilling presidential duties in times of peace is not in any way diminished by the relative want of an emergency specified in the commander-in-chief provision. p. and the promotion of the general welfare are essentially ideals to guide governmental action. The American Presidency]. it appeals to the President's sense of compassion to allow a man to come home to die in his country. in the exercise of presidential functions. but is also tasked with attending to the day-to-day problems of maintaining peace and order and ensuring domestic tranquillity in times when no foreign foe appears on the horizon. and in directing implementing action for these plans. having sworn to defend and uphold the Constitution. emphasis supplied. such request or demand should submit to the exercise of a broader discretion on the part of the President to determine whether it must be granted or denied. the President has to consider these principles. . Hence. constrained to consider these basic principles in arriving at a decision. in order to keep the peace.CONSTI 2 divided . it is not only the power of the President but also his duty to do anything not forbidden by the Constitution or the laws that the needs of the nation demand [See Corwin. or of case law which clearly never contemplated situations even remotely similar to the present one. or from another point of view. subject to certain exceptions. 1342. llcd The Extent of Review Under the Constitution. the President has the obligation under the Constitution to protect the people. In that context. [At 202-203. October 7. and maintain public order and security. liberty. Rollo. For in making the President commander-in-chief the enumeration of powers that follow cannot be said to exclude the President's exercising as Commander-in-Chief powers short of the calling of the armed forces. Wide discretion. II. Thus." [Art. where the author advances the view that an allowance of discretionary power is unavoidable in any government and is best lodged in the President]. promote their welfare and advance the national interest. at 153]. the protection of life. For the exercise of even the preferred freedoms of speech and of expression. the protection of life. . .[At 210-211. Faced with the problem of whether or not the time is right to allow the Marcoses to return to the Philippines. Secs.

we cannot argue with that determination. police officers and civilian officials. December 11. no matter how premature or improvident such action may appear. constitutionally supreme. in this respect. With these before her. . question the President's recognition of a foreign government. not to exercise the power vested in him or to determine the wisdom of his act . to mention only a few. or to ascertain merely whether he has gone beyond the constitutional limits of his jurisdiction. it cannot be said that she has acted. defining "judicial power. rightist conspiracies to grab power. We cannot set aside a presidential pardon though it may appear to us that the beneficiary is totally undeserving of the grant. The deliberations of the Constitutional Commission cited by petitioners show that the framers intended to widen the scope of judicial review but they did not intend courts of justice to settle all actual controversies before them. the separation of powers. acting through the Government. The resulting precarious state of our economy is of common knowledge and is easily within the ambit of judicial notice. urban terrorism." which specifically empowers the courts to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government. sworn to preserve and defend the Constitution and to see the faithful execution the laws. many of whom are still here in the Philippines in a position to destabilize the country. The documented history of the efforts of the Marcoses and their followers to destabilize the country. Nor can we amend the Constitution under the guise of resolving a dispute brought before us because the power is reserved to the people. Given what is within our individual and common knowledge of the state of the economy. No. Protection of the people is the essence of the duty of government. Then. though still nascent.R. but only if and when he acts within the sphere alloted to him by the Basic Law. the murder with impunity of military men. the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED. the Executive is supreme within his own sphere. 1971. Garcia [G. The Court cannot close its eyes to present realities and pretend that the country is not besieged from within by a well-organized communist insurgency. We find that from the pleadings filed by the parties. which stifles and stagnates development and is one of the root causes of widespread poverty and all its attendant ills. SO ORDERED. in turn. that would be the time for the President to step in and exercise the commander-in-chief powers granted her by the Constitution to suppress or stamp out such violence.. There is nothing in the case before us that precludes our determination thereof on the political question doctrine. Section 1 of the Constitution. If grave abuse is not established. [At 479480. wherein petitioners and respondents were represented. Accordingly. the question for the Court to determine is whether or not there exist factual bases for the President to conclude that it was in the national interest to bar the return of the Marcoses to the Philippines. for example. which. the function of the Court is merely to check — not to supplant — the Executive. and the authority to determine whether or not he has so acted is vested in the Judicial Department. The military establishment has given assurances that it could handle the threats posed by particular groups. The preservation of the State — the fruition of the people's sovereignty — is an obligation in the highest order. is not precluded from taking pre-emptive action against threats to its existence if. It will not do to argue that if the return of the Marcoses to the Philippines will cause the escalation of violence against the State. and the facts revealed during the briefing in chambers by the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the National Security Adviser. is not absolute. When political questions are involved. under which the Executive is supreme. cannot shirk from that responsibility. However. so to speak. while the Government has barely scratched the surface. In the exercise of such authority. LLjur We cannot also lose sight of the fact that the country is only now beginning to recover from the hardships brought about by the plunder of the economy attributed to the Marcoses and their close associates and relatives. The State. or acts. If such postulates do exist. a separatist movement in Mindanao. arbitrarily or that she has gravely abused her discretion in deciding to bar their return. The President has determined that the destabilization caused by the return of the Marcoses would wipe away the gains achieved during the past few years and lead to total economic collapse. the Constitution limits the determination to whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the official whose action is being questioned. in its efforts to recover the enormous wealth stashed away by the Marcoses in foreign jurisdictions. the Court will not substitute its judgment for that of the official concerned and decide a matter which by its nature or by law is for the latter alone to decide. In this light. they are perceived as apt to become serious and direct. But it is the catalytic effect of the return of the Marcoses that may prove to be the proverbial final straw that would break the camel's back. it would appear clear that the second paragraph of Article VIII.]. What is more. the enemies of the State may be contained. as earlier narrated in this ponencia bolsters the conclusion that the return of the Marcoses at this time would only exacerbate and intensify the LIBERTY OF ABODE AND TRAVEL violence directed against the State and instigate more chaos. We cannot. Pursuant to the principle of separation of powers underlying our system of government. there exist factual bases for the President's decision. incorporates in the fundamental law the ruling in Lansang v. as regards the suspension of the privilege. As divergent and discordant forces. The President. the President cannot be said to have acted arbitrarily and capriciously and whimsically in determining that the return of the Marcoses poses a serious threat to the national interest and welfare and in prohibiting their return. is. We cannot ignore the continually increasing burden imposed on the economy by the excessive foreign borrowing during the Marcos regime. from their oral arguments. WHEREFORE. under the Constitution. L-33964. it goes hand in hand with the system of checks and balances. 42 SCRA 448] that: Article VII of the [1935] Constitution vests in the Executive the power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus under specified conditions.CONSTI 2 themselves through a plebiscite or referendum. and it being our well-considered opinion that the President did not act arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion in determining that the return of former President Marcos and his family at the present time and under present circumstances poses a serious threat to national interest and welfare and in prohibiting their return to the Philippines.

IMPAIRED BY ORDER OF THE TRIAL COURT RELEASING PETITIONER ON BAIL. the duration thereof and the conforme of her sureties to the proposed travel thereby satisfying the court that she would comply with the conditions of her bail bond. and the prisoner released thereunder. SYLLABUS 1. he may be placed beyond the reach of the courts. not only for Manotoc Securities. — As petitioner has failed to satisfy the trial courts and the appellate court of the urgency of his travel. JR. Manotoc. The petition relative to the Manotoc Securities. LACK OF GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHERE DENIAL OF MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO LEAVE THE COUNTRY WAS PREMISED ON THE FAILURE OF PETITIONER TO SATISFY THE TRIAL COURT OF THE URGENCY OF HIS TRAVEL. this inherent right of the court is recognized by petitioner himself. and inasmuch as the jurisdiction of the courts from which they issued does not extend beyond that of the Philippines they would have no binding force outside of said jurisdiction. The rather broad and generalized statement suffers from a serious fallacy. the order of the trial court releasing petitioner on bail constitutes such lawful order as contemplated by the above-quoted constitutional provision. and to secure the appearance of the accused so as to answer the call of the court and do what the law may require of him. because. — The effect of a recognizance or bail bond. Inc. entitled. HONS.R. if it were otherwise. Jr. Ricardo Manotoc." To our mind.R. for he would not have filed the motion for permission to leave the country in the first place.. Edmundo Reyes. DECISION FERNAN. . as Judges of the Court of First Instance of Rizal. for while there is. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. February 13.. and the Manotoc Securities. ID. In fact. and the Chief of the Aviation Security Command (AVSECOM). Having transferred the management of the latter into the hands of professional men.. 1986. Inc. Uy Tuising.. in much the same way. Inc. — Its object is to relieve the accused of imprisonment and the state of the burden of keeping him. In contrast. BAIL. 001826. The law does not limit such undertaking of the bondsmen as demandable only when the appellants are in the territorial confines of the Philippines and not demandable if the LIBERTY OF ABODE AND TRAVEL appellants are out of the country. . CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. No. the most important consequence of bail. 23505-R.A. The sureties become invested with full authority over the person of the principal and have the right to prevent the principal from leaving the state. The condition imposed upon petitioner to make himself available at all times whenever the court requires his presence operates as a valid restriction on his right to travel. but likewise for Trans-Insular Management. Pending disposition of SEC Case No.A. Article IV of the 1973 Constitution states: "The liberty of abode and of travel shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Inc. Petitioners". HON. who was then in the United States. ID. that he will appear before any court in which his appearance may be required as stipulated in the bail bond or recognizance. 61 Phil. docketed as SEC Case No. 23505-R. the duration thereof. A NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE THEREOF. SHEPHERD CASE (C. This is a necessary consequence of the nature and function of a bail bond. and at the same time. Inc. the Securities and Exchange Commission requested the then Commissioner of Immigration. 001826..ID. L-62100. In the latter case. said orders and processes will be nugatory. and whose jurisdiction over the person of the principal remains unaffected despite the grant of bail to the latter. 6. EDMUNDO M." The faith reposed by petitioner on the above-quoted opinion of the appellate court is misplaced. 1980) particularly citing the following passage: ". OBJECT. as Commissioner of Immigration. is to transfer the custody of the accused from the public officials who have him in their charge to keepers of his own selection.. Inc.R. was to prohibit said accused from leaving the jurisdiction of the Philippines.. DEFINED. that We found no reversible error to have been committed by the appellate court in allowing Shepherd to leave the country after it had satisfied itself that she would comply with the conditions of her bail bond. JR. — The constitutional right to travel being invoked by petitioner is not an absolute right. — A court has the power to prohibit a person admitted to bail from leaving the Philippines. 4.. a stock brokerage house. it is not for the reason suggested by the appellate court.] RICARDO L. or when necessary in the interest of national security." Indeed. EFFECT. Jr. more so then has the court from which the sureties merely derive such right. . otherwise. PROHIBITION AGAINST LEAVING THE PHILIPPINES. Section 1 of the Rules of Court defines bail as the security required and given for the release of a person who is in the custody of the law. as well as the consent of his surety to the proposed travel.. LexLib Following the "run" on stock brokerages caused by stock broker Santamaria's flight from this jurisdiction. albeit with contrary results. Such custody has been regarded merely as a continuation of the original imprisonment. 2. ". notwithstanding his allegation that he is at total liberty to leave the country. ID.-G. Teodoro Kalaw. petitioner. ID. was granted and a management committee was organized and appointed.ID. No. MANOTOC. Section 5. Also. is indivisible. Jr. REYES. ID. If granted at all. The law obliges the bondsmen to produce the person of the appellants at the pleasure of the Court.ID. public safety or public health. Pasig branches. the result of the obligation assumed by appellee (surety) to hold the accused amenable at all times to the orders and processes of the lower court. . petitioner places reliance upon the then Court of Appeals' ruling in People vs. but acts as president of the former corporation. J p: The issue posed for resolution in this petition for review may be stated thus: Does a person facing a criminal indictment and provisionally released on bail have an unrestricted right to travel? Petitioner Ricardo L. petitioner in this case has not satisfactorily shown any of the above. and together with his costockholders.. February 13.. We find no abuse of judicial discretion in their having denied petitioner's motion for permission to leave the country. to put the accused as much under the power of the court as if he were in custody of proper officer. came home. the accused was able to show the urgent necessity for her travel abroad. . ID. LIBERTY OF ABODE AND TRAVEL.. petitioner's case is not on all fours with the Shepherd case. when fully executed or filed of record.-G. respondents. BILL OF RIGHTS. If the sureties have the right to prevent the principal from leaving the state.. . . PRONOVE.CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.. pending the trial. neither law nor jurisprudence expressly declaring that liberty under bail does not transcend the territorial boundaries of the country. 404 (1935). 5. liberty operates as fully within as without the boundaries of the granting state. he holds no officer-position in said business. petitioner.ID. 1980) DIFFERENTIATED FROM CASE AT BAR. CAMILON and RICARDO L.. if the accused were allowed to leave the Philippines without sufficient reason. — To support his contention. May 30. vs. ID. SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS. filed a petition with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the appointment of a management committee. albeit provisional. CERTIORARI... Shepherd (C.REMEDIAL LAW.ID.. This principle perhaps accounts for the absence of any law or jurisprudence expressly declaring that liberty under bail does not transcend the territorial boundaries of the country. ID..CONSTI 2 [G. SERAFIN E.. Liberty.. No. — Rule 114.. As we have held in People v. the SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION. "In the Matter of the Appointment of a Management Committee for Manotoc Securities. 3. 7. not to clear petitioner for departure and a . is one of the two principal stockholders of Trans-Insular Management. indeed. THE COURT OF APPEALS.

