Rubi vs Provincial Board of Mindoro

FACTS:
The case is an application for habeas corpus in favor of Rubi and other Manguianes of the Province of
Mindoro. It is alleged that the Maguianes are being illegally deprived of their liberty by the provincial
officials of that province. Rubi and his companions are said to be held on the reservation established at
Tigbao, Mindoro, against their will, and one Dabalos is said to be held under the custody of the provincial
sheriff in the prison at Calapan for having run away from the reservation.
The provincial governor of Mindoro and the provincial board thereof directed the Manguianes in question
to take up their habitation in Tigbao, a site on the shore of Lake Naujan, selected by the provincial
governor and approved by the provincial board. The action was taken in accordance with section 2145 of
the Administrative Code of 1917, and was duly approved by the Secretary of the Interior as required by
said action.

Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917 reads as follows:

SEC. 2145. Establishment of non-Christian upon sites selected by provincial governor. — With the prior
approval of the Department Head, the provincial governor of any province in which non-Christian
inhabitants are found is authorized, when such a course is deemed necessary in the interest of law and
order, to direct such inhabitants to take up their habitation on sites on unoccupied public lands to be
selected by him an approved by the provincial board.

Petitioners, however, challenge the validity of this section of the Administrative Code.

ISSUE:
Does section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917 constitute an unlawful delegation of legislative
power by the Philippine Legislature to a provincial official and a department head, therefore making it
unconstitutional?

HELD:
No. The Philippine Legislature has here conferred authority upon the Province of Mindoro, to be
exercised by the provincial governor and the provincial board.
In determining whether the delegation of legislative power is valid or not, the distinction is between the
delegation of power to make the law, which necessarily involves a discretion as to what it shall be, and
conferring an authority or discretion as to its execution, to be exercised under and in pursuance of the
law. The first cannot be done; to the later no valid objection can be made. Discretion may be committed
by the Legislature to an executive department or official. The Legislature may make decisions of executive
departments of subordinate official thereof, to whom it has committed the execution of certain acts, final
on questions of fact. The growing tendency in the decision is to give prominence to the "necessity" of the
case.
In enacting the said provision of the Administrative Code, the Legislature merely conferred upon the
provincial governor, with the approval of the provincial board and the Department Head, discretionary
authority as to the execution of the law. This is necessary since the provincial governor and the provincial
board, as the official representatives of the province, are better qualified to judge “when such as course is
deemed necessary in the interest of law and order”. As officials charged with the administration of the
province and the protection of its inhabitants, they are better fitted to select sites which have the
conditions most favorable for improving the people who have the misfortune of being in a backward
state.

Hence, Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917 is not an unlawful delegation of legislative power
by the Philippine Legislature to provincial official and a department head.