Rubi vs Provincial Board of Mindoro

G.R. No. L-14078; March 7, 1919; 39 Phil 660

FACTS:
The case is an application for habeas corpus in favor of Rubi and other
Manguianes of the Province of Mindoro. It is alleged that the
Maguianes are being illegally deprived of their liberty by the provincial
officials of that province. Rubi and his companions are said to be held
on the reservation established at Tigbao, Mindoro, against their will,
and one Dabalos is said to be held under the custody of the provincial
sheriff in the prison at Calapan for having run away from the
reservation.
The provincial governor of Mindoro and the provincial board thereof
directed the Manguianes in question to take up their habitation in
Tigbao, a site on the shore of Lake Naujan, selected by the provincial
governor and approved by the provincial board. The action was taken
in accordance with section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917,
and was duly approved by the Secretary of the Interior as required by
said action.

Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917 reads as follows:

SEC. 2145. Establishment of non-Christian upon sites selected by

provincial governor. — With the prior approval of the Department Head,
the provincial governor of any province in which non-Christian
inhabitants are found is authorized, when such a course is deemed
necessary in the interest of law and order, to direct such inhabitants to
take up their habitation on sites on unoccupied public lands to be
selected by him an approved by the provincial board.

Petitioners, however, challenge the validity of this section of the

Administrative Code.

ISSUE:
Does section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917 constitute an
unlawful delegation of legislative power by the Philippine Legislature to
a provincial official and a department head, therefore making it
unconstitutional?

HELD:
No. The Philippine Legislature has here conferred authority upon the
Province of Mindoro, to be exercised by the provincial governor and the
provincial board.
In determining whether the delegation of legislative power is valid or
not, the distinction is between the delegation of power to make the law,
which necessarily involves a discretion as to what it shall be, and
conferring an authority or discretion as to its execution, to be exercised
under and in pursuance of the law. The first cannot be done; to the later
no valid objection can be made. Discretion may be committed by the
Legislature to an executive department or official. The Legislature may
make decisions of executive departments of subordinate official
thereof, to whom it has committed the execution of certain acts, final on
questions of fact. The growing tendency in the decision is to give
prominence to the "necessity" of the case.
In enacting the said provision of the Administrative Code, the
Legislature merely conferred upon the provincial governor, with the
approval of the provincial board and the Department Head,
discretionary authority as to the execution of the law. This is necessary
since the provincial governor and the provincial board, as the official
representatives of the province, are better qualified to judge “when
such as course is deemed necessary in the interest of law and order”.
As officials charged with the administration of the province and the
protection of its inhabitants, they are better fitted to select sites which
have the conditions most favorable for improving the people who have
the misfortune of being in a backward state.

Hence, Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917 is not an

unlawful delegation of legislative power by the Philippine Legislature to
provincial official and a department head