as well as the communication-request of the Securities and Exchange Commission. 4933 to 4936 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati (formerly Nos. 1984 of the chief executive officer of the Exploration Company of Louisiana. A court has the power to prohibit a person admitted to bail from leaving the Philippines. Jr. Miller 9 requesting his presence in the United States to "meet the people and companies who would be involved in its investments. both trial judges denied the same. Inc. and to secure the appearance of the accused so as to answer the call of the court and do what the law may require of him. 1983 6 petitioner filed on August 15. now or in the future until these two (2) cases are terminated. . Inc. 45399 and 45400 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati. raffled off to Judge Pronove.. 1982. desires to leave for the United States on the all embracing ground that his trip is '. 1980.S. there is also merit in the prosecution's contention that if the Court would allow the accused to leave the Philippines the surety companies that filed the bail bonds in his behalf might claim that they could no longer be held liable in their undertakings because it was the Court which allowed the accused to go outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippine Court. petitioner filed the instant petition for review on LIBERTY OF ABODE AND TRAVEL certiorari. remained pending as Judge Camilon. when fully executed or filed of record. denying his leave to travel abroad. . As we have held in People v. permission to leave the country is denied Ricardo Manotoc. and the prisoner . should the accused fail or decide not to return. petitioner has been admitted to bail in the total amount of P105. the appellate court rendered a decision 5 dismissing the petition for lack of merit. neither the courts which granted him bail nor the Securities and Exchange Commission which has no jurisdiction over his liberty. but said request was also denied in a letter dated May 27. of Judges Camilon and Pronove. "The effect of a recognizance or bail bond." Petitioner. 61 Phil. Mr." Indeed. and at the same time. "motion for permission to leave the country". — Finally.CONSTI 2 memorandum to this effect was issued by the Commissioner on February 4. 1982. 1984. On March 1. .. respectively. the Court in a resolution en banc denied petitioner's motion for leave to go abroad pendente lite. however. 1984 a motion for leave to go abroad pendente lite. (he) was not in any way connected with the Manotoc Securities. of Manotoc Securities. 1982. "relative to his business transactions and opportunities. Petitioner's contention is untenable. Criminal Cases Nos. likewise manifested that on August 1. that he will appear before any court in which his appearance may be required as stipulated in the bail bond or recognizance. Marsden W. 1984. In all cases. 404 (1935). relative to his business transactions and opportunities. . Petitioner thus filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus before the then Court of Appeals 4 seeking to annul the orders dated March 9 and 26. the order of Judge Pronove dated March 26. stating as ground therefor his desire to go to the United States. prLL On September 20. This is a necessary consequence of the nature and function of a bail bond." 13 The condition imposed upon petitioner to make himself available at all times whenever the court requires his presence operates as a valid restriction on his right to travel. Jr. to put the accused as much under the power of the court as if he were in custody of the proper officer. 1980 to the Chief of the Immigration Regulation Division. 1982. On October 5. petitioner filed before each of the trial courts a motion entitled. Inc. . reads in part: "6. "Its object is to relieve the accused of imprisonment and the state of the burden of keeping him. is needed in connection "with the obtention of foreign investment in Manotoc Securities." 10 Criminal Cases Nos. . 45542-45545) had been dismissed as to him "on motion of the prosecution on the ground that after verification of the records of the Securities and Exchange Commission . he may be placed beyond the reach of the courts. petitioner stated that his presence in Louisiana.1982. Rule 114. In due course. otherwise. ordered merely the informations amended so as to delete the allegation that petitioner was president and to substitute that he was "controlling/majority stockholder. the motion of the accused is DENIED. corresponding criminal charges for estafa were filed by the investigating fiscal before the then Court of First Instance of Rizal. was to prohibit said accused from leaving the jurisdiction of the Philippines. instead of dismissing the cases before him. 1982. The order of Judge Camilon dated March 9. as president and vice-president. 12 Petitioner contends that having been admitted to bail as a matter of right. Inc. "In view thereof. No matter of any magnitude is discerned to warrant judicial imprimatur on the proposed trip. because. said orders and processes will be nugatory." 1 The prosecution opposed said motion and after due hearing. with FGU Insurance Corporation as surety." 2 On the other hand. Dissatisfied with the appellate court's ruling. 45399 and 45400. assigned to respondent Judge Camilon. reads: "Accused Ricardo Manotoc Jr. was suspected to be a fake. if the accused were allowed to leave the Philippines without sufficient reason.A." 3 It appears that petitioner likewise wrote the Immigration Commissioner a letter requesting the recall or withdrawal of the latter's memorandum dated February 4. When a Torrens title submitted to and accepted by Manotoc Securities. Inc. ". 7 In his motion. docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. Inc. Section 1 of the Rules of Court defines bail as the security required and given for the release of a person who is in the custody of the law. He likewise prayed for the issuance of the appropriate writ commanding the Immigration Commissioner and the Chief of the Aviation Security Command (AVSECOM) to clear him for departure." 11 of Manotoc Securities. Pending resolution of the petition to which we gave due course on April 14. could prevent him from exercising his constitutional right to travel.000. pending the trial. six of its clients filed six separate criminal complaints against petitioner and one Raul Leveriza. and Criminal Cases Nos. respectively. and inasmuch as the jurisdiction of the courts from which they issued does not extend beyond that of the Philippines they would have no binding force outside of said jurisdiction.' "The Court sees no urgency from this statement. U.00. Uy Tuising. 45542 to 45545. the result of the obligation assumed by appellee (surety) to hold the accused amenable at all times to the orders and processes of the lower court. as of the date of the commission of the offenses imputed to him. when notified of the dismissal of the other cases against petitioner." 8 He attached the letter dated August 9. "WHEREFORE.

with costs against petitioner. the surety on a bail bond or recognizance may be discharged by a stipulation inconsistent with the conditions thereof. SO ORDERED. Such custody has been regarded merely as a continuation of the original imprisonment. Petitioner merely alleges that his surety has agreed to his plans as he had posted cash indemnities. 1982 issued by Judge Pronove has been rendered moot and academic by the dismissal as to petitioner of the criminal cases pending before said judge. notwithstanding his allegation that he is at total liberty to leave the country. In the latter case. February 13. The rather broad and generalized statement suffers from a serious fallacy. To support his contention. more so then has the court from which the sureties merely derive such right.A. . Neither is there any hint that petitioner's absence from the United States would absolutely preclude him from taking advantage of business opportunities therein. 1980) particularly citing the following passage: ". or when necessary in the interest of national security. Shepherd (C. albeit with contrary results. . although the order of March 26. Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that there is absolute necessity for him to travel abroad. We see the rationale behind said order. As aptly observed by the Solicitor General in his comment: "A perusal of petitioner's 'Motion for Permission to Leave the Country' will show that it is solely predicated on petitioner's wish to travel to the United States where he will. The law obliges the bondsmen to produce the person of the appellants at the pleasure of the Court.-G.R. the petition for review is hereby dismissed. . allegedly attend to some business transactions and search for business opportunities. this inherent right of the court is recognized by petitioner himself. the most important consequence of bail. if it were otherwise. If granted at all. Liberty." To our mind." 16 Thus. The law does not limit such undertaking of the bondsmen as demandable only when the appellants are in the territorial confines of the Philippines and not demandable if the appellants are out of the country. and whose jurisdiction over the person of the principal remains unaffected despite the grant of bail to the latter. that We found no reversible error to have been committed by the appellate court in allowing Shepherd to leave the country after it had satisfied itself that she would comply with the conditions of her bail bond. the Court finds that no gainful purpose will be served in discussing the other issues raised by petitioner. the order of the trial court releasing petitioner on bail constitutes such lawful order as contemplated by the above-quoted constitutional provision. public safety or public health. in much the same way. In contrast. No. nor is there any showing that petitioner's non-presence in the United States would cause him irreparable damage or prejudice." 15 Petitioner has not specified the duration of the proposed travel or shown that his surety has agreed to it. 23505-R. neither law nor jurisprudence expressly declaring that liberty under bail does not transcend the territorial boundaries of the country. . it is not for the reason suggested by the appellate court. as well as the consent of his surety to the proposed travel. petitioner in this case has not satisfactorily shown any of the above. liberty operates as fully within as without the boundaries of the granting state. This principle perhaps accounts for the absence of any law or jurisprudence expressly declaring that liberty under bail does not transcend the territorial boundaries of the country. Finding the decision of the appellate court to be in accordance with law and jurisprudence. the duration thereof and the conforme of her sureties to the proposed travel thereby satisfying the court that she would comply with the conditions of her bail bond. Under this rule. We find no abuse of judicial discretion in their having denied petitioner's motion for permission to leave the country. . which is made without his assent. In fact. The constitutional right to travel being invoked by petitioner is not an absolute right. The sureties become invested with full authority over the person of the principal and have the right to prevent the principal from leaving the state." 14 If the sureties have the right to prevent the principal from leaving the state. no urgent or compelling reason can be discerned to justify the grant of judicial imprimatur thereto. for he would not have filed the motion for permission to leave the country in the first place. Section 5. Article IV of the 1973 Constitution states: "The liberty of abode and of travel shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. As petitioner has failed to satisfy the trial courts and the appellate court of the urgency of his travel. albeit provisional is indivisible. indeed. The court cannot allow the accused to leave the country without the assent of the surety because in LIBERTY OF ABODE AND TRAVEL accepting a bail bond or recognizance. WHEREFORE. This result has been reached as to a stipulation or agreement to postpone the trial until after the final disposition of other cases. . the accused was able to show the urgent necessity for her travel abroad. or to permit the principal to leave the state or country. petitioner's case is not on all fours with the Shepherd case. Also. Petitioner's motion bears no indication that the alleged business transactions could not be undertaken by any other person in his behalf. the duration thereof. From the tenor and import of petitioner's motion.CONSTI 2 released thereunder. the government impliedly agrees "that it will not take any proceedings with the principal that will increase the risks of the sureties or affect their remedies against him. is to transfer the custody of the accused from the public officials who have him in their charge to keepers of his own selection." The faith reposed by petitioner on the above-quoted opinion of the appellate court is misplaced. for while there is. petitioner places reliance upon the then Court of Appeals' ruling in People vs.

— "Bail is the security given for the release of a person in custody of the law.. I. as well as the Resolution of 29 June 1990 denying reconsideration. furnished by him or a bondsman. 3. In fact. all auxiliary writs. Gaviola. No. SILVERIO. et al. — An accused released on bail may be re-arrested without the necessity of a warrant if he attempts to depart from the Philippines without prior permission of the Court where the case is pending. When by law jurisdiction is conferred on a Court or judicial officer. and the Commission on Immigration to prevent Petitioner from leaving the country. It is to their best interest that criminal prosecutions should run their course and proceed to finality without undue delay. said Motion to Quash was set for hearing only on 19 February 1988. Rules of Court). public safety or public health. as amended.ID. mostly due to the failure of accused Silverio to appear. ID.. 2. he posted bail for his provisional liberty.The records will show that the information was filed on October 14. BAIL. Petitioner was charged with violation of Section 20 (4) of the Revised Securities Act in Criminal Case No. the case had yet to be arraigned. DEFINED. A PERSON RELEASED ON BAIL MAY BE RE-ARRESTED. or more than two (2) years after the filing of the Information. — Article III. v. 142 SCRA 149). The reason for accused Silverio's failure to appear had invariably been because he is abroad in the United States of America. respondents. SYLLABUS 1. Bernas. 263). RIGHT TO TRAVEL RESTRICTED BY CONDITIONS OF BAIL. Petitioner's Certiorari Petition before the Court of Appeals met a similar fate on 31 January 1990. CASE AT BAR. GROUND. 1 and 2). has left the country and has gone abroad without the knowledge and permission of this Court" (Rollo. p. p. Secs.CONSTI 2 MELENCIO-HERRERA. NOT A LIMITATION ON THE INHERENT POWER OF THE COURT TO USE ALL MEANS TO CARRY THEIR ORDERS INTO EFFECT. entitled "Ricardo C. The offended party in any criminal proceeding is the People of the Philippines.ID. — Holding an accused in a criminal case within the reach of the Courts by preventing his departure from the Philippines must be considered as a valid restriction on his right to travel so that he may be dealt with in accordance with law. First Edition. Rule 114. Silverio. 4. A person facing criminal charges may be restrained by the Court from leaving the country or. In due time. if abroad. conditioned upon his appearance before any court when so required by the Court or the Rules (1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure.ID. CBU-6304 of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu." dated 31 January 1990.. BAIL. etc. or public health" and "as may be provided by law.. — The condition imposed upon an accused on bail to make himself available at all times whenever the Court requires his presence operates as a valid restriction of his right to travel (Manotoc. Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration was denied on 28 July 1988. public safety. the appropriate executive officers or administrative authorities are not armed with arbitrary discretion to impose limitations. Convincingly shown by the Trial Court and conformed to by respondent Appellate Court is the concurrence of the following circumstances: "1. Jr. LIBERTY OF ABODE AND TRAVEL This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court praying that the Decision of respondent Court of Appeals in CA-G..REMEDIAL LAW. with an accused holding himself amenable at all times to Court Orders and processes.R. This order was based primarily on the Trial Court's finding that since the filing of the Information on 14 October 1985. 1)Although the date of the filing of the Motion to Quash has been omitted by Petitioner. Hon. ID." We perceive no reversible error.. — Article III. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. 30 May 1986. BENIGNO G. Benigno C. issued an Order directing the Department of Foreign Affairs to cancel Petitioner's passport or to deny his application therefor. On 14 October 1985.] RICARDO C. 6. Sr. process and other means necessary to carry it into effect may be employed by such Court or officer (Rule 135. Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution should be interpreted to mean that while the liberty of travel may be impaired even without Court Order. Until this date (28 July 1988). 1991. dated 4 April and 28 July 1988.. we resolved to give due course and to decide the case. 62100.REMEDIAL LAW. 138). On 26 January 1988. even on grounds other than the "interest of national security. 1987 Edition.. They can impose limits only on the basis of "national security. ID. GAVIOLA. vs. LIMITATION ON THE RESTRICTION ON THE RIGHT. claiming that the scheduled arraignments could not be held because there was a pending Motion to Quash the Information. Isagani A.R. et al. SP No. S. 1987... (1) on the basis of facts allegedly patently erroneous. HON. respondent People of the Philippines filed an Urgent ex parte Motion to cancel the passport of and to issue a holddeparture Order against accused-petitioner on the ground that he had gone abroad several times without the necessary Court approval resulting in postponements of the arraignment and scheduled hearings. p. THE COURT OF APPEALS. DECISION ... 5. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. Branch IX. ID. Hence. and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. Cruz. Vol.CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. April 8. Several scheduled arraignments were cancelled and reset. on 4 April 1988. J p: [G. Court of Appeals. After the respective pleadings required by the Court were filed. Silverio v. be set aside. this Petition for Review filed on 30 July 1990." a limitive phrase which did not appear in the 1973 text (The Constitution.. Cdpr Petitioner contends that respondent Court of Appeals erred in not finding that the Trial Court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in issuing its Orders.. 1985. BILL OF RIGHTS. and (2) finding that the right to travel can be impaired upon lawful order of the Court. Joaquin G. ID. ID. compelled to return (Constitutional Law. Section 6. the Regional Trial Court. "the accused has not yet been arraigned because he has never appeared in Court on the dates scheduled for his arraignment and there is evidence to show that accused Ricardo C. it is apparent that it was filed long after the filing of the Information in 1985 and only after several arraignments had already been scheduled and cancelled due to Petitioner's non-appearance.. 94284. 45). Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution should by no means be construed as delimiting the inherent power of the Courts to use all means necessary to carry their orders into effect in criminal cases pending before them.. No. ID. 15827. as Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City. petitioner. Overruling opposition.J.

that while the 1987 Constitution recognizes the power of the Courts to curtail the liberty of abode within the limits prescribed by law. et al. which issued certificates of eligibility to travel upon application of an interested party (See Salonga v. p. 6. Rollo. compelled to return (Constitutional Law. he should be taken into custody. Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution should by no means be construed as delimiting the inherent power of the Courts to use all means necessary to carry their orders into effect in criminal cases pending before them. as Petitioner would want this Court to believe. Case No. and this has not been controverted by Petitioner. or public health. v.The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. therefore. Jr." To start with. public safety or public health." The 1973 Constitution altered the 1935 text by explicitly including the liberty of travel. When by law jurisdiction is conferred on a Court or judicial officer. p. Patently. until this date. Joaquin G. Under the 1935 Constitution. They can impose limits only on the basis of "national security. as may be provided by law. The foregoing condition imposed upon an accused to make himself available at all times whenever the Court requires his presence operates as a valid restriction of his right to travel (Manotoc. public safety. or the 1987 Constitution. 404 (1935). p. furnished by him or a bondsman. Secs. Article III. Section 6. 97 SCRA 121). 263). thus: "The liberty of abode and of travel shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court or when necessary in the interest of national security. Court of Appeals. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security.J. or public health" (Article IV. Court of Appeals. et al. SO ORDERED. Jr. No. Petitioner's argument that the ruling in Manotoc. Besides. Rule 114. Article III. 61 Phil. "Bail is the security given for the release of a person in custody of the law. It is to their best interest that criminal prosecutions should run their course and proceed to finality without undue delay. (supra). 28 July 1988. RTC. conditioned upon his appearance before any court when so required by the Court or the Rules (1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. accused Silverio had never appeared in person before the Court. Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution should be interpreted to mean that while the liberty of travel may be impaired even without Court Order. the questioned RTC Orders... Silverio. Section 5). The limit had long been reached" (Order. Courts can impair the right to travel only on the grounds of "national security. 1987 Edition. were not based on erroneous facts. 138).. To all appearances. or public health.. 5. Vol. 20 [2nd par. the phraseology in the 1987 Constitution was a reaction to the ban on international travel imposed under the previous regime when there was a Travel Processing Center. 53622. CBU-6304. In all candidness." The submission is not well taken. First Edition. The offended party in any criminal proceeding is the People of the Philippines. Those orders and processes would be rendered nugatory if an accused were to be allowed to leave or to remain. as amended. public safety. Bernas. at his pleasure.. the 1973. Warrants for his arrest have been issued. Holding an accused in a criminal case within the reach of the Courts by preventing his departure from the Philippines must be considered as a valid restriction on his right to travel so that he may be dealt with in accordance with law. as compared to the provisions on freedom of movement in the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions. So it is also that "An accused released on bail may be rearrested without the necessity of a warrant if he attempts to depart from the Philippines without prior permission of the Court where the case is pending (ibid." Petitioner thus theorizes that under the 1987 Constitution. even on grounds other than the "interest of national security. A person facing criminal charges may be restrained by the Court from leaving the country or. Ricardo C. Hermoso & Travel Processing Center. Crim. 1987. Uy Tuising. or public health" and "as may be provided by law. public safety. process and other means necessary to carry it into effect may be employed by such Court or officer (Rule 135. . outside the territorial confines of the country. of his failure to appear at scheduled arraignments. Petitioner takes the posture. public safety. the Manotoc ruling on that point was but a re-affirmation of that laid down long before in People v. 62100. 2)Petitioner's further submission is that respondent Appellate Court "glaringly erred" in finding that the right to travel can be impaired upon lawful order of the Court.]). however. Section 1 (4) thereof reads: prcd "The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired. p. the bail bond he had posted had been cancelled and Warrants of Arrest had been issued against him by reason.. He has posted bail but has violated the conditions thereof by failing to appear before the Court when required. if abroad. 30 May 1986. with an accused holding himself amenable at all times to Court Orders and processes. 73). WHEREFORE. is far from tenable. the pendency of a Motion to Quash came about only after several settings for arraignment had been scheduled and cancelled by reason of Petitioner's non-appearance. Article III." a limitive phrase which did not appear in the 1973 text (The Constitution.The bond posted by accused Silverio had been cancelled twice and warrants of arrest had been issued against him all for the same reason — failure to appear at scheduled arraignments. to the effect that the condition imposed upon an accused admitted to bail to make himself available at all times whenever the Court requires his presence operates as a valid restriction on the right to travel no longer holds under the 1987 Constitution. it restricts the allowable impairment of the right to travel only on grounds of interest of national security. to wit: "Sec. the judgment under review is hereby AFFIRMED. The nature and function of a bail bond has remained unchanged whether under the 1935. Cebu. No. vs. Rules of Court). Cruz. 142 SCRA 149). Warrants of Arrest having been issued against him for violation of the conditions of his bail bond. Costs against petitioner. dated 4 April 1988 and 28 July 1988. the appropriate executive officers or administrative authorities are not armed with arbitrary discretion to impose limitations.Since the information was filed.CONSTI 2 "2. 1 and 2). Isagani A. S. LIBERTY OF ABODE AND TRAVEL The 1987 Constitution has split the two freedoms into two distinct sentences and treats them differently. the liberty of abode and of travel were treated under one provision. the Court makes the observation that it has given accused Silverio more than enough consideration. Sec. I. Petitioner is facing a criminal charge. all auxiliary writs. public safety or public health. Apparently. "3. in both instances. 25 April 1980.

