Villavicencio v Lukban Rubi v.

Provincial Board of Mindoro

G.R. No. L-14639 G.R. No. L-14078
March 25, 1919 March 7, 1919

FACTS:
Facts:
1. It is alleged that the Maguianes are
1. The Mayor of City of Manila ordered being illegally deprived of their liberty
the deportation of 170 women, from by the provincial officials of that
Manila to Davao. province.

2. Some or most of them were ill refute 2. Rubi and his companions are said to be
and or prostitutes. held on the reservation established at
Tigbao, Mindoro, against their will
3. The petitioners applied for writ of
habeas corpus. 3. Dabalos is said to be held under the
custody of the provincial sheriff in the
4. In granting the petition for the issuance prison at Calapan for having run away
of the writ, the SC upheld the right of from the reservation.
these women, despite having ill
reputation, to liberty of abode and 4. The provincial governor of Mindoro and
travel. the provincial board directed the
Manguianes in question to take up their
Issues: Whether or not, the writ of habeas habitation in Tigbao, a site on the shore
corpus should be granted. of Lake Naujan, selected by the
provincial governor and approved by the
Held: provincial board.

1. Yes, according to the Supreme Court, 5. The action was taken in accordance with
there is no law that justifies the action of section 2145 of the Administrative Code
the respondent in deporting the women of 1917, and was duly approved by the
of ill repute to Davao. Secretary of the Interior as required by
said action.
2. In upholding the right of the victims on
liberty to abode and travel, the SC Issue: Whether due process was followed in the
explained that, these women despite restraint of liberty and imprisonment due to
their being in a sense lepers of society violation of Section 2145 of the Administrative
are nevertheless not chattels but Code.
Philippine citizens protected by the
same constitutional guaranties as are Ruling :
other citizens.
 1. The provision is valid, as an exception his confinement in said hospital was
to the general rule. The legislature is in violation of his constitutional
permitted to delegate legislative powers rights. He alleged that human
to the local authorities on matters that beings are not incurable with leprosy
are of purely local concerns. Action
and that the disease may not be
pursuant to Section 2145 does not
communicated by contact. The trial
deprive a person of his liberty without
due process of law and does not deny to
court sustained the law and denied
him the equal protection of the laws and the petition for habeas corpus.
confinement in accordance with the said Lorenzo appealed.
section does not constitute slavery and
involuntary servitude. Therefore, Issue: Whether or not the
petitioners are not unlawfully Administrative Code provision on the
imprisoned or restrained of their liberty. confinement of lepers is violative of one's
constitutional right.
2. Hence, Section 2145 of the
Administrative Code of 1917 is not an
Ruling:
unlawful delegation of legislative power
by the Philippine Legislature to
provincial official and a department
1. No, Section 1058 of the
head. Administrative Code was enacted by
the legislative body in the legitimate
exercise of the police power which
extends to the preservation of the
LORENZO vs DIRECTOR OF
public health. It was placed on the
HEALTH
statute books in recognition of
G.R. No. 27848 leprosy as a grave health problem.
The methods provided for the control
SEPTEMBER 01, 1927 of leprosy plainly constitute due
process of law.

2. Judicial notice will be taken of the

Facts
fact that leprosy is commonly
believed to be an infectious disease
1. Angel Lorenzo was a leper. He
tending to cause one afflicted with it
was confined in San Lazaro Hospital
to be shunned and excluded from
in Manila in conformity with the
society, and that compulsory
provisions of Section 1058 of the
segregation of lepers as a means of
Administrative Code, authorizing the
preventing the spread of the disease
segregation of lepers. Lorenzo filed
is supported by high scientific
petition for a writ of
authority.
habeas corpus with the Court of First
Instance of Manila, alleging that
 monetary losses to the agency is no
Caunca v. Salazar reason for jeopardizing a
G.R. No. L-2690 fundamental human right.” Thus
Jan 01,1949 the agency may not hold Estelita
from traveling with Caunca.

Facts: 3. The Supreme Court added that

“Estelita is really indebted in the
1. Estelita and Caunca are cousins. amount of P83.85, such is not a
2. Estelita is working for Salazar as a valid reason for the respondents to
maid. obstruct, impede or interfere with
3. Estelita expresses her desire to Estelita's desire to leave the house
Caunca to go to Manila even though of Julia Salazar”.
she lives in the Province
4. Caunca wishes to take her and 4. In this case, Estelita should be free to
informs her employer Salazar and travel and abode where she wants
the Employment Agency Estelita is even though she has a debt since
with about her wish and asks to take Agencies cannot hold and restrict
her to Manila. that freedom.
5. Salazar and the Agency refuse
Caunca’s request due to stating that
an advance of money be paid for the
Salonga v. Hermoso
expenses of Estelita to the Agency.
G.R. No. L-53622
6. Caunca then filed this petition
April 25, 1980
Issue: WON Salazar and the Agency can
restrict Estelita from her freedom to travel? Facts:

