VILLAVICENCIO v LUKBAN

March 25, 1919 || Malcolm

DISSENTS

TORRES, J.
The mayor did not in bad faith violate the constitutional right to liberty
because he was exercising his police power in good faith, in order to
protect the majority from the social evils and diseases which the
houses of prostitution have been producing.
- He says that the prostitutes do not absolutely enjoy the said
liberty and rights because they voluntarily renounced them, in
exchange for the free practice of their shameful profession.
They cannot join the society of decent women, nor can
they expect to get the same respect due to them.
Considering their dishonorable conduct, they should
therefore be comprised within that class which is
always subject to the police and sanitary regulations
conducive to the maintenance of public decency and
morality and to the conservation of public health, and for
this reason it should not be permitted that the
unfortunate women dedicated to prostitution evade the
just orders and resolutions adopted by administrative
authorities.

ARAULLO, J. (dissenting in part)

The respondent should be cited for contempt for both the first and
second order. His fine should be increased from Php100 to Php500.
- The production of only 8 out of 181 women illegally detained by
virtue of his order demonstrates that he has not given due
attention to the nature of the case (habeas corpus) nor made
any effort to comply with the second order.
- There is contempt of court here because the important orders of
this court have been disobeyed and not complied with; moreso
given that the respondent is a public authority who should be
the first in giving an example of obedience and respect for the
laws and just orders of authorities.