and executive authority has held that the term "non-Christian" should not be given a literal meaning or a religious signification.ID. ID. 14078. ID.ID. Comrs. 13. DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER. Pangasinan. ID. SECTION 2145 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF 1917. Ever since the acquisition of the Philippine Islands by the United States. March 7. 9. 1397 was repealed by the Administrative Code of 1916. ID. Nueva Vizcaya. but that it was intended to relate to degree of civilization.. ID. The term "non-Christian" refers not to religious belief. All of these special laws with the exception of Act No.. in Section 2145 herein quoted. W.ID. 1306 were enacted for the province of Abra.. 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. and conferring authority or discretion as to its execution. vs. 1396 and 1397. to be exercised under and in pursuance of the law. ID. ID. ID.) 11. ID. which necessarily involves a discretion as to what it shall be.. 548.. 387. The first cannot be done. it is "liberty regulated by law. ID. ID. — The legislature may make decisions of executive departments or subordinate officials thereof.... having reference to the Province of Nueva Vizcaya. to live and work where he will. ID. — Every really new question that comes before the courts is in the last analysis determined by the application of public policy as a ratio decidendi. ID. to whom it has committed the execution of certain acts. ID. For very good reason.ID. ID. ID. Title 3. "NON-CHRISTIAN. 445.. Civil liberty may be said to mean that measure of freedom which may be enjoyed in a civilized community. ID. the provincial governor of any province in which non-Christian inhabitants are found is authorized... — Due process of law and the equal protection of the laws are not violated by Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917 since there exists a law. it has been held that it is not within the power of the courts to overrule the judgment of Congress. is between the delegation of power to make the law. 1113.. Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917 does not discriminate between individuals on account of religious differences and is therefore not invalid.. 1881." HISTORY. AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY. In balancing conflicting solutions that one is perceived to tip the scales which the court believes will best promote the public welfare in its probable operation as a general rule or principle..] 14. deprive other citizens of rights which are also and equally natural.. vs. — The authority conferred upon executive officials by Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917 does not unduly interfere with the liberty of the citizen when the degree of civilization of the Manguianes is considered. & Z. — These different laws denote an anxious regard for the welfare of the non-Christian inhabitants of the Philippines and a settled and consistent practice with reference to the method to be followed for their advancement. ID. 753. Organic and statutory law has given the subject consideration. — Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917 is not an unlawful delegation of legislative power by the Philippine Legislature to provincial officials and a department head. RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION. ID. AL. 15.. — A skeleton history of the attitude assumed towards the backward inhabitants of the Islands both before and after the acquisition of the Philippines by the United States is set forth in the opinion. THE PROVINCIAL BOARD OF MINDORO.R... Legislative. ID. 16. ID. 17. the question as to the best method for dealing with the primitive inhabitants has been a perplexing one. — With reference to the laws affecting the Indians. ID. ID. Clinton County [1852]. ID. ID.. ID... Antique.. ID." "Whenever and wherever the natural rights of citizen would." of the case. and essential to his carrying out these purposes to a successful conclusion.ID. Liberty includes the right of the citizen to be free to use his faculties in all lawful ways. The last named Act incorporated and embodied the provisions in general language. defendant. No. ID. — The true distinction. such assumed rights must yield to the regulation of law. EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS. consistently with the peaceful enjoyment of like freedom in others. VALIDITY. 422.. ID.ID. ID.. — An exception to the general rule. ID. to the latter no valid objection can be made. Tayabas.. DEFINED.. plaintiffs. to enter into all contracts which may be proper. HISTORY... ID..ID.. Isabela. the Indians have been treated as "in a state of pupilage. 579. 7.. The Indians are always subject to the plenary authority of the United States.. — "Non-Christian" is an awkward and unsatisfactory expression. ID. and even LIBERTY OF ABODE AND TRAVEL before. ID. and Zambales. 6.. 1268. the law seems to be . 4. but in a way to geographical area.. In turn. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. ID. to pursue any avocation.ID. Tarlac. ID. 549." The recognized relation between the Government of the United States and the Indians may be described as that of guardian and ward. 12. ID. necessary. sanctioned by immemorial practice. GOVERNMENT POLICY. 5. ID. CIVIL LIBERTY. This has been the uniform construction of executive officials who have been called upon to interpret and enforce the law.. 1306 were repealed by Acts Nos. if exercised without restraint. Misamis.. 500. judicial. — "Due process of law" is defined and analyzed in the opinion... — The maxim of constitutional law forbidding the delegation of legislative power should be zealously protected. Bataan. — "Liberty" as understood in democracies is not license.. ET.. Sections 68-71.CONSTI 2 [G. — From the beginning of the United States. The last Administrative Code retains the provision which originated in Act No. pagan. Paragua (Palawan). ID.ID. permits the central legislative body to delegate legislative powers to local authorities. 855. STATUTES. ID. R. ID. ID.. the subject has always been deemed political in nature. 19. 88. — Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917 reads as follows: "With the prior approval of the Department Head. 547 referred especially to the Manguianes. ID.. to earn his livelihood by any lawful calling.. ID..] RUBI. ID. ID.ID. and for that purpose. ID. Lepanto-Bontoc. Act No. Ilocos Sur. ID. (manguianes). 411. SYLLABUS 1. 18. enacted in 1202.. Act No. — Since the term "non-Christian" is here construed to refer to natives of the Philippine Islands of a low grade of civilization.. The Manguianes are very low in culture... 8. 3. The pledge that no person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws is not infringed by a statute which is applicable to all of a class." Beginning with Act No. ID. The growing tendency in the decisions is to give prominence to the "necessity. Ilocos Norte. 387... ID. ID. when such a course is deemed necessary in the interest of law and order. mountaineer. final on questions of fact. It is for the Congress to determine when and how the guardianship shall be terminated. ID.. " (Cincinnati. 1 Ohio St. Mindoro. ID. not subject to the jurisdiction of the judicial department of the Government. 2. and more directly to natives of the Philippine Islands of a low grade of civilization... 547. 10. ID. A clear exposition of the purposes of the Spanish government in its efforts to improve the conditions of such inhabitants by concentrating them in "reducciones" is found in the Decree of the Governor-General of the Philippine Islands of January 14. 1145. therefore. negro.. — Various conceptions of civil liberty are quoted in the opinion. ID. THE "MANGUIANES" — The name "Manguian" signifies savage. 550. The most important of the laws of the Indies having reference to the subject are compiled in Book 6. CONSTRUCTION. 1919... Acts Nos. DUE PROCESS OF LAW. Co. ID.. ID.

industrial. next to give a history of the so-called "non-Christians... can be made to introduce the present opinion — This cause. if they have any. — Most cautiously should the power of this court to overrule the judgment of the Philippine Legislature. 26. ID. The return of the Solicitor-General alleges: .ID.. — The doctrines of laissez faire and of unrestricted freedom of the individual." DEFINED. 29.. definite and well settled signification when used in the Philippine statute-book as a descriptive adjective applied to "tribes. ID.. and enforce upon its membership the general laws and regulations. — Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917 is constitutional.. J. ID... 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. TESTS. Chief Justice Marshall.ID. ID. SECTION 2145 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF 1917. peonage. ID. or is not of the "low grade of civilization" denoted by the words "non-Christian" are.ID. but such a mode of life as would not be inimical to the lives or property or general welfare of the civilized inhabitants of the Islands with whom they are brought in contact. ID... ID. ID. the purposes of the Government are to gather together the children for educational purposes. 515). THE POLICE POWER. to introduce the facts and the issues. ID.. 35. and is not inaptly termed the "law of overruling necessity. and economic development and advancement in civilization. 24. — The Government of the Philippine Islands has both on reason and authority the right to exercise the sovereign police power in the promotion of the general welfare and the public interest. "NON-CHRISTIAN. in order to remove such group or individual from the class embraced within the statutory description of "non-Christian.. ID. the degree of advancement in civilization. a coordinate branch.. ID. furthermore. ID.. — In so far as the Manguianes themselves are concerned. such that it is feasible and practicable to extend to. and which would qualify them whether they reside within or beyond the habitat of a "nonChristian" tribe.ID. STANDARD OF CIVILIZATION OF INHABITANTS NOT NON-CHRISTIAN. "the mode of life.CONSTI 2 reasonable. ID. ID. LEGISLATIVE INTENTION.. ID. compulsory service of one to another.... ID. ID. 27. Mindoro. administrative. To imitate still further the opinion of the Chief Justice. ID.. ID. that "great master of all things.. WHEN PROPERLY APPLICABLE. 34. — The legislative and administrative history of the Philippine Islands clearly discloses that the standard of LIBERTY OF ABODE AND TRAVEL civilization to which a specific tribe must be found to have advanced. without consulting their wishes... ID. — The power to provide for the issuance of the reconcentration orders contemplated in Section 2145 of the Administrative Code rests upon analogous principles to those upon which the liberty and freedom of action of children and persons of unsound minds is restrained.ID. which control the conduct of the admittedly civilized inhabitants of the Islands. ID. ID. is that degree of civilization which results in a mode of life within the tribe. It is alleged that the Manguianes are being illegally deprived of their liberty by the provincial officials of that province. lastly. agricultural. 30... had they at any time adhered to or maintained allegiance to such a tribe." next to compare the status of the "non-Chritans" with that of the American Indians. Confinement in reservations in accordance with Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917 does not constitute slavery and involuntary servitude.ID. — The fundamental objective of governmental policy is to establish friendly relations with the so-called non-Christians.. 25. all denote "a condition of enforced. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION. BASIS." and is properly exercised only where certain individuals or groups of individuals are found to be of such a low grade of civilization. with a slight change in phraseology." 23..ID. and throughout the period of American occupation always have been. ID. a mode of life. The power rests upon necessity. PRESUMPTION. not only to maintain a mode of life independent of and apart from that maintained by such tribe." is that degree of civilization which would naturally and normally result in the withdrawal by such persons of permanent allegiance or adherence to a "non-Christian" tribe. J p: In one of the cases which denote a landmark in American Constitutional History (Worcester vs. ID. and. Rubi and his companions are said to be held on the reservation established at Tigbao. ID.. ID. DECISION MALCOLM. ID... and to improve the health and morals — is in fine. as axioms of economics and political theory. ID.ID.. legislative and judicial. the rights." as that term is used in the Philippine statute-book.ID.ID. ID.. The whole tendency of the best considered cases is toward non-interference on the part of the courts whenever political ideas are the moving consideration." 33.ID. 20. the personal liberty of a citizen. — The words "non-Christian" have a clear. 22. is of the deepest interest. the political existence of a people. 6 Pet. the purposes of the Legislature in enacting the law. but for their own good and the general welfare. — In so far as the relation of the Manguianes to the State is concerned. ID.STATUTES." 21.. 28.. that their own wishes cannot be permitted to determine their mode of life or place of residence." dwelling in more or less remote districts and provinces throughout the Islands. Georgia [1832].ID. — The tests for the determination of the fact that an individual or tribe is. are of the past. I. together with their corollary. be exercised. concurring: 31. the first luminary of American jurisprudence. The legislative power of a state. or any individual member of such a group..ID. ID.ID. it is enforced according to regular methods of procedure.. This is an application for habeas corpus in favor of Rubi and other Manguianes of the Province of Mindoro. — Slavery and involuntary servitude. ID. The modern period has shown a widespread belief in the amplest possible demonstration of governmental activity. and connection or lack of connection with some civilized community.. must be found to have advanced. to begin the process of civilization. and it applies to all of a class. ID. we adopt his outline and proceed first. SLAVERY AND INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE. began his opinion (relating to the status of an Indian) with words which. Per CARSON. and to promote their educational. against their will. to justify its removal from the class embraced within the descriptive term "non-Christian. the controlling power of the constitution and laws. — So the standard of civilization to which any given number or group of inhabitants of a particular province in these Islands.. or to expose to loss or peril the lives or property of those who may be brought in contact with the members of the tribe. ID. to resolve the constitutional questions presented.. in every point of view in which it can be placed.. 32. are all involved in the subject now to be considered..ID." "peoples" or "inhabitants. the courts cannot fairly say that the Legislature has exceeded its rightful authority in enacting Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917.. and of the executive branch in enforcing it.. — The police power of the State is a power coextensive with self-protection.. — Considered purely as an exercise of the police power. ID. which does not find expression in tribal customs or practices which tend to brutalize or debauch the members of the tribe indulging in such customs or practices. ID.. INTRODUCTION. are to protect the settlers in Mindoro and to develop the resources of that great Island.