Ruling: Setting: Martial Law

Petitioner Jovito Salonga - filed a case for
1. NO, they cannot. mandamus against Hermoso to compel
him to issue a certificate of eligibility to
2. The Supreme Court states "An travel.
employment agency, regardless of Respondent - Captain Rolando Hermoso
the amount it may advance to a of Travel Processing Center
prospective employee, has
absolutely no power to curtail the In the case of Salonga VS. Madella, the case
freedom of movement of said became moot and academic as the OSG
employee. The fact that power to stated that the travel eligibility certificate
control said freedom may be an was not denied.
effective means of avoiding
Issue: WON the right to travel may be and VP respectively. He was charged
prohibited during martial law. with estafa and was allowed by the
Court to post bail.
Ruling:
2. Petitioner filed before each trial
1. No. It appears that Hermoso indeed court motion for permission to leave
issued Salonga's request for a the country stating his desire to go to
certificate of eligibility to travel the US relative to his business
hence the issue became moot and transactions and opportunities. Such
academic. The issuance of the was opposed by the prosecution and
certificate was in pursuant to the was also denied by the judges.
Universal Declaration of Human
Rights on the Right to Travel. The 3. He filed a petition for certiorari with
Philippines, even though it is under CA seeking to annul the prior orders
martial law, shall in no instance and the SEC communication request
facilitate the erosion of human rights. denying his leave to travel abroad.
The Travel Processing Center should According to the petitioner, having
exercise the utmost care to avoid the been admitted to bail as a matter of
impression that certain citizens right, neither the courts that granted
desirous of exercising their him bail nor SEC, which has no
constitutional right to travel could be jurisdiction over his liberty, could
subjected to inconvenience or prevent him from exercising his
annoyance – this is to avoid such constitutional right to travel
similar cases to face the Court which
needlessly expire the Court’s effort Issue: WON the Court Acted with grave
and time. abuse of discretion

Ruling:
Manotoc v. CA
G.R. No. L-62100 1. A court has the power to prohibit a
May 30, 1986 person admitted to bail from leaving
the Philippines. This is a necessary
consequence of the nature and
Facts: function of a bail bond. Rule 114,
Section 1 of the Rules of Court
1. There was a Torrens title submitted defines bail as the security required
to and accepted by Manotoc and given for the release of a person
Securities Inc which was suspected who is in the custody of the law, that
to be fake. 6 of its clients filed he will appear before any court in
separate criminal complaints against which his appearance may be
the petitioner and Leveriza, President
 required as stipulated in the bail male and female, for overseas
bond or recognizance The condition placement, challenges the
imposed upon petitioner to make Constitutional validity of
himself available at all times Department Order No. 1, Series of
whenever the court requires his 1988 (DO1) of the Department of
presence operates as a valid Labor and Employment that the
restriction on his right to travel If the measure is alleged among others that
accused were allowed to leave the it is violative of the right to travel.
Philippines without sufficient reason,
2. The solicitor general, on behalf of
2. He may be placed beyond the reach the respondent, field a comment
of the courts As petitioner has failed informing the court that the
to satisfy the trial courts and the deployment ban has been lifted in the
appellate court of the urgency of his states of certain countries and that
travel, the duration thereof, as well the challenged “guidelines” are valid
as the consent of his surety to the as it invokes the police power of the
proposed travel, We find no abuse of State.
judicial discretion in their having
denied petitioner's motion for Issue: WON the DO1 prescribes a total ban
permission to leave the country, in on overseas deployment impairing the right
much the same way, albeit with to travel. (NO)
contrary results, that We found no
reversible error to have been Ruling
committed by the appellate court in
allowing Shepherd to leave the 1. The right to travel is subject, among
country after it had satisfied itself other things, to the requirements of
that she would comply with the “public safety,” “as may be
conditions of her bail bond. provided by law”. DO1 is a valid
implementation of the Labor Code,
in particular its basic policy to
PASEI v DRILON “afford protection to labor”, pursuant
G.R. No. 81958 to the respondent Department of
June 30, 1988 Labor’s rule-making authority vested
in it by the labor Code.

Facts 2. Also based on the provisions of DO1

total ban is not contemplated; as
1. Petitioner, Philippine Association of some authorized domestic helpers
Service Exporters, Inc. (PASEI), a and workers of similar skills as
firm engaged principally in the defined, or vacationing domestic
recruitment of Filipino workers,
 helpers and workers of similar skills As a result, this motion for reconsideration
on returning based on an existing has been filed.
contract to the same employer are
exempted from the suspension. Issues:

