GR L 14639; (March, 1919) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-14639; March 25, 1919
ZACARIAS VILLAVICENCIO, ET AL., petitioners, vs. JUSTO LUKBAN, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS:
The Mayor of Manila, Justo Lukban, ordered the closure of the segregated district for women of ill repute. Between October 16 and 25, 1918, the police confined the women to their houses. Without their knowledge or consent, arrangements were made to deport approximately 170 women to Davao, Mindanao, as laborers. On the night of October 25, the police forcibly took the women from their homes, placed them aboard coastguard cutters, and sent them to Davao. The women were not allowed to collect their belongings and were unaware of their destination. Upon arrival in Davao, they were received by provincial officials and a private hacendero. Some women later returned to Manila on their own. Relatives and friends of the deportees filed a petition for habeas corpus. The Supreme Court issued writs directing the respondents, including Mayor Lukban, the Chief of Police, the Provincial Governor of Davao, and the hacendero, to produce the women before the court. The respondents failed to fully comply with the court’s orders, claiming the women were free, had married, signed labor contracts, or could not be located.
ISSUE:
Whether the respondents illegally deprived the women of their liberty by deporting them without due process of law, and whether the respondents are in contempt of court for failing to comply with the writ of habeas corpus.
RULING:
The Supreme Court granted the petition for habeas corpus. The deportation of the women without their consent constituted an illegal deprivation of liberty. The respondents, particularly Mayor Lukban and the Chief of Police, acted beyond their lawful authority. The court held that the respondents were in contempt for their failure to obey the writ and subsequent orders to produce the women. Mayor Justo Lukban was found guilty of contempt and fined P100. The court emphasized that the government must operate under the rule of law, not the arbitrary will of individuals, and that the judiciary must protect individual liberty from illegal encroachments. The decision underscores the principle that no person may be deprived of liberty without due process of law.