668 | Villavicencio v.

Lukban
EN BANC
[G.R. No. 14639. March 25, 1919.]
ZACARIAS VILLAVICENCIO ET AL., petitioners, vs. JUSTO LUKBAN, ET AL.,
respondents.
Malcolm, J.

Topic: PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS PUNISHMENTS – Writ of habeas

Corpus – Nature/Object

Facts:
Justo Lukban as Manila City's Mayor together with Anton Hohmann, the city's Chief of Police, took
custody of about 170 women at the night of October 25 beyond the latter’s consent and knowledge and
thereafter were shipped to Mindanao specifically in Davao where they were signed as laborers. Said
women are inmates of the houses of prostitution situated in Gardenia Street, in the district of Sampaloc.

That when the petitioner filed for habeas corpus, the respondent moved to dismiss the case saying that
those women were already out of their jurisdiction and that, it should be filed in the city of Davao instead.

The court ruled in favor of the petitioner with the instructions;

For the respondents to have fulfilled the court's order, three optional courses were open: (1) They could
have produced the bodies of the persons according to the command of the writ; or (2) they could have
shown by affidavit that on account of sickness or infirmity those persons could not safely be brought
before the court; or (3) they could have presented affidavits to show that the parties in question or their
attorney waived the right to be present.

Issue: WON Mayor Lukban has the right to deport women with ill repute.

Ruling:
Law defines power. No official, no matter how high, is above the law. Lukban committed a grave abuse
of discretion by deporting the prostitutes to a new domicile against their will. There is no law expressly
authorizing his action. On the contrary, there is a law punishing public officials, not expressly authorized
by law or regulation, who compels any person to change his residence Furthermore, the prostitutes are
still, as citizens of the Philippines, entitled to the same rights, as stipulated in the Bill of Rights, as every
other citizen. Their choice of profession should not be a cause for discrimination. It may make some, like
Lukban, quite uncomfortable but it does not authorize anyone to compel said prostitutes to isolate
themselves from the rest of the human race. These women have been deprived of their liberty by being
exiled to Davao without even being given the opportunity to collect their belongings or, worse, without
even consenting to being transported to Mindanao. For this, Lukban etal must be severely punished.

The writ of habeas corpus may be granted by the Supreme Court or any judge thereof enforceable
anywhere in the Philippine Islands. Even if the party to whom the writ is addressed has illegally parted
with the custody of a person before the application for the writ is no reason why the writ should not issue.
If the mayor and the chief of police, acting under no authority of law, could deport these women from the
city of Manila to Davao, the same officials must necessarily have the same means to return them from
Davao to Manila. The respondents, within the reach of process, may not be permitted to restrain a fellow
citizen of her liberty by forcing her to change her domicile and to avow the act with impunity in the courts,
while the person who has lost her birthright of liberty has no effective recourse. The great writ of liberty
may not thus be easily evaded.

Nature: The writ of habeas corpus was devised and exists as a speedy and effectual remedy to relieve
persons from unlawful restraint, and as the best and only sufficient defense of personal freedom. \