1 Primacy of human rights and enforcement

The illegal search and seizure happened during the interregnum; even though the
Bill of Rights of the Constitution was not implemented, customary international law
still governed the country
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and International Convention on Civil and
Political Rights provided for the rights of the people during this time, because the
Philippines abides the by the generally accepted principles of international law as
well as laws made by treaty
Republic v. Sandiganbayan This was about Dimaanos illegal search and seizure case during the implementation
(2003)
of E.O. No. 1 (Presidential Commission on Good Governance); Dimaano was a
secretary/mistress of General Ramos

Opinions:
Justice Puno: Dimaano is stil entitled to natural rights; and exclusionary rule
Justice Vitug: The Bill of Rights remained in force during the interregnum not only
because it was so recognized by the 1986 People Power, but also because the new
government was bound by international law to respect the UDHR
Justice Tinga: The Bill of Rights in the 1973 Constitution would still be in force,
independently of the Freedom Constitution because the Freedom Constitution
bestowed uninterrupted operability to the Bill of Rights in the 1973 Constitution

2 MMDA requested the BAVA, owner of Neptune Street to open the said street to public
vehicular traffic
MMDA has not been granted police power as provided in R.A. 7924
MMDA v. Bel Air Village Police power has been granted to the national legislature but it has also been
delegated to the LGUs
The LGUs exercise police power through their respective legislative bodies; MMDA is
not a political government unit or a corporation endowed with legislative power.
Hence, it does not have the power to enact ordinances for the welfare of the
 community. It cannot ask BAVA to open Neptune Street to the public

3 Human rights over property rights (hierarchy of rights); Collective Bargaining

Agreement (CBA)
While the Bill of Rights also protects property rights, the primacy of human rights
over property rights is recognized
In the hierarchy of civil liberties, the rights of free expression and of assembly
PBMEO v. Philippine occupy a preferred position as they are essential to the preservation and vitality of
Blooming Mills our civil and political rights
The pretention that the Company would suffer loss or damage is a plea for the
preservation of their property rights; material loss can be repaired or adequately
compensated (human debasement can never be fully evaluated in monetary terms)
The Companys refusal constituted an unconstitutional restraint on their freedom of
expression, assembly, and redress as it was inhibiting speech

4 Equal protection of the laws and reasonable business necessity to implement a

Duncan Association v. Glaxo
Wellcome
prohibition on marriage to other people in rival company
Policy of Company prohibiting marriages to other people in rival company does not
violate the equal protection clause because it applies to both males and females
The policy against marrying employees from competing companies has reasonable
business necessity: to be able to obtain the secrets of rival companies would be to
gain a serious advantage in the pharmaceutical field

5 No reasonable business necessity for banning spouses from working in the same
company
Holding resignations of their employees due to company policy prohibiting spouses
Star Paper Corporation v. from working in their company illegal: policy is not considered to be a valid
Simbol management prerogative
Policy is a violation of Article 136 of the Labor Code as well as certain provisions in
 the Constitution and Civil Code which protect laborers
The premise that spouses working in the same company would be ineffective is not
compelling enough as to amount to an exception to the bona fide occupational
qualification

6 Procedural and substantive due process; historical treasures and landmarks

Army and Navy Club v. CA
Simply an ejectment case: defendant failed to pay rent and refused to construct said
hotel
Defendant invokes that the building has been declared a national historical landmark
in an attempt to thwart the legal action against them
SC Ruling: even assuming that the said declaration is valid, it does not grant
possessory rights over the property to the petitioner nor to the National Historical
Commission
Historical significance of the Club shall not be affected given that petitioners
eviction from the premises is warranted for having violated the terms and conditions
of the lease contract