1. WON President Aquino has the authority

Marcos v. Manglapus to prevent Marcos' return.
G.R. No. 88211
Oct. 27, 1989 2. The question is whether President
Aquino's refusal to allow the return of
Marcos' remains constitutes dictatorship.
Facts:
Ruling:
On September 15, 1989, the Supreme Court
voted 8-7 to reject the Marcos family's 1. Yes. Contrary to petitioners'
petition to allow the return of former assertions, it cannot be denied that
President Ferdinand Marcos from Honolulu, the President, in whose hands
Hawaii, to the Philippines. The Court ruled executive power is vested, has
that President Corazon Aquino did not act unstated residual powers implied by
arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion the grant of executive power and
in determining that the return of former required for her to carry out her
President Marcos and his family is a threat constitutional duties. The President's
to national interest and welfare at the present powers are not limited to those
time and under the current circumstances. expressly enumerated in the
Executive Department article and
The decision upheld the constitutionality of scattered provisions of the
President Corazon Aquino's previous Constitution.
refusal, fearing the instability and security
issues that would arise if former President 2. This is true despite the members of
Marcos' remains were returned to the the Constitutional Commission of
country. She stated in a statement: 1986's stated intention to limit the
President's powers in response to
"In the interest of the safety of those who abuses under Mr. Marcos' regime,
will interpret Mr. Marcos' death in widely because the result was a limitation of
and passionately opposing ways, and for the specific powers of the President,
tranquility of the state and order of society, particularly those relating to the
the remains of Ferdinand E. Marcos will not commander-in-chief clause, but not a
be allowed to be brought to our country until diminution of the general grant of
the government, whether under this executive power. In accordance with
administration or the succeeding one, his (or her) oath of office, one of the
decides otherwise."
 duties of the President under the the Philippines filed an Urgent ex
Constitution is to protect and parte Motion to cancel the passport
promote the interests and welfare of of and to issue a hold-departure
the people. Her decision to prohibit Order against accused-petitioner on
the return of the Marcoses and, later, the ground that he had gone abroad
Mr. Marcos' remains at this time and several times without the necessary
under these circumstances is in Court approval resulting in
accordance with this bounden duty. postponements of the arraignment
and scheduled hearings.
3. No, the President's residual powers
under the Constitution should not be 3. The Regional Trial Court, on 4 April
confused with the President's power 1988, issued an Order directing the
to legislate under the 1973 Department of Foreign Affairs to
Constitution, as amended by cancel Petitioner's passport or to
Amendment No. 6. Whereas the deny his application therefor, and the
President's residual powers are Commission on Immigration to
implied in the 1987 Constitution, prevent Petitioner from leaving the
Amendment No. 6 of the 1973 country. This order was based
Constitution refers to an express primarily on the Trial Court's finding
grant of power. that since the filing of the
Information on 14 October 1985,
"the accused has not yet been
RICARDO C. SILVERIO vs. THE arraigned because he has never
COURT OF APPEALS appeared in Court on the dates
G.R. No. 94284 scheduled for his arraignment and
April 8, 1991 there is evidence to show that
accused Ricardo C. Silverio, Sr. has
left the country and has gone abroad
Facts: without the knowledge and
permission of this Court" (Rollo, p.
1. On 14 October 1985, Petitioner was 45).
charged with violation of Section 20
(4) of the Revised Securities Act in 4. Petitioner's Motion for
Criminal Case No. CBU-6304 of the Reconsideration was denied on 28
Regional Trial Court of Cebu. In due July 1988.
time, he posted bail for his
provisional liberty. Issue: Whether or not Silverio’s
Constitutional Right has been violated
2. On 26 January 1988, or more than
two (2) years after the filing of the Ruling:
Information, respondent People of
 pleasure, outside the territorial
1. Article III, Section 6 of the 1987 confines of the country.
Constitution should be interpreted to
mean that while the liberty of travel 5. Holding an accused in a criminal
may be impaired even without Court case within the reach of the Courts
Order, the appropriate executive by preventing his departure from the
officers or administrative authorities Philippines must be considered as a
are not armed with arbitrary valid restriction on his right to travel
discretion to impose limitations. so that he may be dealt with in
accordance with law. The offended
2. They can impose limits only on the party in any criminal proceeding is
basis of "national security, public the People of the Philippines. It is to
safety, or public health" and "as may their best interest that criminal
be provided by law," Article III, prosecutions should run their course
Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution and proceed to finality without
should by no means be construed as undue delay, with an accused holding
delimiting the inherent power of the himself amenable at all times to
Courts to use all means necessary to Court Orders and processes
carry their orders into effect in
criminal cases pending before them.

3. When by law, jurisdiction is

conferred on a Court or judicial
officer, all auxiliary writs, process
and other means necessary to carry it
into effect may be employed by such
Court or officer. The nature and
function of a bail bond has remained
unchanged whether under the 1935,
the 1973, or the 1987 Constitution.

4. Petitioner is facing a criminal charge.

He has posted bail but has violated
the conditions thereof by failing to
appear before the Court when
required. Warrants for his arrest have
been issued. Those orders and
processes would be rendered
nugatory if an accused were to be
allowed to leave or to remain, at his