ZACARIAS VILLAVICENCIO, ET AL., petitioners, vs. JUSTO LUKBAN, ET AL., respondents.

March 25, 1919]

Facts: Justo Lukban, respondent and then Mayor of Manila, sent 170 women to Davao. The women were confined to
their houses in the district by the police from October 16 to October 25, 1918. The vessels reached their destination
at Davao only on October 29, 1918. Lukban claims that the women were to be laborers and was received by
Feliciano Yñigo, a haciendero, Rafael Castillo, and Francisco Sales, the governor of Davao. The women thought that
they were being transported to another police station, while Yñigo, the haciendero from Davao, had no idea that the
women being sent to them as laborers him were actually prostitutes. The families of the prostitutes then filed charges
against Lukban, Anton Hohmann, the Chief of Police, and Sales. They prayed for a writ for habeas corpus to a
member of the Supreme Court to be issued against the respondents to compel them to bring back the 170 women
who were deported to Mindanao against their will. The stipulation of the parties was made to include all of the
women who were sent away from Manila to Davao and, as the same questions concerned them all, the application
will be considered as including them. The SC granted the writ, however, the mayor was not able to bring any of the
women before the court on the stipulated date.

ISSUE: Whether or not the respondents had authority to deport the women to Davao.

Ruling: No further action on the writ of habeas corpus is necessary. The respondents Hohmann, Rodriguez, Ordax,
Joaquin, Yñigo, and Diaz are found not to be in contempt of court. Respondent Lukban is found in contempt of
court.

Reason: The Court held that the respondent, Lukban had no authority to commence such business agreement. He
violated certain laws based on his act of compelling these women to change their domicile, encapsulated in Art. 211
which states: 1) any public officer not thereunto authorized by law or by regulations of a general character in force
in the Philippines who shall banish any person to a place more than two hundred kilometers distance from his
domicile, except it be by virtue of the judgment of a court, shall be punished by a fine of not less than three hundred
and twenty-five and not more than three thousand two hundred and fifty pesetas; 2) any public officer not thereunto
expressly authorized by law or by regulation of a general character in force in the Philippines who shall compel any
person to change his domicile or residence shall suffer the penalty of destierro and a fine of not less than six hundred
and twenty-five and not more than six thousand two hundred and fifty pesetas. The respondent’s intention to
suppress the social evil was commendable, however, his methods were unlawful.

Question: Are we a government of laws or a government of men? Would we disregard law just to give way for the
most popular leader? Let's see what the Supreme Court will have to say. Lest we forget this long standing
jurisprudence.

Again this is a landmark case. In this classic case of Villavicencio vs. Lukban,  the Supreme Court upheld the right of
Filipino citizens to Freedom of Domicile.

Brace yourselves. Here's the facts:

Justo Lukban was then the Mayor of the City of Manila. Problem with this dude was he ordered the deportation of
170 agogo dancers and prostitutes to Davao. Which was then not a city yet I guess. This case is dated 1919 so take
note, the President wasn't even born yet. Said women were inmates of the houses of prostitution situated in Gardenia
Street, in the district of Sampaloc.

(So there was a brothel house in that area during those days)  

The mayor's reason for doing this was to preserve the morals of the people of Manila.

(This guy was probably the biggest hypocrite there ever was during those early days)

He claimed that the prostitutes were sent to Davao, purportedly, to work for an haciendero named Feliciano Ynigo.
He had the prostitutes confined in houses meaning the one in Gardenia Street before boarding them, at the dead of
night, in two boats bound for Davao. (If Digong was alive and kicking during those days, this dodgy mayor would
have really gonna get it).  The women were under the assumption that they were being transported to another police
station while Ynigo, the haciendero from Davao, had no idea that the women being sent to work for him were actually
prostitutes. 

(Poor guy. Imagine all the commotion starting to happen in your place and you're still fuckin' totally clueless) 

So the families of the prostitutes came forward to file charges against 3 people. Lukban.  Anton Hohmann, who was
the Chief of Police who rounded and took custody of the the dancers and prostitutes, and Francisco Sales, the
Governor of Davao. 

(Of course there's a considered conspiracy between these three)

They prayed for a WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS to be issued against the respondents to compel them to bring back
the 170 women who were deported to Mindanao against their knowledge and will. During the trial, it came out that,
indeed, the women were deported without their consent. Infact there was no law or order authorizing Lukban's
deportation of the 170 prostitutes.

(So in effect, Lukban forcibly assigned them a new domicile.  Obviously the guy doesn't know anything about the law
and fundamental human rights)

Liberty of abode was raised here versus the power of the executive of the Municipality in deporting the women
without their knowledge and consent in his capacity as Mayor.

You know what the mayor did? He got technical.   The guy moved for the dismissal of the case stating that those
women were already out of his jurisdiction and that, it should be filed in the city of Davao instead. (what a bastard) 

The trial court ruled in favor of the petitioners with the instructions to the respondents giving them 3 options  (1)
Produce the bodies of the persons according to the command of the writ. (2) Show by affidavit that on account of
sickness or infirmity those persons (170 women subject of the writ of habeas corpus) could not safely be brought
before the court, or (3) Present affidavits to show that the parties in question or their attorney waived the right to be
present.  

(So the mayor resorted to technicalities in his defense and he was slapped by the court through technicalities as well
giving him a dose of his own medicine) 

The three respondents hence appealed to the Supreme Court. 

ISSUE: 

Whether we are a government of laws or a government of men? Was the act of the mayor in deporting these women
valid?

RULING:

The Supreme Court said "We are clearly a government of laws". Lukban committed 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 et al must be severely punished.

Court reasoned further that if the chief executive of any municipality in the Philippines could forcibly and illegally take
a private citizen and place him beyond the boundaries of the municipality, and then, when called upon to defend his
official action, could calmly fold his hands and claim that the person was under no restraint and that he, the official,
had no jurisdiction over this other municipality, then the more the writ of habeas corpus should be enforced.

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 Supreme Court said that the women were not chattels but Filipino citizens who had the fundamental
right not to be forced to change their place of residence. 

The then mayor of Manila Justo Lukban loses this case.