1397. Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917 reads as follows: "SEC. provincial governor of Mindoro.Refusal of a non-Chritian to take up appointed habitation. Section 69. to take up habitation upon a site designated by said governor shall upon conviction be imprisoned for a period not exceeding sixty days. II.' "4. 25 (series 1917) of the provincial board of Mindoro was approved by the Secretary of the Interior of February 21. Petitioners.' "2. is also found in varying forms in other laws of the Philippine Islands. presented the following resolution: " 'Whereas several attempts and schemes have been made for the advancement of the non-Christian people of Mindoro. no successful result will be obtained toward educating these people. — Any non-Christian who shall refuse to comply with the directions lawfully given by a provincial governor. and to introduce civilized customs among them. however. 387. the provincial governor of any province in which non-Christian inhabitants are found is authorized. Administrative Code of 1916.. not later than December 31. "'Whereas it has been found out and proved that unless some other measure is taken for the Mangyan work of this province. by Resolution No. the Secretary of the Interior. which were all a failure. "5. and "'Resolved further. 25. 2 which says: "'Whereas the provincial board." with particular regard for the legislation on the subject. Section 62. pursuant to section two thousand one hundred and fortyfive of this Code. I. to take up their habitation on the site of Tigbao. 2711. The genealogical tree of this section. Jr.Establishment of non-Christians upon sites selected by provincial governor. 800 hectares of public land in the sitio of Tigbao on Naujan Lake be selected as a site for the permanent settlement of Mangyanes in Mindoro subject to the approval of the Honorable Secretary of the Interior.That the resolution of the provincial board of Mindoro copied in paragraph 1 LIBERTY OF ABODE AND TRAVEL and the executive order of the governor of the same province copied in paragraph 3. The action was taken in accordance with Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917. "'Whereas it is deemed necessary to oblige them to live in one place in order to make a permanent settlement. 2145. "'Any Mangyan who shall refuse to comply with this order shall upon conviction be imprisoned not exceeding sixty days. 1917. Juan Morente. becomes the paramount question which the court is called upon to decide. the provincial board of Mindoro adopted resolution No. has selected a site in the sitio of Tigbao on Naujan Lake for the permanent settlement of Mangyanes in Mindoro. "'Whereas said resolution has been duly approved by the Honorable. 2711. Hon. 1917. do hereby direct that all the Mangyans in the vicinities of the townships of Naujan and Pola and the Mangyans east of the Baco River including those in the districts of Dulangan and Rubi's place in Calapan. as will later be disclosed. "6. "3. 1917." This word. in the following language: . notably of Act No. when such a course is deemed necessary in the interest of law and order. therefore. there should be noted Section 2759 of the same Code. Now. Section 2 of various special provincial laws. pursuant to the provisions of Section 2145 of the Revised Administrative Code. the provincial governor of Mindoro issued Executive Order No. 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. 2759. in accordance with section 2759 of the revised Administrative Code. A.That on February 1.That Rubi and those living in his rancheria have not fixed their dwellings within the reservation of Tigbao and are liable to be punished in accordance with section 2759 of Act No. 1917. This. on February 21. BEFORE ACQUISITION OF THE PHILIPPINES BY THE UNITED STATES. HISTORY. it is well first of all to set down a skeleton history of the attitude assumed by the authorities towards these "nonChristians. 25 which is as follows: "'The provincial governor.That the undersigned has no information that Doroteo Dabalos is being detained by the sheriff of Mindoro but if he is so detained it must be by virtue of the provisions of articles Nos. 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. Jr.CONSTI 2 "1. Act No. therefore. when such a course is deemed necessary in the interest of law and order." The substance of what is now found in said Section 2145 is not new to Philippine law. Juan Morente. That under Section 2077 of the Administrative Code. a site on the shore of Lake Naujan. — With the prior approval of the Department Head. if we may be permitted to use such terminology. specifically relating to the Manguianes. which reads as follows: "SEC." In connection with the above-quoted provision. 1917. therefore be it "'Resolved. "'Whereas the provincial governor of any province in which non-Christian inhabitants are found is authorized. "'Whereas the provincial governor is of the opinion that the sitio of Tigbao on Lake Naujan is a place most convenient for the Mangyanes to live on." It thus appears that the provincial governor of Mindoro and the provincial board thereof directed the Manguianes in question to take up their habitation in Tigbao.That said Resolution No. In order to put the phrase in its proper category. 547. were necessary measures for the protection of the Mangyanes of Mindoro as well as the protection of public forests in which they roam. 2145 and 2759 of Act No. Act No.That on December 4. That Mangyans may only solicit homesteads on this reservation providing that said homestead applications are previously recommended by the provincial governor. "'Now. and was duly approved by the Secretary of the Interior as required by said action. Naujan Lake.. current series. The most important of the laws of the Indies having reference to the subject at hand are compiled in Book VI. would read: Section 2077. challenge the validity of this section of the Administrative Code. and in order to understand the policy of the Government of the Philippine Islands with reference to the uncivilized elements of the Islands. Section 2145 and its antecedent laws make use of the term "non-Christians. Title III. selected by the provincial governor and approved by the provincial board.

THAT THERE BE MAYORS AND ALDERMAN IN THE REDUCCIONES. To carry out this work with success. "THAT THE 'INDIOS' BE REDUCED INTO 'POBLACIONES'(COMMUNITIES). 1618. "THAT THE 'REDUCCIONES' BE NOT REMOVED WITHOUT ORDER OF THE KING. and to deal with their doctrine with such forbearance and gentleness. "In order that the indios may be instructed in the Sacred Catholic Faith and the evangelical law. 1646. on May 20.1600. the indios would leave their towns and provinces. robbers. we hereby order that this law be always complied with. provided. as is the practice in town inhabited by Spaniards and indios. Ordinance 149 of the poblaciones of 1573. it has always been endeavored. or indios request such a change or consent to it by offering or giving information to that end. trade. or any other court. gamblers. on October 10. lands. For this law and the one following. nevertheless. And. "THAT IN THE TOWNS OF THE 'INDIOS. VICEROY. 1573. and. and governors to execute with great care and moderation the concentration of the indios into reducciones. At these meetings it was resolved that indios be made to live in communities. 1560. "THE SAME AS ABOVE. our Council of the Indies and other religious persons met at various times. "No governor. on May 8. in the presence of the priests. have entrusted and ordered the viceroys. and that they be allowed to retain the lands held by them previously so that they may cultivate them and profit therefrom. "LAW IX "Philip II at Toledo. If there be less than eighty indios but not less than forty. 1560. at Madrid. president. otherwise the change will be considered fraudulently obtained. and mountains. or mestizos to live in the reducciones and towns of the indios. if there be more than eighty houses. our kings. at Tordesillas. and the encomenderos shall entreat compliance thereof in the manner and form prescribed by the laws of this title. Provided they shall not be deprived of the lands and granaries which they may have in the places left by them. Philip III at Madrid. on December 1. and vicious and useless men. because these claims are often made for private interests and not for those of the indios. "Philip II. 1563. of dirty ways of living. Philip IV. or magistrate. without our express order or that of the viceroy.' WHO SHALL BE 'INDIOS. "Philip III at Madrid. priests. there should. presidents. Having realized the convenience of this resolution. 1618. and. At Tomar. the prelates of New Spain assembled by order of Emperor Charles V of glorious memory in the year one thousand five hundred and forty-six — all of which meetings were actuated with a desire to serve God and our Kingdom. Philip III." "LAW XXI. Because the above has been executed in the greater part of our Indies. and it is ordained that they be not required to pay taxes more than what is ordered." xxx xxx xxx "LAW VIII. live." xxx xxx xxx "LAW XIII. 1578. NEGROES. THAT THE 'INDIOS' IN 'REDUCCIONES' BE NOT DEPRIVED OF THE LANDS PREVIOUSLY HELD BY THEM. LIBERTY OF ABODE AND TRAVEL "With more good-will and promptness. 4. In the Escorial on November 10. Philip II at Toledo. be more than two mayors and four aldermen. and not to live in places divided and separated from one another by sierras and mountains. who should annually elect nine others. ingress and egress. who should be an indio of the same reduccion. there should be two mayors and two aldermen. THAT THE 'REDUCCIONES' BE MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS OF THIS LAW. "The places wherein the pueblos and reducciones shall be formed should have the facilities of waters. our predecessors.' "We order that in each town and reduccion there be a mayor. even if the town be a big one. and in order that they may forget the blunders of their ancient rites and ceremonies to the end that they may live in harmony and in a civilized manner. 1578. and . and associate with the indios are men of troublesome nature. of their own accord. mulattoes. wherein they are deprived of all spiritual and temporal benefits and wherein they can not profit from the aid of our ministers and from that which gives rise to those human necessities which men are obliged to give one another. in Madrid. negroes. at Cigales. or the royal district court. to avoid the wrongs done them. there should be not more than one mayor and one alderman. on January 10. The penalty of one thousand pesos shall be imposed upon the judge or encomendero who should violate this law. on February 19. "We hereby prohibit and forbid Spaniards. or alcalde mayor. on July 12. OR COURT. and on November 25. Tit. 1568. 1565. husbandry and a passageway of one league long. In the forest of Segovia on September 13. to use all the means most convenient to the attainment oœ these purposes. has the right to alter or to remove the pueblos or the reducciones once constituted and founded. however. Book 7. on October 1 and December 17. present themselves. also indios. "Philip II at the Pardo. the indios shall be concentrated in reducciones. see Law I. on March 21. We hereby order that no change shall be made in this respect.' AND MULATTOES. we hereby order and decree that the same be complied with in all the remaining parts of the Indies. In San Lorenzo. 'MESTIZOS. "The Emperor Charles and the Prince. At Madrid. so that those who would not presently settle and who would see the good treatment and the protection of those already in settlements would. with great care and special attention. that the encomenderos. on May 2. 1581." "LAW XV. October 10. the governor. 1589. on February 19. because it has been found that some Spaniards who deal. without causing inconveniences. wherein the indios can have their live stock that they may not be mixed with those of the Spaniards.1551.CONSTI 2 "LAW I. by different orders.' THERE SHALL LIVE NO SPANIARDS.

the inhabitants thereof shall not be obliged to move their dwelling-houses. 2.The provincial authorities in conjunction with the priests shall proceed. so that at the beginning of the fiscal year they shall have the same rights and obligations which affect the remaining towns of the archipelago. an effort must be made to establish their homes within the reach of the sound of the bell. that this be finished before the first day of next July. These rules shall have executive character. and the third. with all the means which their zeal may suggest to them. it is the duty to conscience and to humanity for all governments to civilize those backward races that might exist in the nation. who are children of indias and born among them. choosing for this purpose the place most convenient for them and which prejudices the least their interests. ecclesiastics. governors. precisely in the Island of Luzon wherein is located the seat of the representative of the Government of the metropolis. priests. with the only exception that in the first two years they shall not be obliged to render personal services other than those previously indicated. as well as of the manner and the only form of accomplishing such a task. "1. and that the viceroys.) A clear exposition of the purposes of the Spanish government. but the means and the preaching employed to allure them have been insufficient to complete the work undertaken. Neither have the punishments imposed been sufficient in certain cases and in those which have not been guarded against. 228. on the other-hand. and the provincial prelates of the Orders of the Dominicans. 229. and mulattoes. 231. "It is equally highly depressive to our national honor to tolerate any longer the separation and isolation of the non-Christian races from the social life of the civilized and Christian towns." (Law of the Indies. and courts take great care in executing the law within their powers and avail themselves of the cooperation of the ministers who are truly honest. and only in case of absolute necessity shall a new residence be fixed for them. living in the obscurity of ignorance. there shall be established an armed force composed precisely of native Christians. Franciscans. 1881." is found in the Decree of the Governor-General of the Philippine Islands of January 14. made up of those subdued pagans who have not as yet entered completely the social life. LIBERTY OF ABODE AND TRAVEL Agustinians. and which.The authorities shall see to it that the inhabitants of the new towns understand all the rights and duties affecting them and the liberty which they . and tranquility. in either of these cases. of those mountain and rebellious pagans — shall be published in their respective dialects. from this date. "6. pp. As regards the mestizos and Indian and Chinese half-breeds (zambaigos). We hereby order the imposition of grave penalties upon the commission of the acts above-mentioned which should not be tolerated in the towns.CONSTI 2 the negroes. idleness. and missionaries of the provinces wherein they are found are hereby entrusted in the work of having these races learn these rules. After hearing the illustrious opinions of all the local authorities. endeavoring. it appearing to be a harsh thing to separate them from their parents. taking into account the prestige which the country demands and the inevitable duty which every government has in enforcing respect and obedience to the national laws on the part of all who reside within the territory under its control. to be governed by the common law. in its efforts to improve the condition of the less advanced inhabitants of the Islands by concentrating them in "reducciones. and missionaries of the provinces of Northern Luzon. they must be observed in the manner prescribed below. presidents. and of the necessities of the different pagan races which occupy a part of its territory. and. "3. to allow any longer the commission of depredations. while. and the officials. besides maltreating them and utilizing their services. Recoletos. of the customs. and shall adopt the necessary regulations for the appointment of local authorities. from now on. vol. and that much has been heretofore accomplished with the help and self-denial of the missionary fathers who have even sacrificed their lives to the end that those degenerate races might be brought to the principles of Christianity. and also after finding the unanimous conformity of the meeting held with the Archbishop of Manila. and who are to inherit their houses and haciendas. the organization and service of which shall be determined in a regulation based upon that of the abolished Tercios de Policia (division of the Guardia Civil). for the construction of courts and schools. to the taking of the census of the inhabitants of the towns or settlements already subdued. as regards the administrative organization of the said towns or settlements. they shall not be affected by this law. I have proceeded in the premises by giving the most careful study of this serious question which involves important interests for civilization.All the indian inhabitants (indios) of the Island of Luzon are. save those exceptions prescribed in this decree which are based upon the differences of instruction. and also some of their blunders and vices which may corrupt and pervert the goal which we desire to reach with regard to their salvation. beginning with the first day of next April. "4. and. "2. thus giving way for the majority of these races to persist in their mode of living and customs of isolation. 230. I hereby promulgate the following: "DECREE. "5.So long as these subdued towns or settlements are located in fertile lands appropriate for cultivation. as to their compliance. which comprises those which live isolated and roaming about without forming a town nor a home. reading as follows: "It is a legal principle as well as a national right that every inhabitant of a territory recognized as an integral part of a nation should respect and obey the laws in force therein. increase. contaminate them with their bad customs.The diverse rules which should be promulgated for each of these races — which may be divided into three classes: one. and Jesuits as also of the meeting of the Council of Authorities. I have arrived at an intimate conviction of the inevitable necessity of proceeding in a practical manner for the submission of the said pagan and isolated races. held for the object so indicated. mestizos. "As it is impossible to consent to the continuation of such a lamentable state of things. another. "For the reasons above stated and for the purpose of carrying out these objects. and for the opening or fixing up of means of communication. if there be none as yet. lack all the notions which enable them to grasp the moral and material advantages that may be acquired in those towns under the protection and vigilance afforded them by the same laws. from the moral and material as well as the political standpoints. the Bishops of Jaro and Cebu. "It is but just to admit the fact that all the governments have occupied themselves with this most important question.For the protection and defense of these new towns.