7 Lorlene Gonzales: a teacher in Ateneo de Davao University who was terminated from
her job because of complaints of using corporal punishment on her students
Gonzales v. NLRC and The court ruled that the NLRC, in its decision in favour of Ateneo, failed to recognized
Ateneo de Davao several important issues, one of which is the absence of due process
Compliance entails the twin requirements of procedural and substantive due process
Ateneo failed to prove by substantial evidence that Gonzales had inflicted corporal
punishment on her students (lack of factual basis)

8 Negligence on the part of the petitioners counsel; did not file the petition for review
within the remaining period, which eh should have known was only one day. Nor did
the counsel move for an extension that would have been granted as a matter of
Tupas v. CA recourse
 The petitioners were not denied due process; it was mere negligence on the
petitioners counsel; appeal was clearly tardy
It is a mistake to conclude that procedural law should yield to substantive law when
strictly enforcing the former will result to the prejudice of the petitioners substantive
rights
Observance of both substantive and procedural rights is equally granted by due
process

Procedural Due Process

1 Mortgage of Palanca; Palanca is a non-resident it was necessary for the Banco

Banco Espanol Filipino v. Espanol in the foreclosure of the proceeding to give notice to Palanca by
Palanca publication in a newspaper
Court ruled that the court has acquired jurisdiction; mode of notification is
understood to have been done once it was sent to the person (no assurance that
the owner shall receive it); in addition, the failure of the clerk of court to mail the
notice is only a mere irregularity; proceedings were conducted with due process of
law (in foreclosure cases, notification is essential)
Statutes generally provide for publication, and usually in addition thereto, for the
mailing of notice to the defendant, if his residence is known

2 A complaint of two instructors both working at the Surigao del Norte School of Arts
and Trades, and they were promoted to a higher position but Catacutan refused to
appoint both of the teachers in their higher positions to the administrative matters
Catacutan v. People Catacutan was convicted of violating Section 3 of R.A. 3019 citing evident bad
faith, grave abuse of authority as well as refusal to implement the promotion of
duly promoted employees
 Catacutan was not denied of due process of law; not denied by exclusion of
irrelevant, immaterial or incomplete evidence

3 Complaint for a foreclosure of mortgage in a civil case against Mortel, due to an

unpaid obligation, amounting to P130,000
Atty. Mas failed to represent Mortel during fifth resetting of pre-trial which allowed
Kerr to present evidence ex parte
Mortel v. Kerr Gross negligence was committed by Atty. Mas
Negligence of Mortels previous counsels should not bind him; this is considered to
be an exception, because the error of Mortels counsel was very grave
Incompetence, ignorance, or inexperience of counsel is so great and the result is
so serious that the client, who otherwise has a good cause, is prejudiced, and
denied his day in court, the client deserves another chance to present his case

4 Rules on the preliminary conference should have been used, and not on rules on
civil procedure
Gravides v. COMELEC COMELEC did not commit a grave abuse of discretion, in giving the mandatory
rules governing the filing of preliminary conference briefs and its required
contents
Borjal was misled by the Notice of Preliminary Conference issued by the MeTC

5 Ex parte: with respect to or in the interests of one side only or of an interested

outside party; respondent need not to be present in the hearing for the
issue of the TPO. It is within the courts discretion, based on the petition
and the affidavit attached thereto to determine that there is a need for a
TPO
Tua v. Mangrobang The only thing required to issue an ex-parte TPO, are the signatures of
the victims attesting that they are under an imminent danger
VAWC case involving a mother and her three children that was being abused by
 her huband (physical and mental abuse)
RTC issued a TPO pursuant to VAWC which is effective for 30 days
Husband wanted to lift the TPO, stating that it is unconstitutional and violative of
due process clause: court said that it is not violative of the due process clause

