CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 SUBMITTED BY: ROXAN LOUELLA H.

FRANCISCO

CASE DIGEST

VILLAVICENCIO VS. LUKBAN

G.R. NO. L14639, March 25, 1919

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:

Whether or not the Writ of Habeas Corpus should be granted.

RULING:

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 haciendero 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.