1902. Baguio. committing from now on the crimes and vexations against the Christian towns. and lastly. vol. the Commission should adopt the same course followed by Congress in permitting the tribes of our North American Indians to maintain their tribal organization and government and under which many of these tribes are now living in peace and contentment. continue in their rebellious attitude on the first of next April. and the Department of Mindanao and Sulu. disregarding the peace. was President McKinley's Instructions to the Commission of April 7. and provided further that the putting of families in a place so selected by them be authorized in the towns already constituted. "11. in bringing about due compliance with this decree.In order to properly carry out this express prohibition.Organic law. in return. composed of the Philippine Commission and the Philippine Assembly. "10. The purpose of Section 7 of the Philippine Bill was to provide for a legislative body and. Ever since the acquisition of the Philippine Islands by the United States. and LIBERTY OF ABODE AND TRAVEL other subordinates to my authority. Portions of these instructions have remained undisturbed by subsequent congressional legislation. the establishment of missions and families of recognized honesty who shall teach. the exemption from contributions and tributes for ten years and from the quintas (a kind of tax) for twenty years. ViceRoyal Patron. and for this purpose the military headquarters shall immediately order a detachment of the military staff to study the zones where such operations shall take place and everything conducive to the successful accomplishment of the same. and advantages offered them. have the obligation of constituting their new towns. of constructing their town hall. "8. in the nature of an Organic Act for the Philippines. 7. shall have to enter the territory of such tribes. under my presidency as Governor-General. support during a year. and missionaries.) B. be subjected to wise and firm regulation. nearest to a Constitution for the Philippines." Next comes the Philippine Bill. protection. "15. the preceding provisions shall conveniently be applied to them. The Governor-General of the Philippine Islands was authorized to appoint . constant and active effort should be exercised to prevent barbarous practices and introduce civilized customs. "14. 1.The chiefs of provinces. 15) (Diccionario de la Administracion. and give them security and trust them. when the latter do not have the good conditions of location and cultivation. respect for their habits and customs in so far as the same are not opposed to natural law. "7. The Philippine Commission was to retain exclusive jurisdiction of that part of said Islands inhabited by Moros or other non-Christian tribes. all who have settled and who profess our sacred religion shall by this fact alone be exempt for eight years from rendering personal labor. and with the prohibition against these new towns as well as the others from engaging in commerce or any other transaction with the rebellious indios. that those who are governed by the local authorities as the ones who elect such officials under the direct charge of the authority of the province or district.With respect to the reduccion of the pagan races found in some of the provinces in the southern part of the Archipelago. Such tribal governments should. priests. that. On the expiration of the term. schools. without undue or petty interference. the Act of Congress of July 1. 128-134. commonly known as the Jones Law. the Act of Congress of July 1. Such a punishment shall necessarily be repeated twice a year. The Philippine Legislature. Nueva Vizcaya. AFTER ACQUISITION OF THE PHILIPPINES BY THE UNITED STATES. and clothes upon affecting submission. however. the limits of the territory of the rebellious indios shall be fixed. protect. the purchase or facility of the sale of their harvests. with this end in view. "9. "13. concession of good lands and the right to cultivate them in the manner they wish and in the way they deem most productive. unity among their families. freedom to decide of their own accord as to whether they want to be Christians or not. provided. who voluntarily admit the advantages offered. the twelfth district to be composed of the Mountain Province. The first order of an organic character after the inauguration of the American Government in the Philippines.The races indicated in the preceding article. "12. and. later expressly approved and ratified by section 1 of the Philippine Bill. in conjunction with the rural guards (cuadrilleros). labors. to name the prerequisites for the organization of the Philippine Assembly. 1900. namely: "In dealing with the uncivilized tribes of the Islands. was to have jurisdiction over the Christian portion of the Islands. and implements.houses.The authorities shall offer in the name of the State to the races not subdued (aetas and mountain igorots) the following advantages in return for their voluntary submission: to live in towns. they shall destroy their dwelling.The secondary provisions which may be necessary. This law transferred the exclusive legislative jurisdiction and authority theretofore exercised by the Philippine Commission. and country roads which place them in communication with one another and with the Christians." (Gaceta de Manila. that the location of these towns be distant from their actual residences.The armed force shall proceed to the prosecution and punishment of the tribes.CONSTI 2 have as to where and how they shall till their lands and sell the products thereof. which I intend to visit. local authorities. It divided the Philippine Islands into twelve senatorial districts.There shall be created. No. and whoever should go beyond the said limits shall be detained and assigned governmentally wherever convenient. direct. to the Philippine Legislature (Sec. shall give the most effective aid and cooperation to the said forces in all that is within the attributes and the scope of the authority of each. One paragraph of particular interest should here be quoted. surrounded by civilization to which they are unable or unwilling to conform. shall. 12). is the Act of Congress of August 29. the violation of which shall be punished with deportation.For the purpose of assisting in the conversion of the pagans into the fraternity of the Catholic Church. and confiscate their products and cattle. shall be promulgated by the respective official centers within their respective jurisdictions. the question as to the best method for dealing with the primitive inhabitants has been a perplexing one. The latest Act of Congress. with the only exception of the tobacco which shall be bought by the Hacienda at the same price and conditions allowed other producers. the Captain General's Office shall proceed with the organization of the divisions of the Army which. 1902. a council or permanent commission which shall attend to and decide all the questions relative to the application of the foregoing regulations that may be brought to it for consultation by the chiefs of provinces and priests and missionaries. 1916. pp. civil as well as military authorities. and for this purpose. as a complement to the foregoing.

550. 2.' "SEC. and Zambales. Paragua (Palawan). Sections 68-71. 1396. As an example of these laws. as a township.TERMINOLOGY. 387.Whereas the Manguianes of the Province of Mindoro have not progressed sufficiently in civilization to make it practicable to bring them under any form of municipal government. Act No.Statute law. 4. having reference to the Province of Nueva Vizcaya. The terms made use of by these laws. be said to recognize a dividing line between the territory not inhabited by Moros or other non-Christian tribes. and the territory which is inhabited by Moros or other non-Christian tribes. was not represented in the Philippine Assembly. 387. the Baguio Charter. Act No. Act No. They are also to be found in Act No. 2435. Sec. reestablishing this Bureau. 1397. 579. Ilocos Norte. Administrative Code of 1917. 48 and 49 concerning the Province of Benguet and the Igorots.. 753 855. The last named Act incorporated and embodied the provisions in general language. Of more particular interest are certain special laws concerning the government of the primitive peoples. Beginning with Act No. if they mean anything. 1902. 1963. 422. the provincial governor is further authorized." since the coming into being of a Filipinized legislature. the Provincial Government Act. The most commonly accepted usage has sanctioned the term "non-Christian tribes. 2404. and Act No. at the time of the passage of the Jones Law. 549. Act No. 3." These words are to be found in Section 7 of the Philippine Bill and in Section 22 of the Jones Law. Among other laws which contain the phrase. The most notable are Acts Nos. 1397 1639. "Non-Christian people. Act No. "SEC. In partial corroboration of this view. Christians would be those who profess the Christian religion. (Sec. 550. "Uncivilized tribes" is the denomination in President McKinley's instructions to the Commission. inclusive. "By authority of the United States. and to the end that law and order and individual freedom shall be maintained. Manguianes who refuse to comply with such directions shall upon conviction be imprisoned for a period not exceeding sixty days." and "non-Christian Filipinos" have been the favorite nomenclature.' passed September twenty-sixth. that is. we insert Act No. 1306.The public good requiring the speedy enactment of this bill. organic and statutory. denote an anxious regard for the welfare of the nonChristian inhabitants of the Philippines and a settled and consistent practice with reference to the methods to be followed for their advancement. in lieu of the unpopular word "tribes. relating to the organization of settlements. 787. Tayabas. and to prescribe their powers and duties: Provided. In turn. as well as in Act No." If we were to follow the literal meaning of the word "non-Christian. 445. and the geographical limits of such township shall be fixed by the provincial board. Act No. Sec. 128. 2561. the Municipal Code. Act No.Subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Interior. the provincial governor is authorized.) D. there could also be cited Section 2576 of the last Administrative Code . MEANING OF TERM "NON-CHRISTIAN. 1268.This Act shall take effect on its passage. be it enacted the Philippine Commission.The constant aim of the governor shall be to aid the Manguianes of his province to acquire the knowledge and experience necessary for successful LIBERTY OF ABODE AND TRAVEL local popular government. That the powers and duties thus prescribed shall not be in excess of those conferred upon township officers by Act Numbered Three hundred and eighty-seven entitled 'An Act providing for the establishment of local civil governments in the townships and settlements of Nueva Vizcaya. 2426 Administrative Code of 1917. and non-Christians. "SEC. Mindoro. 3. by the United States Philippine Commission." it would of course result in giving to it a religious signification. — AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF LOCAL CIVIL GOVERNMENTS FOR THE MANGUIANES IN THE PROVINCE OF MINDORO. 547. 2674 of the Philippine Legislature. 82. the Township Government Act. nineteen hundred. with the exception of Act No. Act No. 549. 2145. "SEC. taken from Act No. to direct such Manguianes to take up their habitation on sites on unoccupied public lands to be selected by him and approved by the provincial board. 2394. in dealing with these Manguianes to appoint officers from among them. C.CONSTI 2 senators and representatives for the territory which. to fix their designations and badges of office. The two Administrative Codes retained the provisions in question. because referring to the Manguianes. enacted on April 9. Tarlac. 5. 253 of the Philippine Commission. "SEC. and in Acts Nos. These different laws. 1145. the Charter of the city of Manila. 22). 1667. the passage of the same is hereby expedited in accordance with section two of 'An Act prescribing the order of procedure by the Commission in the enactment of laws. 1113. Sections 701-705. carried forward into Sections 701-705 of the Administrative Code of 1917. 547. 2. 500. 1667 of the Philippine Commission. 183. 2077. 1396 and 1397. Misamis. 411. Pangasinan. 127. and his supervision and control over them shall be exercised to this end. 2674 of the Philippine Legislature. 2408. for the twelfth district (Sec. "Enacted. establishing a Bureau of non-Christian Tribes and in Act No. These terms can be found in Sections 2076. The law established a bureau to be known as the "Bureau of non-Christian Tribes" which shall have general supervision over the public affairs of the inhabitants which are represented in the Legislature by appointed senators and representatives (Sec. there can be mentioned Acts Nos. 547: "No. 2390. 1902. that: "SECTION 1. are found in varying forms. 1397 was repealed by the Administrative Code of 1916. 548. would be those who do not profess the Christian religion. were repealed by Acts Nos. Philippine organic law may. Nueva Vizcaya. 2576. Obviously. 2408. and 2551. of Act Numbered three hundred and eighty-seven. therefore. 1306 were enacted for the provinces of Abra. the Special Provincial Government Act. Isabela. The major portion of these laws have been carried forward into the Administrative Codes of 1916 and 1917. Antique. Ilocos Sur. 548. providing for the organization and government of the Moro Province. 2422. Lepanto-Bontoc. it may be organized under the provisions of sections one to sixty-seven. The Administrative Code specifically provides that the term "non-Christian" shall include Mohammedans and pagans. Administrative Code of 1916. Acts Nos. 16).When in the opinion of the provincial board of Mindoro any settlement of Manguianes has advanced sufficiently to make such a course practicable." "non-Christian inhabitants. subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Interior. the Organic Act of the Department of Mindanao and Sulu. when he deems such a course necessary in the interest of law and order. 6. Local governments in the Philippines have been provided for by various acts of the Philippine Commission and Legislature. 547. Bataan. Act No. Administrative Code of 1916." All of these special laws. December 4. 83. 2444.

with special view to determining the most practicable means for bringing about their advancement in civilization and material prosperity. is substantiated by reference to legislative. "Philippine Progress prior to 1898. a letter which later received recognition by the Governor-General and was circulated by the Executive Secretary. An Act to declare the purpose of the people of the United States as to the future political status of the Philippine Islands and to provide a more autonomous government for the Islands. N. be brought under the Provincial Government Act and the Municipal Code. "non-Christian" is an awkward and unsatisfactory word. and Palawan. is found in Article XII of the Provincial Law of the Administrative Code. This is plainly to be seen by the provisions of many laws. 351. 1906 circulated by the Executive Secretary. to be considered Christian or non-Christians. and Sections 701 et seq. Act No." Of much more moment is the uniform construction of executive officials who have been called upon to interpret and enforce the law. of course. the word can have a geographical signification. uncultured and uneducated. but the real purpose of the Commission was not so much to legislate for people having any particular religious belief as for those lacking sufficient advancement so that they could. to hit upon any suitable designation which will fit all cases. At most. vol. 253 charged the Bureau of non-Christian tribes to conduct "systematic investigations with reference to non-Christian tribes . the Jones Law confers similar recognition in the authorization of the twelfth senatorial district for the "territory not now represented in the Philippine Assembly. letter of the Secretary of the Interior of June 30. 18459. who concurs in the opinion above expressed and who will have the necessary instructions given to the governors of the provinces organized under the Provincial Government Act. of a low order of intelligence. judicial. The number of individual tribes is so great that it is almost out of the question to enumerate all of them in an Act. It was finally decided to adopt the designation 'non-Christians' as the one most satisfactory. should be taken into consideration as a second marked extenuating circumstance. therefore." As authority of a judicial nature is the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of United States vs.) If the religious conception is not satisfactory. "It has been extremely difficult. 253. reading as follows: "SIR:Within the past few months.'" (See Hearings before the Committee on the Philippines. but while no other better classification has as yet been made the present classification should be allowed to stand. "The Philippine Islands. We hold also that the fact that the accused is shown to be a member of an uncivilized tribe. the question has arisen as to whether people who were originally non-Christians but have recently been baptized or who are children of persons who have been recently baptized are. celebrated within that province without compliance with the requisites prescribed by General Orders No." and Dr. commonly known as the 'non-Christian tribes. For instance. the law specifically recognizes this. 434). I. I believe the term carries the same meaning as that expressed in the letter of the Secretary of the Interior (of June 30.. M. p. because of their religion. United States Senate. . . for the purposes of Acts 1396 and 1397. Mindoro. for to hold that it is indicative of religious . recognizing the difficulty of selecting an exact designation. The legislative intent is borne out by Acts Nos. Sixty-third Congress. . Again. exactly coincide with the portion of the Philippines which is not granted popular representation. but the whole intent of the law is predicated on the civilization or lack of civilization of the inhabitants. . the authority of the Philippine Assembly was recognized in the "territory" of the Islands not inhabited by Moros or other nonChristian tribes. 214. this official addressed a letter to all governors of provinces.. In fact. . Batanes. Saleeby. "Estadismo de las Islas Filipinas.. In discussing the point. 1906. to their own advantage. III. time and again.) Not content with the apparent definition of the word. so again the geographical conception is likewise inadequate. preceding Section 2145.R. you will give the member of so-called 'wild tribes' of your province the benefit of the doubt even though they may recently have embraced Christianity. Section 2145. 68. or to a particular province because of its location. It is well-known that within the specially organized provinces. . 48. herein quoted). p. 346. as a member of the Philippine Commission. It is indicative of the degree of civilization rather than of religious denomination. The question here arose as to the effect of a tribal marriage in connection with Article 423 of the Penal Code concerning the husband who surprises his wife in the act of adultery. Nueva Vizcaya. Tubban [Kalinga] ([1915]. Administrative Code of 1917. 2422.) The idea that the term "non-Christian" is intended to relate to degree of civilization. in a memorandum furnished a member of this court. The specially organized provinces are the Mountain Province. The reason is that the motive of the law relates not to a particular people. organized under the Special Provincial Government Act. and Sections 2422 et seq. drafted much of the legislation relating to the so-called non-Christians and who had these people under his authority. pp." Professor Ferdinand Blumentritt. Nevertheless. adopted acts making certain other acts applicable to that "part" of the Philippine Islands inhabited by Moros or other non-Christian tribes. In one sense. "Philippine Tribes and Languages. we are not advised of any provision of law which recognizes as legal a tribal marriage of so-called non-Christians or members of uncivilized tribes. and executive authority." vol. (Sec. 1906. the Governor-General. makes the provisions of the article applicable only in specially organized provinces. The first section of this article. there live persons some of whom are Christians and some of whom are not Christians. The official who." 1493-1898. For practical purposes. p. has the following to say on the subject: "As far as names are concerned the classification is indeed unfortunate. Thus. Under date of June 30. third session on H. of the Administrative Code of 1917. "The Origin of Malayan Filipinos. . . These are the provinces to which the Philippine Legislature has never seen fit to give all the powers of local self-government. 300. 107. " The Philippine Legislature has. speaks of the "backward Philippine peoples. Craig-Benitez. etc. as Zuniga." (Internal Revenue Manual. it is still a geographical description. 29 Phil." (See Blair & Robertson. . "The determining factor in deciding whether they are to be allowed to remain under the jurisdiction of regularly organized municipalities or what form of government shall be afforded to them should be the degree of civilization to which they have attained and you are requested to govern yourself accordingly. the court makes use of the following language: LIBERTY OF ABODE AND TRAVEL ". we shall investigate further to ascertain what is its true meaning.) The present Secretary of the Interior. in itself change the degree of civilization to which the person baptized has attained at the time the act of baptism is performed. was the former Secretary of the Interior.CONSTI 2 and certain well-known authorities. 1667. "The so-called non-Christian" is a favorite expression. in framing legislation for the tribes in these islands which are not advanced far in civilization. and 2674. according to the Philippine Bill. however. They do not. "I have discussed this matter with the Honorable. The Secretary of the Interior who for so many years had these people under his jurisdiction. 387. "The mere act of baptism does not. . Apologetic words usually introduce the term. note.