6 Roxas was convicted of various crimes and the trial court convicted him; he tried
appealing but he was not successful
He claimed that he had been robbed of his right to due process because the
People v. Roxas presence of Justice Secretary Hernando Perez showed the courts predisposition to
convict him
His due process was not denied, because there was no basis for his allegation;
even though Justice Sec. Perez and other media men were allowed in the
courtroom, Roxas was unable to show that their presence unduly influenced the
courts judgment
7 Cardinal Primary in cases of administrative proceedings (7 requisites):
right to a hearing, tribunal to consider evidence presented, tribunal should have
well-supported decisions, evidence must be substantial, decision must be
Ang Tibay v. CIR rendered on the evidence presented in the hearing, render the decision in such a
manner that the parties to the proceedings can know why the court has come up
with that kind of decision
Court of Industrial Relations is not narrowly constrained by technical rules of
procedure; even though it is free from the rigidity of certain procedural
requirements, it does not mean that it can entirely ignore or disregard the
fundamental and essential requirements of due process in trials and investigations
of an administrative character
This case is about Ang Tibay temporarily laying off 89 workers in which the
members of the National Labour Union thought off as a scheme to systematically
discharge them
8 HLURB can try cases concerning real estate business, but criminal cases involving
transactions are tried in regular courts; P.D. 957 outlines the limits of the
Dazon v. Yap jurisdiction of the HLURB; RTC has jurisdiction over the criminal cases (vested in
regular courts)
This was about Kenneth Yap, the president of Primetown Property Group and
Dazon, an interested buyer of the condominium. Dazon gave a downpayment but
then the condo project did not push through, so Dazon asked for a refund, but Yap
refused to do so

9 Metrobank employees were charged by the president of 3A Apparel Corporation

before the NBI with forgery and falsification of public documents; respondents
claim that they were denied due process
Shu v. Dee Court ruled that the essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard;
there is sufficient compliance with the requirements of due process through a
motion for reconsideration; the respondent filed a motion for reconsideration with
the Secretary of Justice
The remedy the respondents availed cured any initial defect in due process

10 Mere membership of the teachers composing the committee in their respective

teachers organization does not ipso facto make them authorized representatives
Fabella v. CA of such organizations as contemplated in Section 9 of R.A. 4670; teachers
organization possesses the right to indicate its choice of representative to be
included by the DECS in the investigating committee
*Due process in administrative proceedings: right to an actual or
constructive notice of the institution, opportunity to be heard, a tribunal vested
with competent jurisdiction and ensure honesty as well as impartiality, findings
supported with evidence presented
DECS Secretary Cario filed several administrative charges against the private
respondents for participating in the walk-outs and strikers from the period of
 September to December 1990; administrative hearings started in December 1990
Private respondents assail the validity of the investigation committee being
violative of the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers

11 Conduct unbecoming an officer: the finding of guilt must have the proper charge
Torcita was charged with several counts of conduct unbecoming of officer but
the charges were dismissed due to lack of evidence and he was convicted instead
for simple irregularity in the performance of duty
Torcita insists that his right to due process of law was impaired
The SC held that the administrative disciplinary machinery for dealing with
Summary Dismissal Board v.
complaints or charges against any member of PNP is laid down in DILG Act of
Torcita
1990
The SC held that while the definition of the more serious offense is
broad, a finding of guilt for an offense, no matter how light, for which
one is not properly charged and tried cannot be countenanced without
violating the rudimentary requirements of due process
None of the charges or offenses mentioned or made reference to the specific act
of being drunk while in the performance of official duty for which Torcita was
convicted, which is fatal to the validity of the judgment finding him guilty for the
offense for which he was notified or charged

