Section 6.

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. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the
interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law.
Liberty of Abode
It is the right of a person to have his home in whatever place chosen by him and thereafter to change it at
will, and to go where he pleases, without interference of any source.
Residence
Is where you are living at the moment, be it temporary or for long period of time.
Domicile (permanent)
Is where you intend to come back even if you are gone for a long period of time.
Note: A person whose liberty of abode is violated may file a petition for writ of habeas corpus against
another holding him detention.

Summary:

The Mayor of City of Manila ordered deportation of 170 women, from Manila to Davao. Some or most
of them were ill refute and/or prostitutes. The petitioners applied for writ of habeas corpus. In granting
the petition for the issuance of the writ, the SC upheld the right of these women, despite having ill
reputation, to liberty of abode and travel.

Doctrine:

[In relation to constitutional right to liberty and travel of the prostitutes, the SC explained:] "These
women despite their being in a sense lepers of society are nevertheless not chattels but Philippine
citizens protected by the same constitutional guaranties as are other citizens."

Facts:

The Mayor of the city of Manila ordered the segregated district for women of ill repute. The women
were kept confined to their houses in the district by the police.

In one midnight, the police, acting pursuant to orders from the chief of police, Anton Hohmann and the
Mayor of the city of Manila, Justo Lukban, descended upon the houses, hustled some 170 inmates into
patrol wagons, and placed them aboard the steamers that awaited their arrival. The women were given
no opportunity to collect their belongings, and apparently were under the impression that they were
being taken to a police station for an investigation. They had no knowledge that they were destined for
a life in Mindanao. They had not been asked if they wished to depart from that region and had neither
directly nor indirectly given their consent to the deportation.

The vessels reached their destination at Davao where the women were landed and receipted for as
laborers.

The friends of the victim filed a case for issuance of habeas corpus to a member of the Supreme Court. 
Issues Ratio:

Whether or not, the writ [of habeas corpus] should be granted.

The court awarded the writ, that directed Justo Lukban, Mayor of the city of Manila, Anton Hohmann,
chief of police of the city of Manila, Francisco Sales, governor of the province of Davao, and Feliciano
Ynigo, an hacendero of Davao, to bring before the court the persons therein named, alleged to be
deprived of their liberty.

According to the Supreme Court, there is no law that justifies the action of the respondent in deporting
the women of ill refute to Davao. In upholding the right of the victims on liberty to abode and travel,
the SC explained that: these women despite their being in a sense lepers of society are nevertheless not
chattels but Philippine citizens protected by the same constitutional guaranties as are other citizens.

Dispositive:

Writ granted.

Other Notes:

Although the case was decided prior to the enactment of 1987 Constitution, the case remains to provide
a good basis for discussions of the constitutional right to travel and abode.