On one occasion a prominent Hebrew of Manila claimed to this office that he was exempt from the cedula tax. 188 of the Bureau of Internal Revenue. reading as follows (Internal Revenue Manual. Mohammedans. it is not so much a matter of a man's form of religious worship or profession that decides whether or not he is subject to the cedula tax.) "JNO. Cedula taxes are therefore being collected by this Office in all parts of these Islands on the broad ground that civilized people are subject to such taxes. severs whatever tribal relations he may have had and attaches himself to some civilized community. not by reason of the fact that they do not profess Christianity. HORD. and a regular class A. 214): "The internal revenue law exempts 'members of non-Christian tribes' from the payment of cedula taxes. The precise questions were these: "Does he remain nonChristian or is he entitled to the privileges of a Christian? By purchasing intoxicating liquors. Chinamen. If he comes in after the expiration of the delinquency period the same rule should apply to him as to persons arriving from foreign countries or reaching the age of eighteen subsequent to the expiration of such period. ) "ELLIS CROMWELL. however. D. Buddists. Quite a large proportion of the cedula taxes paid in this city are paid by men belonging to the nationalities mentioned. The subject has come before the Attorney-General for consideration. degree of advancement and so forth are practically the same as those of the Igorrots and members of other recognized non-Christian tribes. residing in Manila. would or would not be subject to the cedula tax. the view of the Secretary of the Interior . The question arose for ruling relative to the cedula taxation of the Manobos and the Aetas. was requested on the point. 1907. degree of advancement in civilization and connection or lack of connection with some civilized community. 1910. "Whenever any member of a non-Christian tribe leaves his wild and uncivilized mode of life.. dated June 11. but his mode of life. maintaining his religious belief. So far. East Indians. Secretary of Finance and Justice. the following clarification of the laws governing such questions and digest of rulings thereunder is hereby published for the information of all concerned: "Non-Christian inhabitants of the Philippine Islands are so classed. who. but because of their LIBERTY OF ABODE AND TRAVEL uncivilized mode of life and low state of development. "Secretary of Finance and Justice. p.. Confucians. after quoting the same . promulgated by Venancio Concepcion." Another official who was concerned with the status of the non-Christians. 327. . "Approved: (Sgd. and non-civilized people preserving their tribal relations are not subject thereto. but throwing his lot and living with a nonChristian tribe. and that all other persons are exempt. it should be borne in mind that the prime factor in determining whether or not a man is subject to the regular cedula tax is not the circumstance that he does or does not profess Christianity. 327. S. to all provincial treasurers." On September 17. should be furnished him without penalty and without requiring him to play the tax for former years. (Sgd. or H cedula. ( Sgd. " Collector of Internal Revenue. This letter in part reads: "In view of the many questions that have been raised by provincial treasurers regarding cedula taxes due from members of non-Christian tribes when they come in from the hills for the purpose of settling down and becoming members of the body politic of the Philippine Islands. "In conclusion. or in the country in a civilized condition. "Very respectfully.CONSTI 2 denomination will make the law invalid as against that Constitutional guaranty of religious freedom. does he commit an infraction of the law and does the person selling same lay himself liable under the provision of Act No. Chinamen. . In other words. by Honorable Victorino Mapa. he has interpreted it to mean that all persons preserving tribal relations with the so-called non-Christian tribes are exempt from the cedula tax. 1639?" The opinion of Attorney-General Avanceña. The Chief of Constabulary requested the opinion of the Attorney-General as to the status of a non-Christian who has been baptized by a minister of the Gospel. including Jews. this question has not come up as to whether a Christian. by return indorsement. he thereby makes himself subject to precisely the same law that governs the other members of that community and from and after the date when he so attaches himself to the community the same cedula and other taxes are due from him as from other members thereof. it is more dependent on whether he is living in a civilized manner or is associated with the mountain tribes. This Office.) "GREGORIO ARANETA. nor even his maintenance of or failure to maintain tribal relations with some of the well known wild tribes. Acting Collector of Internal Revenue. Arabs. and approved on April 16. inasmuch as he was not a Christian." The two circulars above quoted have since been repealed by Bureau of Internal Revenue Regulations No. even though they belong to no well recognized tribe. 1915. F. are subject to said tax so long as they live in cities or towns. continued to collect cedula taxes from all of the Jews. "Collector of Internal Revenue. and a condition similar to that which exist in Manila also exists in most of the large provincial towns. the Collector of Internal Revenue addressed circular letter No. agreed with the interpretation of the Collector of Internal Revenue. Thereupon. etc. either as a member thereof or as a recruit. becoming a member of the body politic. as the case may be. The Collector of Internal Revenue has interpreted this provision of law to mean not that persons who profess some form of Christian worship are alone subject to the cedula tax. etc. This construction of the Collector of Internal Revenue can be found in circular letter No. and that all others. For this reason so called 'Remontados' and 'Montescos' will be classed by this office as members of non-Christian tribes in so far as the application of the Internal Revenue Law is concerned. their mode of life. All inhabitants of the Philippine Islands classed as members of non-Christian tribes may be divided into three classes in so far as the cedula tax law is concerned. was the Collector of Internal Revenue. since. . 1. Section 30 of the regulations is practically a transcript of Circular Letter No. approved by the Secretary of Finance and Justice. Arabs and others are quite widely scattered throughout the Islands.

Reference is herein made to the clause of the United States Constitution which gives Congress "power to regulate commerce with foreign nations. Pardo de Tavera in his Etimologia de los nombres de Razas de Filipinas. therefore. to be practically identical with that followed by the United States Government in its dealings with the Indian tribes.000. E. . it is probable that the person in question remains a non-Christian. have not progressed sufficiently in civilization to make it practicable to bring them under any form of municipal government. and. as indicated in the preamble to Act No. says: LIBERTY OF ABODE AND TRAVEL "In Tagalog. (See Census of the Philippine Islands [1903]. then "Chief of the Bureau of non-Christian Tribes. 1. But they asserted an ultimate . in the portion written by no less an authority than Dr. to the people of the United States. vol. timid. 1639. not to religious belief. "Following the policy of the European Governments in the discovery of America towards the Indians who were found here. 118 U. Bicol. 460." Solicitor-General Paredes in his brief in this case says: "With respect to the meaning which the phrase non-Christian inhabitants has in the provisions of the Administrative Code which we are studying. Kagama ( [1886]. In Pampango this ending still exists and signifies 'ancient. but nevertheless it has been applied only to certain inhabitants of Mindoro. They number approximately 15. vol. War Department. so that in purchasing intoxicating liquors both he and the person selling the same make themselves liable to prosecution under the provisions of Act No.) III. "The phrase 'non-Christian inhabitants' used in the provisions of Articles 2077 and 2741 of Act No. prepared in the Bureau of Insular Affairs. the Indians have been treated as "in a state of pupilage. The Manguianes have shown no desire for community life. inferentially. the opinion goes on — "This act avowedly contemplates the preservation of the Indian nations as an object sought by the United States. and Visaya. on argument. and that these men were pushed back into the interior by the modern invaders. did not intend to establish a distinction based on the religious beliefs of the individual. pp. writes that the classification likely to be used in the Census now being taken is: "Filipinos and Primitive Filipinos. and among the several States. S." which sufficiently shows that the term refers to culture and not to religion. pp. . are the Manguianes (or Mangyans) of Mindoro. They have considerable Negrito blood and have not advanced beyond the Negritos in civilization. not only because this is the evident intention of the law. it is insisted. has always been an anomalous one and of a complex character. as follows: "The relation of the Indian tribes living within the borders of the United States. 547. as distinguished from the common Filipinos which carry on a social and civilized life. David P.' 'mountainer. . Of the third class. Georgia. (Census of the Philippine Islands [1903]. but. concludes: "In conformity with the above quoted constructions. without dwelling on the difficulties which later would be occasioned by the phrase. civilized or uncivilized. the Legislature and the Judiciary. The so-called non-Christians are in various stages approaching civilization. and. H. Chief Justice Marshall in his opinion in Worcester vs. "The Philippine Commission in denominating in its laws that portion of the inhabitants of the Philippines which live in tribes as non-Christian tribes. more directly. primitive. Barrows.THE MANGUIANES. Georgia. semi-nomadic people. join in the proposition that the term "non-Christian" refers. in whose language they were called the 'ancients. adopted the expression which the Spanish legislation employed to designate the uncivilized portion of the inhabitants of the Philippines. Hon. and even before. 23. The methods followed by the Government of the Philippine Islands in its dealings with the so-called non-Christian people is said.. Ignacio Villamor." The Official Census of 1903.COMPARATIVE — THE AMERICAN INDIANS." divides the population into Christian or Civilized Tribes." The court then proceeds to indite a brief history of the position of the Indians in the United States (a more extended account of which can be found in Marshall's opinion in Worcester vs.CONSTI 2 authorities hereinbefore set out. and different executive officials. supra). Valuable lessons. living without home or fixed residence. and non-Christian or Wild Tribes.' " The Manguianes are very low in culture. but because to give it its literal meaning would make the law null and unconstitutional as making distinctions based on the religion of the individual.' 'negro. Even in primitive times without doubt this name was given to those of that island who bear it to-day. Manguian signifies 'savage. I. but simply refers to those uncivilized members of the non-Christian tribes of the Philippines who. in a way. the colonies before the Revolution and the States and the United States since. tells how the Congress passed an Act in 1819 "for promoting those humane designs of civilizing the neighboring Indians. whether Filipinos or strangers. hereinbefore mentioned." A leading case which discusses the status of the Indians is that of the United States vs. It is for the Congress to determine when and how the guardianship shall be terminated. In resume. we submit that said phrase does not have its natural meaning which would include all nonChristian inhabitants of the Islands. T. beyond the reach of law and order. They are a peaceful. I advise you that these should be the constructions placed upon the law until a court shall hold otherwise. a subdivision under the title non-Christian tribes is. both before and since the Revolution. At least. The Philippine Census of 1903 divided them into four classes.) The present Director of the Census. specifically. to geographical area. roam in the mountains. 375). Reference was made in the President's instructions to the Commission to the policy adopted by the United States for the Indian Tribes. and with the Indian tribes. have recognized in the Indians a possessory right to the soil over which they roamed and hunted and established occasional villages. usually living in tribal relationship apart from settled communities.' 'pagan. "Physical and Political Characteristics of the non-Christian Tribes. Of the derivation of the name "Manguian" Dr. can be derived by an investigation of the AmericanIndian policy. but its employment in three Filipino languages shows that the radical ngian had in all these languages a sense to-day forgotten. 411 et seq. The Indians are always subject to the plenary authority of the United States. 2657 (Articles 2145 and 2759) should be understood as equivalent to members of uncivilized tribes of the Philippines. From the beginning of the United States. " In a Pronouncing Gazetteer and Geographical Dictionary of the Philippine Islands. and proposes to effect this object by civilizing and converting them from hunters into agriculturists." The recognized relation between the Government of the United States and the Indians may be described as that of guardian and ward.' It may be that the se of this word is applicable to a great number of Filipinos." After quoting the Act. but. to natives of the Philippine Islands of a low grade of civilization. 22.' from which we can deduce that the name was applied to men considered to be the ancient inhabitants.

. Thomas [1894]. and an unbroken line of judicial decisions. 35 L. . (U. Lone Wolf vs. and always have been. related to the right of the Government to arrest and hold the relators for a time.. The only case which is even remotely in point and which. U.. S. 795. Conley vs. Sandoval. the subject has always been deemed political in nature. by which the Indian tribes were forbidden to sell or transfer it to other nations or peoples without the consent of this paramount authority. he had caused the relators to be arrested on the Omaha Indian Territory.That an Indian is a 'person' within the meaning of the laws of the United States. and by this court. therefore.. S. 286. formerly belonging to the Ponca Tribe of Indians. With the Indians themselves these relations are equally difficult to define. Georgia. Dependent for their political rights. and receive from them no protection. now weak and diminished in numbers. They were. we note the following: "Not only does the Constitution expressly authorize Congress to regulate commerce with the Indian tribes. Lane [1913]. leads me to conclude: "1. 553. [N.CONSTI 2 title in the land itself. to make such a purchase by treaty or otherwise. there arise the duty of protection. 11 Wall. not as States. Dependent largely for their daily food. vs. Roff vs. has the custody of the relators. This was a hearing upon return to a writ of habeas corpus issued against Brigadier General George Crook at the relation of Standing Bear and other Indians. The petition alleged in substance that the relators are Indians who have formerly belonged to the Ponca tribe of Indians. 598.. Adams [1907]. 264. Sandoval ([1913]. Whether such an extensive discretionary power is wisely vested in the commissioner of Indian affairs or not. These Indian tribes are the wards of the nation. and with it the power. and that. Burney [1897]. under color of authority of the United States.S. The substance of the return to the writ was that the relators are individual members of. pursuant to the said order. because it never has existed anywhere else. For very good reason. or in other nations. The United States recognized no right in private persons. The power of the General Government over these remnants of a race once powerful. and because it alone can enforce its laws on all the tribes. the Ponca tribe of Indians.That General George Crook. Celestine [1909]. 231 U. 577. S. Tiger vs. and were then endeavoring to maintain themselves by their own exertions. The Cherokee Tobacco [1871]. A. 14891). the people of the States where they are found are often their deadliest enemies. 567. . need not be questioned. "2. . and without aid or assistance from the general government. not as possessed of the full attributes of sovereignty. that they had fled or escaped from a reservation situated some place within the limits of the Indian Territory — had departed therefrom without permission from the Government. it has been held that it is not within the power of the courts to overrule the judgment of Congress. 197 U. 4 LIBERTY OF ABODE AND TRAVEL How. in all cases where he may be confined or in custody under color of authority of the United States or where he is restrained of liberty in violation of the constitution or laws of the United States. might result in the issuance of habeas corpus. the General of the Army had issued an order which required the respondent to arrest and return the relators to their tribe in the Indian Territory. and. U. that they had some time previously withdrawn from the tribe. or any part of it." With reference to laws affecting the Indians. at the request of the Secretary of the Interior. S. the court reviewed the policy the Government had adopted in its dealings with the friendly tribe of Poncas. Wallace vs. Because of the local ill feeling. U. Rogers [1846].]. vs. 216 U. 29 Okla. but longcontinued legislative and executive usage and an unbroken current of judicial decisions have attributed to the United States as a superior and civilized nation the power and the duty of exercising a fostering care and protection over all dependent Indian communities within its borders. and thus far not brought under the laws of the Union or of the State within whose limits they resided.. and without being guilty of violating any of the laws of the United States. The court looked to the reports of the different superintendents charged with guarding their interests and found that these Indians are dependent upon the fostering care and protection of the government "like reservation Indians in general. Gay [1898]. 278. the court said: "Laws passed for the government of the Indian country. therefore. Then. vs. Worcester vs. The second question. [1911]. 28) the question to be considered was whether the status of the Pueblo Indians and their lands was such that Congress could prohibit the introduction of intoxicating liquor into those lands notwithstanding the admission of New Mexico to statehood.. and had adopted the general habits of the whites. "The decision concluded as follows: "The reasoning advanced in support of my views. Crook ( [1879]. not subject to the jurisdiction of the judicial department of the government. is necessary to their protection. S. S. it has full authority to pass such laws and authorize such measures as may be necessary to give to the Indians thereon full protection in their persons and property. S. the respondent. and connected with.. 221 U. or before a federal judge. if followed literally. S. were subjected to restraints and official supervision in the alienation of their property. S. now located in the Indian Territory. (Matter of Heff [1905]. Cyr vs. . but as a separate people. Hitchcock [1903]. S. and in violation of the laws thereof. the Indians of the pueblos were treated as wards requiring special protection. S. 187 U. because it has never been denied.. Walker [1911]. R. 616. and for the purpose of regulating trade and intercourse with the Indian tribes. 218. Cas. 215 U." In the later case of United States vs. the court said "that during the Spanish dominion. of much greater importance. 281. and whether within or without the limits of a state. Western Invest." And finally. U. S. and has. They are communities dependent on the United States. When a tribe wished to dispose of its land. It is enough to know that the power rightfully exists. the United States sets apart any public land as an Indian reservation. or the State or the United States wished to purchase it. From their very weakness and helplessness. The first question was whether an Indian can test the validity of an illegal imprisonment by habeas corpus. S. This has always been recognized by the Executive and by Congress. regarded as having a semiindependent position when they preserved their tribal relations. the right to sue out a writ of habeas corpus in a federal court. a treaty with the tribe was the only mode in which this could be done. They owe no allegiance to the States. S. No. whether within its original territory or territory subsequently acquired." The opinion then continues: "It seems to us that this (effect of the law) is within the competency of Congress.. being commander of the military department of the Platte. supra. as well as to the safety of those among whom they dwell. is that of United States vs. for the purpose of being returned to the Indian Territory from which it was alleged the Indian escaped. continuing.. S.. 151 U. vs.." Continuing.) All this is borne out by long-continued legislative and executive usage.) Whenever. where existing. Fed. and completely severed their tribal relations therewith. vs. . Bollinger [1910]. 84. whenever the question has arisen. 232 U. not as nations. so largely due to the course of dealing of the Federal Government with them and the treaties in which it has been promised. confer upon certain officers of the Government almost unlimited power over the persons who go upon the reservations without lawful authority. that whilst they were thus engaged. In discussing this question. and. George Crook. with the power of regulating their internal and social relations. 204 U. 169 U. Thomas vs.. the exercise of the power must be upheld. supra. It must exist in that government. S. . 168 U. 415. 488. they were arrested and restrained of their liberty by order of the respondent. Co. because the theater of its exercise is within the geographical limits of the United States. .