12 Jalosjos was convicted by final judgment of two counts of statutory rape and six
counts of acts of lasciviousness; besides the penalties of imprisonment, he was
also given perpetual absolute disqualification which deprived him of the right to
vote or be voted for in any election. President Arroyo issued an order to commute
his prison term to 16 years, 3 months, and 3 days; he was then issued a
Jalosjos v. COMELEC Certificate of Discharge from prison
2012 elections: denied by Acting City Election Officer because of previous
conviction
 Jalosjos was not denied due process of law; case has already been mooted by the
exclusion of petitioner from May 13, 2013 elections
Constitutional provision only applies in cases where COMELEC exercises
its quasi-judicial powers; it cannot be applied when COMELEC is
exercising administrative function
Administrative: concerned with the work of applying policies and enforcing orders
as determined by proper governmental organs
Quasi-judicial: action, discretion of public administrative officers or bodies who are
required to investigate facts or ascertain existence of facts, hold hearings, draw
conclusions from them, as a basis for official action
No violation of procedural due process, because COMELEC En Banc would be
acting in a purely administrative power; it merely performed its duty to enforce
and administer election laws in cancelling Jalosjos CoC on the basis of his
perpetual absolute disqualification

13 Creation of the UP Technology Management Center; Dr. Posadas and Dr. Dayco
was charged with grave misconduct and abuse of authority; lost the case and file
a motion for reconsideration; MR was also denied since it was not set for hearing
Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion; Section 1 of the 2002
Posadas v. Sandiganbayan Revised Internal Rules of Sandiganbayan states that except for motions which
may be acted upon ex-parte, all motions shall be scheduled for hearings on a
Friday, of if that days is a non-working holiday, on the next working day
Since the petitioner failed to follow procedure, they cannot accuse Sandiganbayan
of violating their right to due process

14 The twin requirements of due notice and hearing are indispensable before the
COMELEC may properly order the cancellation of the registration and accreditation
of a party-list organization
The coalition was deprived of due process; COMELEC should have applied the
 Coalition v. COMELEC cardinal primary of Ang Tibay
Due process was committed when they were not apprised of the fact that the
term-sharing agreement entered into by the nominees of the Senior Citizens in
2010 would be a material consideration in the evaluation of the organizations
qualifications as a party-list group for the May 13, 2013 elections; they were not
given the opportunity to be heard (defend and present evidence to support
statements)

15 Mendoza was administratively charged with grave misconduct before the Deputy
Ombudsman by Miro, as well as criminal complaints (violation of R.A. 3019);
Miro v. Mendoza Deputy Ombudsman ruled that Mendoza was guilty of grave misconduct and that
the affidavits and NBI progress report are considered as substantial evidence; CA
reversed Deputy Ombudsmans decision in the administrative aspect no
substantial evidence exists to support the Deputy Ombudsmans decision (the
affidavits were based on hearsay evidence)
Court ruled that Deputy Ombudsmans decision was not supported by substantial
evidence
Doctrine of conclusiveness of administrative findings of fact is not absolute
CA may resolve factual issues, review and re-evaluate the evidence on record and
reverse the administrative agencys findings if not supported by substantial
evidence

16 Due process in administrative proceedings is only opportunity to present ones

DOH v. Phil. Pharmawealth
side or seek reconsideration of the action or ruing complained of; as long as
parties are given the opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered,
requirements of due process are met
The Court has repeatedly stressed that parties who chose not to avail themselves
of the opportunity to answer charges against them cannot complain of denial of
due process
 10-day deadline for PPI; was informed during the meeting; A.O. 27 stating the
guidelines and procedure for accreditation of government supplies of
pharmaceutical produces for sale or distribution to the public (valid for three years
but subject to review)
Amended by A.O. 10 (accreditation was recduced to two years) and was further
amended by A.O. 66

17 Campaign Ad Cap; Resolution 9615: provided new campaign rules for the 2013
elections; was created without consulting the station networks; considered as
unconstitutional; hearing should be done before changing the rules
Administrative rules (on the part of the COMELEC in this case), does not usually
GMA v. COMELEC need prior consultation for them to be issued; however, if such rules places
substantial burden to the parties involved, it is proper to give them the chance to
be heard; Section 9d is unconstitutional for being contrary to due process

*(Opinions of the justices did not dwell on procedural due process)

18 Case involving disputed mining claims; Apo Cement wished to take over mining
Apo Cement Corporation v. claims of certain areas that overlapped with portions of the claims of Mingson;
Mingson case was brought to the Panel of Arbitrators (POA), which is mandated to reconcile
disputes; POA upheld a resolution in favour of Apo Cement without requiring the
parties to file any pleading; Mingson brought the case to DENR Mining Arbitration
Board stating that due process was not awarded; MAB granted the appeal
CA was correct in sustaining the DENR MABs reversal of the POA, because denial
of due process was apparent; Mingson was not given the opportunity to be heard
(in accordance to the Implementing Rules of Philippine Mining Act of 1995)

19 Private respondent Muoz was charged before the Hong Kong Court; warrants of
arrest were issued and by virtue of a final decree the validity of the Order of Arrest
 was upheld; petitioner Hong Kong Administrative Region filed a petition for the
extradition of Muoz, and in the same case, a petition for bail was filed by Muoz
Petition for bail was denied since there was no Philippine law granting the same in
Government of Hongkong v. extradition cases; Muoz filed a motion for reconsideration and was granted by
Olalia Judge Olalia subject to certain conditions; Muoz filed another motion to vacate
the said order but was denied by Judge Olalia
Court ruled that Muoz as a potential extraditee is entitled to bail; right
to bail guaranteed under the Bill of Rights extends to a prospective
extraditee, and that extradition is a harsh process resulting in a
prolonged deprivation of ones liberty
The Court took notice of the changing customs of the world, including
that of human rights; there is higher value now given to human rights;
UDHR and ICCPR take into play with these issues; customary
international law

20 Doctrine of Evident Partiality; SC reviewed the case solely on the ground

of evident partiality and adopted the reasonable impression of partiality
standard, which requires a showing that a reasonable person would have
to conclude an arbitrator was partial to the other party to the arbitration
RCBC v. BDO Unionbank refused to pay its share of the advance on arbitration costs, as fixed by
the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) International Court of Arbitration;
Unionbank claimed that the amount of the claim was substantially higher more
than 40 times than the total amount of the counterclaims; the court instructed
the arbitration tribunal to suspend its work unless the parties paid the balance of
the advance within 15 days
Petition for review: SC upheld the CAs ruling that in treating the letter of the
claimant as an application for a partial award in furnishing the parties with a copy
of Secombs article which favoured the claimant by advancing its cause the
chairman acted with partiality
SC adopted the reasonable impression of partiality standard and held that the act
 of furnishing the parties with Secombs article, considering the attendant
circumstances, was indicative of partiality such that a reasonable individual would
have to conclude that it was favouring the claimant
Even before the issuance of the second partial award for the reimbursement of the
advance on costs paid by the claimant, the chairman exhibited strong
inclination to grant such relief, notwithstanding his earlier categorical
ruling that the tribunal had no power under ICC rules to order the
respondent to pay the advance on costs sought by the ICC or to give the
claimant any relief against respondents refusal to pay
The court found the chairmans act clearly violated Article 15 of the ICC
rules and declared that in all cases, the Arbitration Tribunal shall act
fairly and in partiality and ensure that each party has a reasonable
opportunity to present its case

21 Petitioners were students at Mabini Colleges and they were no longer allowed to
re-enroll in the school since they participated in a student mass action against the
school in the previous semester; they filed a petition seeking their readmission to
Non v. Judge Dames the school but denied such petition; they tried to file an MR but it was also denied
The petitioner students were not afforded due process; right of speech and
assembly is also available and applicable to students; educational institutions
cannot violate such safeguard
Disciplinary sanctions must be done through due process; Guzman doctrine

22 An administrative proceeding conducted to investigate students participation in a

hazing activity need not be clothed with the attributes of a judicial proceeding and
ADMU v. Capulong is not subject to the rigorous requirements of criminal due process
Hazing incident which happened in Ateneo Law School; a neophyte by the name of
Lennie Villa died due to the initiation done by Aquila Legis
The school is within its rights in expelling students from its academic community
 pursuant to its disciplinary rules and moral standards; the charged filed before the
Disciplinary Board is not a criminal case but an administrative one
Academic Freedom includes four essential freedoms: who may teach, what may
be taught, how it shall be taught, who may be admitted to study