liberty. a Filipino. [1907]. and in violation of the laws thereof.Being restrained of liberty under color of authority of the United States. the decision just quoted could be used as authority to determine that Rubi. We hold that the term "non-Christian" refers to natives of the Philippine Islands of a low grade of civilization. ([1906]. B." Counsel's premise once being conceded. In limpid English. as the respondent has been directed to do. the statute has violated this constitutional guaranty. An understanding of the rule will. "5. Comm'rs.' so long as they obey the laws and do not trespass on forbidden ground.. it is contended. U. Is not all this exactly what the Legislature has attempted to accomplish by the enactment of Section 2145 of the Administrative Code? Has not the Legislature merely conferred upon the provincial governor. consequently. just as many forceful reasons exist for the segregation of the Manguianes in Mindoro as existed for the segregation of the different Indian tribes in the United States. and in words as plain and unequivocal as language can express. U. But. as hereinbefore stated. EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS. 232 U. have the management of all Indian affairs. however. does not discriminate between individuals on account of religious differences." Justice Holmes said: "We should hesitate a good deal.That no rightful authority exists for removing by force any of the relators to the Indian Territory. final on questions of fact. as held by Chief Justice Marshall in Wayman vs. and has been exercised. without any previous consultation as to their own wishes. the courts should not interfere to upset a carefully planned governmental system. vs. the Manguian petitioner. which once accepted. and since followed in a multitude of cases. Hitchock." (Cincinnati. in a truly remarkable brief. and it is so ordered. and of all matters arising out of the Indian relations. as the official representatives of the province. 141. 248 Fed. Section 463 of the United States Revised Statutes provided: "The Commissioner of Indian Affairs shall. sanctioned by immemorial practice. and as such. it provides for the segregation of 'non-Christians' and none other. the facts in the Standing Bear case and the Rubi case are not exactly identical. the relators must be discharged from custody. is a "person" within the meaning of the Habeas Corpus Act. and that Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917. that Indians have been taken from different parts of the country and placed on these reservations. 88. Who but the provincial governor and the provincial board. are better qualified to judge "when such a 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. Clinton County [1852]. A. S." The inevitable result. The Philippine Legislature has here conferred authority upon the Province of Mindoro. it is that the determination of this policy is for the legislative and executive branches of the government and that when once so decided upon. and conferring an authority or discretion as to its execution. "4. 205 U.CONSTI 2 "3.) There is another aspect of the question. . judicial construction is then excluded. to be exercised by the provincial governor and the provincial board.) We so decide. the nullification of legislative action. Some such supervision was necessary. The first constitutional objection which confronts us is that the Legislature could not delegate this power to provincial authorities. DUE PROCESS OF LAW. which necessarily involves a discretion as to what it shall be. the Philippine Legislature has abdicated its authority and avoided its full responsibility. and have the inalienable right to 'life. S. especially in view of the long established practice of the Department. 204 U. 10 Wheat. his argument is unanswerable — the Legislature must be understood to mean what it has plainly expressed. IV. 364. permits the central legislative body to delegate legislative powers to local authorities. and the pursuit of happiness. 598. vs. D. The Legislature may make decisions of executive departments or subordinate officials thereof. and Q. An exception to the general rule.. In so attempting. CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS. C. vs. Co. disclose that it has not been violated in this instance. But even admitting similarity of facts. is invalid. under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior. The attorney de officio... entitled to sue out a writ in the Philippine courts. S. and agreeably to such regulations as the President may prescribe. Lane [1914].. discretionary authority as to the execution of the law? Is not this "necessary"? The case of West vs. In the absence of special provisions naturally it would be exercised by the Indian Department. 80) was a petition for mandamus to require the Secretary of the Interior to approve the selection and taking of one hundred and sixty acres by the relator out of the lands ceded to the United States by the Wichita and affiliated bands of Indians.) The growing tendency in the decisions is to give prominence to the "necessity" of the case. when once so located. to the latter no valid objection can be made. (See also In re Race Horse [1895]. they have been made to remain on the reservation for their own good and for the general good of the country. submitted on behalf of his unknown clients. If any lesson can be drawn from the Indian policy of the United States. religious equality is demanded by the Organic Law. The rule has nowhere been better stated than in the early Ohio case decided by Judge Ranney. The power of Congress is not doubted. W." (See also as corroborative authority. to be exercised under and in pursuance of the law. That the maxim of Constitutional Law forbidding the delegation of legislative power should be zealously protected. Kinkead [1918]. to whom it has committed the execution of certain acts. for petitioners. 1) may be committed by the Legislature to an executive department or official. and that.DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER. S. 70 Fed. reviewing the previous decisions of the United States Supreme Court. is decisive. if any is needed. is that the law "constitutes an attempt by the Legislature to discriminate between individuals because of their religious beliefs. Union Bridge Co." As far as the first point is concerned. E. The Indians have been treated as wards of the nation. R. then. namely: "The true distinction therefore is between the delegation of power to make the law. S. S. before saying that this language was not broad enough to warrant a regulation obviously made for the welfare of the rather helpless people concerned. yet it is known to all that Indian reservations do exist in the United States. with the approval of the provincial board and the LIBERTY OF ABODE AND TRAVEL Department Head. The first cannot be done. especially as classification of inhabitants according to religious belief leads the court to what it should avoid. 598. As to the second point.. And. vs. and is.That the Indians possess the inherent right of expatriation. we do not feel free to discard the long continued meaning given to a common expression. unconstitutional.LIBERTY. we agree.RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION. & Z. says that — "The statute is perfectly clear and unambiguous.) Discretion. as well as the more fortunate white race. (U. Perhaps. and a citizen of the Philippine Islands. Southard ([1825]. who but 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 ? Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917 is not an unlawful delegation of legislative power by the Philippine Legislature to provincial officials and a department head. 1 Ohio St..

or property without due process of law. The right of the individual is necessarily subject to reasonable restraint by general law for the common good. 371. that there shall be a law prescribed in harmony with the general powers of the legislative department of the Government. 627. 137 U. Whenever and wherever the natural rights of citizens would. "Any legal proceeding enforced by public authority. "first. that "every citizen shall hold his life. whether sanctioned by age and custom. 179 U. As enunciated in a long array of authorities including epoch-making decisions of the United States Supreme Court. and the Jones Law. Due Process of Law. "are universal in their application. the Philippine Bill. and the right of locomotion. that it shall be enforced according to the regular methods of procedure prescribed. S. S. S. which the savage never understood. The liberty of the citizen may be restrained in the interest of the public health. 539: Hardie-Tynes Manufacturing Co. providing "That no law shall be enacted in said Islands which shall deprive any person of life. The right to liberty guaranteed by the Constitution includes the right to exist and the right to be free from arbitrary personal restraint or servitude. at all times and in all circumstances. Missouri [1866]. Real liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own. That man is free who is protected from injury. compatible with the possession of like liberty by every other.) The protection afforded the individual is then as much for the non-Christian as for the Christian. said that the meaning of "due process of law" is.) "Even liberty itself.) One thought which runs through all these different conceptions of liberty is plainly apparent. in the course of the argument in the Dartmouth College Case before the United States Supreme Court. and never can understand. J.. as the safety of the general public may demand. Ling Su Fan [1908]. the offspring of high civilization. and immunities under the protection of the general rules which govern society. 10 Phil. organized society could not exist with safety to its members. 110 U. 2 Pet. Kreutzberg [1902]. which regards and preserves these principles of liberty and justice. of course." (U." Implied in the term is restraint by law for the good of the individual and for the greater good of the peace and order of society and the general well-being. L. such assumed rights must yield to the regulation of law. and essential to his carrying out these purposes to a successful conclusion. in Crowley vs. the right to labor. regardless of the injury that may be done to others .' " (Harlan. to live and work where he will. It is this: "Liberty" as understood in democracies. without regard to any differences of race. Williams vs. must be held to be due process of law.CONSTI 2 The third constitutional argument is grounded on those portions of the President's instructions to the Commission. Geiger-Jones [1916]." (II Webster's Works. 66. subject only to such restraints as are necessary for the common welfare. and fourth. of color. 189 Ala. See 6 R.. S. to pursue any avocation." (Apolinario Mabini. J." as has been often held. .) "Liberty does not import 'absolute right in each person to be. S. The conception of civil liberty has been variously expressed thus: "Every man may claim the fullest liberty to exercise his faculties. 258.) "Liberty consists in the ability to do what one ought to desire and in not being forced to do what one ought not to desire. Leland [18293. Every man must renounce unbridled license. essentially different from that authorized licentiousness that trespasses on right. (There can be noted Cummings vs. Christensen [1890]. 86. .. vs. or otherwise within the proper scope of the police power. Cruz [1914]. since a classic in forensic literature." This constitutional limitation is derived from the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution — and these provisions. (See McGehee. deprive other citizens of rights which are also and equally natural. . it may be said that liberty means the opportunity to do those things which are ordinarily done by free men. C. or of nationality. It varies with . in Jacobson vs." (Field. Liberty exists in proportion to wholesome restraint.) LIBERTY OF ABODE AND TRAVEL Civil liberty may be said to mean that measure of freedom which may be enjoyed in a civilized community. 114 Wis. It is only freedom from restraint under conditions essential to the equal enjoyment of the same right by others.) "Liberty is the creature of law. it is "liberty regulated by law." To constitute "due process of law. Social Statistics. 94. (See Hall vs. in furtherance of the public good. S. Fears [1900]. 165 U. or newly devised in the discretion of the legislative power. a rule which is especially true where much must be left to the discretion of the administrative officers in applying a law to particular cases. . liberty.." (Yick Wo vs. 1) "What is due process of law depends on circumstances. Allgeyer vs. a sphere within which the individual may assert the supremacy of his own will. It is a legal and a refined idea. Hopkins [1886]. p. it has been said.. p. Wilkinson vs." (Montesquieu." (Spencer. whether in respect of his person or his property. p. second. or deny to any person therein the equal protection of the laws. liberty. Daniel Webster. 277.. is not unrestricted license to act according to one's own will.Louisiana [1896].. 393. . and rightfully dispute the authority of any human government — especially of any free government existing under a written Constitution — to interfere with the exercise of that will. and for that purpose.. a judicial proceeding is not always necessary. consistently with the peaceful enjoyment of like freedom in others.) None of the rights of the citizen can be taken away except by due process of law. 274. There is. the more liberty we have . State vs. In some instances. or of the public order and safety. Society based on the rule that each one is a law unto himself would soon be confronted with disorder and anarchy. that this law shall be reasonable in its operation. 530.) Neither is due process a stationary and blind sentinel of liberty. Spirit of the Laws. affirmed on appeal to the United States Supreme Court. wholly freed from restraint.. to enter into all contracts which may be proper..) "Due process of law" means simply .. 11. 118 U. 356. that it shall be applicable alike to all the citizens of the state or to all of a class. even a hearing and notice are not requisite. be subjected to such restraint to be enforced by reasonable regulations. 516. third. S. 242 U. the right to choose one's employment. liberty includes the right of the citizen to be free to use his faculties in lawful ways." (Hurtado vs. Massachusetts [1905] 197 U. to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction. No man can do exactly as he pleases.. under the pressure of great dangers. the greatest of all rights. The chief elements of the guaranty are the right to contract. The term cannot be dwarfed into mere freedom from physical restraint of the person of the citizen. 104. There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good.. S. is not license. if exercised without restraint. But it is equally true that in every well-ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members. . vs.. it is ever guided by reason and the upright and honorable conscience of the individual. In general. 578. California [1883]. but is deemed to embrace the right of man to enjoy the faculties with which he has been endowed by his Creator. to earn his livelihood by any lawful calling. property. the more restraint on others to keep off from us. 261. On any other basis.. 4 Wall. the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times. necessary.) "Liberty is freedom to do right and never wrong.

made a trip to that place.) What we are most interested in is the right of the government to restrain liberty by the exercise of the police power. 82. the following: (1) The failure of former attempts for the advancement of the non-Christian people of the province. But the Secretary of the Interior.THE POLICE POWER. 32 Phil. He also gathered the impression that the results obtained during the period of less than one year since the beginning of the institution definitely justify its continuance and development. compulsory service of one to another. by adoption. "The police power of the State. and to legislate so as to increase the industries of the State. We break off with the foregoing statements. 70 Ill. and that among its purposes is the power to prescribe regulations to promote the health. 27. There he found that the site selected is a good one." (Hodges vs. all denote "a condition of enforced. If legally possible. education. S." one court has said. and good order of the people. The classification must have a reasonable basis and cannot be purely arbitrary in nature. It has been applied to any servitude in fact involuntary. who is the official charged with the supervision of all the non-Christian people. peace. LIBERTY OF ABODE AND TRAVEL 31 Phil. . morals. nor shall involuntary servitude exist except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted. . and is not inaptly termed the 'law of overruling necessity. provided the purposes of the law do not go beyond the great principles that mean security for the public welfare or do not arbitrarily interfere with the right of the individual." This is carried on by the adoption of the following measures: a) Pursuance of the closer settlement policy whereby people of seminomadic race are induced to leave their wild habitat and settle in . made the following statement to the press: " 'It is not deemed wise to abandon the present policy over those who prefer to live a nomadic life and evade the influence of civilization. The Government of the Philippine Islands has both on reason and authority the right to exercise the sovereign police power in the promotion of the general welfare and the public interest. assigned as reasons for the action. together with their corollary. S. that it has become almost impossible to limit its sweep. (Bailey vs." (Churchill and Tait vs. S. or if not they will be subject to involuntary servitude by those who may want to abuse them. 1918. [1873]. Such was naturally to be expected. 191. Pompeya [1915]. that there appears to be encouraging reaction by the boys to the work of the school the requirements of which they appear to meet with enthusiastic interest after the first weeks which are necessarily a somewhat trying period for children wholly unaccustomed to orderly behaviour and habit of life. 208 U. prescribed the punishment for these crimes. However this may be. there were many who were protesting against that segregation. Not attempting to phrase a definition of police power. safety and welfare of society. we should endeavor to ascertain the intention of the Legislature in enacting this section.. and (2) the only successful method for educating the Manguianes was to oblige them to live in a permanent settlement. 219.. develop its resources and add to its wealth and prosperity. that creditable progress has been made in the clearing of forests. the Philippine Legislature has. construction of buildings. F. E. 219 U. [1906].. S.SLAVERY AND INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE. The Government will follow its policy to organize them into political communities and to educate their children with the object of making them useful citizens of this country. the judiciary rarely attempts to dam the onrushing power of legislative discretion.) With the foregoing approximation of the applicable basic principles before us.. S. 245. the Secretary of the Interior on June 10 to 13.' " The Secretary of the Interior. all that it is necessary to note at this moment is the far reaching scope of the power." (Lake View vs. The preamble of the resolution of the provincial board of Mindoro which set apart the Tigbao reservation. Peabody [1909]. (5) the necessity of introducing civilized customs among the Manguianes. The Solicitor-General adds the following: (3) The protection of the Manguianes. has adopted as the polaris of his administration — The advancement of the non-Christian elements of our population to equality and unification with the highly civilized Christian inhabitants. U. 580. 1. The present Secretary of the Interior says of the Tigbao reservation and of the motives for its selection. "There can be no doubt that the exercise of the police power of the Philippine Government belongs to the Legislature and that this power is limited only by the Acts of Congress and those fundamental principles which lie at the foundation of all republican forms of government. "is a power coextensive with self-protection. . of Sections 268 to 271 inclusive of the United States Criminal Code. no matter under what form such servitude may have been disguised.. "Of course. To permit them to live a wayfaring life will ultimately result in a burden to the state and on account of their ignorance. 212 U. peonage. before finally deciding whether any constitutional provision has indeed been violated by Section 2145 of the Administrative Code. 113 U. etc. leaving the logical deductions to be made later on. (4) the protection of the public forests in which they roam. Rafferty [1915].LEGISLATIVE INTENT.. such legislative intention should be effectuated. U.) Carried onward by the current of legislation. vs. Connolly [1884]." It is quite possible that the Thirteenth Amendment. S.. Slavery and involuntary servitude. (See Barbier vs. since reaching to "any place subject to" the "jurisdiction" of the United States. upon his return to Manila. Next must come a description of the police power under which the State must act if Section 2145 is to be held valid.CONSTI 2 the subject-matter and necessities of the situation. it will be remembered.) So much for an analysis of those constitutional provisions on which petitioners rely for their freedom. The fourth constitutional contention of petitioner relates to the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution particularly as found in those portions of Philippine Organic Law providing "That slavery shall not exist in said Islands.) The term of broadest scope is possibly involuntary servitude. Rose Hill Cemetery Co.' It may be said to be that inherent and plenary power in the State which enables it to prohibit all things hurtful to the comfort. with necessary modifications. Alabama [1910]. has force in the Philippines.) The pledge that no person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws is not infringed by a statute which is applicable to all of a class. they will commit crimes and make depredations. the following: "To inform himself of the conditions of those Manguianes who were taken together to Tigbao.. D." (Moyer vs.