23 Guzman doctrine; Go was not denied due process for he was givne ample
opportunity when he was asked to explain his side in writing, when Letran
organized conferences to discuss the case with Gos parents
Reliance on the cardinal primary of Ang Tibay is misplaced becacause Guzman is
the authority on procedural rights of students in disciplinary cases
It bears stressing that due process in disciplinary cases involving
Go v. Colegio de San Juan de students does not entail proceedings in actions and proceedings in court
Letran of justice
Minimum standards which must be met to satisfy the demands of
procedural due process: (1) The students must be informed in writing of
the nature and cause of any accusation against them; (2) they shall have
the right to answer the charges against them, with the assistance of
counsel, if desired; (3) they shall be informed of the evidence against
them; (4) they shall have the right to adduce evidence in their own
behalf; and (5) the evidence must be duly considered by the
investigating committee or official designated by the school authorities
to hear and decide the case

24 Although a deportation proceeding does not partake of the nature of a criminal

action, however, considering that it is a harsh and extraordinary administrative
proceeding affecting the freedom and liberty of a person, the constitutional right
of such person to due process should not be denied
Lao Gi v. CA Private prosecutors cannot intervene in deportation proceedings in order to avoid
harassment and oppression; hence, there are special prosecutors tasked to
prosecute deportation
 Requirements to be specified in the charge against the alien: must specify acts or
omissions complained of and must be stated in ordinary and concise language
Before any charge should be filed in the CID, a preliminary investigation must be
conducted to determine if there is a sufficient cause to charge the Chias for
deportation

25 Increase on the price of gasoline due to the outbreak in the Persian Gulf; Maceda
filed a petition for prohibition of the increase
Relaxed procedure of the ERB did not result in Macedas right to due process
Process of hearing is within the discretion of the court; ERB as an administrative
body, is not constrained to the strict rules and regulations of technical rules of
evidence governing court proceedings
While a hearing is considered to be a better option, the ERB, as an administrative
body, cannot be penalized if it chooses not to do so (section 8 of E.O. 172)
Maceda v. ERB
Opinions:
Justice Paras (dissenting): ERB has no power to tax which is solely the
prerogative of Congress; believes that this is the way ERB gets money; supports
the rollback of prices
Justice Padilla (dissenting): any increase in the price of oil produces,
provisional or otherwise, should only be allowed after the ERB shall have fully
determined, through bona fide and full dress hearings that it is absolutely
necessary, and by how much it shall be effected; people who oppose the increase
of the oil prices should be given the opportunity to be heard; the right to confront,
cross-examine the witnesses of the adverse parties
Justice Sarmiento (separate opinion): oil pricing is a question best judged by
the political leadership, and oil prices are political, rather than economic
decisions; Philippine oil prices today have nothing to do with the law on supply
and demand
26 The analogy of this case would be like taking the bar, and passing it so you
become a lawyer. But then, because of a new law, you would have to take the bar
exam every year so that you can retain your profession as a lawyer
Corona v. United Harbor Due process a distinction must be made between matters of procedure and
Pilots matters of substance
Notice and hearing, as a fundamental requirement of procedural due process, are
essential only when an administrative body exercises its quasi-judicial function; in
the performance of its executive or legislative functions, such as issuing rules and
regulations, an administrative body need not comply with the requirements of
notice and hearing
Administrative order was issued by the Philippine Ports Authority which provided
that all appointments for habor pilots made by the PPA will have to be renewed
every year; respondents sought to have the implementation of the order
suspended
AO violates respondents right to exercise their profession, and their right to due
process of law
Pilotage has a property right since it is a profession; with the said AO, veterans
and neophytes alike are suddenly confronted with one-year terms which ipso facto
expire at that period
The AO unduly restricts the right of harbour pilots to enjoy their profession and
deprives the respondents right to property without due process of law