"There is no doubt in my mind that this people has not a right conception of liberty and does not practise liberty in a rightful way. leading a nomadic life. or they will leave the country. and its. 3. to begin the process of civilization. (Note Acts Nos. are not free. The Manguianes. material. indeed. 2404. Segregation really constitutes protection for the Manguianes. work of a civilizing influence have been continued among the non-Christian people. 2444. what will ultimately become of these people with the sort of liberty they wish to preserve and for which they are now fighting in court? They will ultimately become a heavy burden to the State and on account of their ignorance they will commit crimes and make depredations. Waste lands do not produce wealth. What the Government wished to do by bringing them into a reservation was to gather together the children for educational purposes. The extension of public works throughout the Mohammedan regions to facilitate their development and the extension of government control. The State to protect itself from destruction must prod on the laggard and the sluggard. the purposes of the Legislature in enacting the law. educate their children. thus bringing them under the control of the Government. or if not they will be subjected to involuntary servitude by those who may want to abuse them. they are Filipinos. and apparently working out for the ultimate good of these people? In so far as the Manguianes themselves are concerned. indeed. and to promote their educational. as yet. Practically. Pursuance of the development of natural economic resources. the Manguianes. industrial. especially agriculture. and of the executive branch in enforcing it. Here. the Manguianes are citizens of a low degree of intelligence. as are the Indians in the United States." (See Report of the Department for 1917. to promote social and commercial intercourse and maintain amicable relations among them and with the Christian people. and political development of those regions. Theoretically. economic. rapid. and of the investment of private capital in. and doing nothing for the advancement of the Philippine Islands. the purpose of the Government is evident. uneducated in the ways of d) LIBERTY OF ABODE AND TRAVEL civilization. and complete manner the moral. to aid them to live and work. 2208.) Act No. and economic development and advancement in civilization. may not these unfortunates advance in the "habits and arts of civilization?" Would it be advisable for the courts to intrude upon a plan. This method was termed in Spanish times. are again plain. because these penalties are imposed after commission of the offense and not before. if they are to be improved. "bringing under the bells. social. unproductive regions. and Filipinos who are a drag upon the progress of the State. they (the Manguianes) are engaged in the works of destruction — burning and destroying the forests and making illegal caiñgins thereon." The same idea adapted to the existing situation. "Not knowing what true liberty is and not practising the same rightfully. The extension of the public school system and the system of public health throughout the regions inhabited by the non-Christian people. and complete fusion of. On these few reservations there live under restraint in some cases. and they are not the equals of their more fortunate brothers. But just as surely. with many but not all the rights which citizenship implies. we have on the Island of Mindoro. protect them from involuntary servitude and abuse." (Sec. making depredations on their more fortunate neighbors. In short. agricultural. and in other instances voluntarily. they are citizens. The encouragement of immigration into. proper wards of the Filipino people? By the fostering care of a wise Government.) May the Manguianes not be considered. To quote again from the instructive memorandum of the Secretary of the Interior: "Living a nomadic and a wayfaring life and evading the influence of civilization. that they be gathered together. They are being made to understand that it is the purpose of the Government to organize them politically into fixed and permanent communities. we know that the axiom is not precisely accurate. how can they allege that they are being deprived thereof without due process of law? xxx xxx xxx "But does the Constitutional guaranty that 'no person shall be deprived of his liberty without due process of law' apply to a class of persons who do not have a correct idea of what liberty is and do not practise liberty in a rightful e) f) . the Government must be in a position to guarantee peace and order. Construction of roads and trails between one place and another among non-Christians. and unification with the more highly civilized inhabitants of the country. defines the aim of the Government towards the non-Christian people in the following unequivocal terms: "It shall be the duty of the Bureau of non-Christian Tribes to continue the work for advancement and liberty in favor of the regions inhabited by non-Christian Filipinos and foster by all adequate means and in a systematical.CONSTI 2 b) c) organized communities. They understand liberty as the right to do anything they will — going from one place to another in the mountains. These people are being taught and guided to improve their living conditions in order that they may fully appreciate the benefits of civilization." The Secretary adds: "To attain the end desired. 2674 in reestablishing the Bureau of non-Christian Tribes. carefully formulated. Those of them who are still given to nomadic habits are being persuaded to abandon their wild habitat and settle in organized settlements. always having in view the aim of rendering permanent the mutual intelligence between. True. a few thousands of the uncivilized people. The great law of overwhelming necessity is all convincing. as civilized men are free. Settlers in Mindoro must have their crops and persons protected from predatory men. In so far as the relation of the Manguianes to the State is concerned. the fertile regions of Mindanao and Sulu. and to improve the health and morals — was in fine. because it required. and political equality. Not bringing any benefit to the State but instead injuring and damaging its interests. one may assert that all men are created free and equal. burning and destroying forests and making illegal caiñgins thereon. Illiteracy and thriftlessness are not conducive to homogeneity. And true. Waste people do not advance the interest of the State. for instance. has been followed with reference to the Manguianes and other peoples of the same class. social. If immigrants are to be encouraged to develop the resources of the great Island of Mindoro. and show them the advantages of leading a civilized life with their civilized brothers. all the Christian and non-Christian elements populating the provinces of the Archipelago.) The fundamental objective of governmental policy is to establish friendly relations with the so-called non-Christians. they are being impressed with the purposes and objectives of the Government of leading them to economic. It is no argument to say that such crimes are punished by the Penal Code.

If. do not have permanent individual property.CONSTI 2 way? "To say that it does will mean to sanction and defend an erroneous idea of such class of persons as to what liberty is. When. They move from one place to another as the conditions of living warrant." G. But a great malady requires an equally drastic remedy. and unless a penalty is provided for. Attention in this connection is invited to the fact that this people. now willingly retire because there has been erroneously invoked in their favor that Constitutional guaranty that no person shall be deprived of his liberty without due process of law? To allow them to successfully invoke that Constitutional guaranty at this time will leave the Government without recourse to pursue the works of civilizing them and making them useful citizens. however. It will mean that this people should be let alone in the mountains and in a permanent state of savagery without even the remotest hope of coming to understand liberty in its true and noble sense. any challenge. consistently with freedom.. They do not work for anybody but for themselves. It is said that. The modern period has shown a widespread belief in the amplest possible demonstration of governmental activity. impossible for the courts to determine. the courts cannot fairly say that the Legislature has exceeded its rightful authority. What. There they are being taught and guided to improve their living conditions. may the rights and liberties of the individual members of society be subordinated to the will of the Government? It is a question which has as sailed the very existence of government from the beginning of time. believing that their personal interests would be injured by such a measure has come forward and challenged the authority of the Government to lead this people in the path of civilization? Shall we. treasure. if we hold this section to be constitutional. Those citizens certainly did not possess absolute freedom of locomotion. The progress of those people under the tutelage of the Government is indeed encouraging and the signs of the times point to a day which is not far distant when they will become useful citizens. of course. on the necessities of the class attempted to be benefited. as axioms of economics and political theory. indeed. The doctrines of laissez faire and of unrestricted freedom of the individual. nor now to be decided by force. they did ill-treat any person thus confined. Could he not. it would seem that the Judiciary should not unnecessarily hamper the Government in the accomplishment of its laudable purpose. Nor can one say that due process of law has not . it is argued that the citizen has the right. It is. In resolving such an issue. would be the remedy of any oppressed Manguian? The answer would naturally be that the official into whose hands are given the enforcement of the law would have little or no motive to oppress these people. an unusual exercise of that power. The courts unfortunately have sometimes seemed to trail after the other two branches of the Government in this progressive march. The question is above all one of sociology. "But they are compelled to live there and prohibited from emigrating to some other place under penalty of imprisonment. purely as an exercise of the police power. Further. indeed. How far. Stat. Again the same law provided for the apprehension of marauding Indians. dependent. In the light of what has already been accomplished which has been winning the gratitude of most of the backward people. "The Manguianes in question have been directed to live together at Tigbao. and the entire space where they are roving about is the property of the nation. one cannot hold that the liberty of the citizen is unduly interfered with when the degree of civilization of the Manguianes is considered. It will mean. are of the past. no involuntary servitude. only the validity of the law is generally challenged and no particular case of oppression is called to the attention of the courts. to go where he pleases. of the Government. however. and the courts are always open for a redress of grievances. the presumption would all be that they would endeavor to carry out the purposes of the law intelligently and patriotically. As to the particular degree to which the Legislature and the Executive can go in interfering with the rights of the citizen. this is. everything is being done for them in order that their advancement in civilization and material prosperity may be assured. on the contrary. The early Act of Congress of 1802 (2 U. it has been transferred to the peaceful forum of the Judiciary. Certainly their living together in Tigbao does not make them slaves or put them in a condition compelled to do services for another. In short. at L. it is asked. The latter measure was adopted as the one more in accord with humanity and with national conscience.APPLICATION AND CONCLUSION. and for a long time to come will be. after expending sweat. Not now purely an ethical or philosophical subject. like the Manguianes. Wandering from one place to another on the public lands. you can not make them live together and the noble intention of the Government of organizing them politically will come to naught. they will always long to return to the mountains and follow a wayfaring life. why can not the government adopt a measure to concentrate them in a certain fixed place on the public lands. p. For as people accustomed to nomadic habit. therefore. Without any doubt. Our exhaustive study should have left us in a position to answer specific objections and to reach a general conclusion. therefore. that the Government should not adopt any measures looking to the welfare and advancement of the class of persons in question. we leave this weak and defenseless people confined as in a prison at the mercy of unscrupulous officials. this law and other similar laws were accepted and followed time and again without question. Considered. S. They are being aided to live and work. In the first place. There is. in the case at bar. They are restrained for their own good and the general good of the Philippines. living a nomadic and wayfaring life. Their children are being educated in a school especially established for them. They will thus be left in a permanent state of savagery and become a vulnerable point of attack by those who doubt. They are being made to understand that the object of the government is to organize them politically into fixed and permanent communities. instead of permitting them to roam all over the entire territory? This LIBERTY OF ABODE AND TRAVEL measure is necessary both in the interest of the public as owner of the lands about which they are roving and for the proper accomplishment of the purposes and objectives. shall we give up the noble work simply because a certain element. and even blood only to redeem this people from the claws of ignorance and superstition. the ability of the nation to deal with our backward brothers. 141) punished those intruders who should cross the line into an Indian reservation." xxx xxx xxx "The national legislation on the subject of non-Christian people has tended more and more towards the education and civilization of such people and fitting them to be citizens. generally speaking. the Government has been placed in the alternative of either letting them alone or guiding them in the path of civilization. the greater part being lands of public domain. the Judiciary must realize that the very existence of government renders imperative a power to restrain the individual to some extent. be kept away from certain localities? To furnish an example from the Indian legislation. there always exists the power of removal in the hands of superior officers. "In dealing with the backward population.

therefore. Costs shall be taxed against petitioners. when not determined by differentiation of the principle of a prior case or line of cases. Vanderbilt University (200 Southwestern Reporter. Habeas corpus can. there exists a law." Our attempt at giving a brief history of the Philippines with reference to the socalled non-Christians has been in vain. 510) the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Tennessee writes: "We can see no objection to the application of public policy as a ratio decidendi. like other mortal contrivances. and with a view to the court's performing its duty in no narrow and bigoted sense. but with that broad conception which will make the courts as progressive and effective a force as are the other departments of the Government. it is enforced according to the regular methods of procedure prescribed. No court is wise enough to forecast its influence in all possible contingencies. determined on that theory. or by the aid of analogies furnished by such prior cases. somewhat analogous to the Indian policy of the United States. for their own good and the good of the country. The idea is to unify the people of the Philippines so that they may approach the highest conception of nationality. So ordered. with a view to upholding the law. If the Philippines is to be a rich and powerful country. and it applies alike to all of a class. But public policy is not a thing inflexible. a coordinate branch. As a point which has been left for the end of this decision and which.CONSTI 2 been followed. In balancing conflicting solutions. would lead to the determination that Section 2145 is valid. be exercised. and that confinement in reservations in accordance with said section does not constitute slavery and involuntary servitude. all must be approximately equal in intelligence. This is the ruling of the court. Mindoro must be populated. as we have said. in the last analysis. in one of the aphorisms for which he is justly famous. LIBERTY OF ABODE AND TRAVEL . in case of doubt. not issue. The Manguianes. To go back to our definition of due process of law and equal protection of the laws. The whole tendency of the best considered cases is toward non-interference on the part of the courts whenever political ideas are the moving consideration. Gamble vs. Petitioners are not unlawfully imprisoned or restrained of their liberty. Distinctions must be made from time to time as sound reason and a true sense of justice may dictate." (Blinn vs. In a late decision with which we are in full accord. Nelson [1911]. We are further of the opinion that Section 2145 of the Administrative Code is a legitimate exertion of the police power. is the attitude which the courts should assume towards the settled policy of the Government. and its fertile regions must be developed. with a view to the effectuation of the general governmental policy. The public policy of the Government of the Philippine Islands is shaped with a view to benefit the Filipino people as a whole. has to take some chances. in order to fulfill this governmental policy. said that "constitutional law. if we fail to realize that a consistent governmental policy has been effective in the Philippines from early days to the present.) If in the final decision of the many grave questions which this case presents. the law seems to be reasonable. that one is perceived to tip the scales which the court believes will best promote the public welfare in its probable operation as a general rule or principle.. must be confined for a time. Most cautiously should the power of this court to overrule the judgment of the Philippine Legislature. Justice Holmes. We are of the opinion that action pursuant to 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. 222 U. 1. Every really new question that comes before the courts is. Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917 is constitutional. If all are to be equal before the law." it should be. the court must take "a chance. S.