27 To validly dismiss a person from government office, the requirements of

due process must be complied with
While due process in an agency investigation may be limited as compared to due
process in criminal proceedings, where however a statute specifically provides for
a procedure and grants particular rights to a party under investigation such as in
PAGCOR v. CA the investigations of persons covered by the Civil Service Rules, these rights shall
 not be utterly disregarded
The case is about Manahan who was a treasury officer of PAGCOR, and she was
supposed to transfer the money to Fuentabella but it turned out to be a fraud
transaction; then she was fired by merely sending her a suspension from a senior
branch manager (which the manager does not even have the right to do such)
Manahan was not validly dismissed; PAGCOR failed to comply with the Uniform
Rules on Administrative Cases in Civil Service (Section 16)

28 Hearings and invitations without the right to avail of counsel already breaches
ones right to due process
Twin requirements of notice and hearing constitute essential elements of due
Salaw v. NLRC process in cases of employee dismissal
Court agrees with the labor arbiter that Salaw was terminated without the benefit
of due process of law (dismissal was considered to be illegal); investigation of
Salaw by the Banks investigating committee violated Salaws constitutional right
to due process since he was not given the opportunity to defend himself; Salaw
was denied the assistance of a counsel during the investigation which was
conducted by the PDIC
Right to a counsel (a basic requirement of substantive due process) has to be
observed; right to counsel cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence
of a counsel

29 There is no violation of due process even if no hearing was conducted, where the
party was given a chance to explain his side of the controversy
Lopez was a truck driver for the Alturas group of companies and he was dismissed
Lopez v. Alturas due to loss of trust and confidence when caught smuggling scrap iron springs
He was given the chance to submit a written response and had no showing of a
request for a formal hearing to be conducted or to be assisted by counsel; even if
there was no hearing, as long as he was given the opportunity to present his side
 of the controversy, due process has been complied with

30 Lifestyle checks by virtue of EO 259 by the DOF-RIPS are valid since EO 259
does not require IRRs to be enforceable
Carabeo the City Treasurer of Paraaque was questioned since he was living a
Carabeo v. CA luxurious lifestyle; there were a series of criminal complaints filed in the
Ombudsman and an order of his preventive suspension in the office
SC held that EO 259, being an internal regulation, did not need an IRR nor
publication for it to be enforceable; and that his preventive suspension was valid
because it was within the Ombudsmans authority to issue

31 Vague statues: lacks comprehensible standards that men of common intelligence

People v. Nazario
32
Estrada v. Sandiganbayan
must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application
Vague statues are repugnant to the constitution in two aspects: (1) it violates due
process for failure to accord persons, especially the parties targeted by it, fair
notice of the conduct to avoid; (2) it leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in
carrying out its provisions and becomes an arbitrary flexing of the Government
muscle
The statute must be utterly vague on its face, that is to say, it cannot be clarified
by either a saving clause or by construction
Nazario was a lessee of a fishpond and was charged of violation of municipal
ordinance for refusing to pay municipal taxes; he contends that the ordinance is
ambiguous and uncertain
Court held that there is no ambiguity in the said ordinance and Nazario is clearly
liable
Vague statues; assailing the vagueness of the Plunder Law
Court ruled that there is no basis for Estradas claim that the court review the
Anti-Plunder Law on its face and its entirety; he has no evidence to show that the
law infringes on the Constitution; he was not able to overcome the presumption of
 constitutionality in this case

33 The right to assistance of counsel is not indispensable to due process unless

required by the Constitution or a law; there is nothing in the Constitution that says
a party in a non-criminal proceeding is entitled to be presented by counsel and
that without such representation he will not be bound by such proceedings
Feeder v. CA The sworn statements of Deposa and Torres were valid and not unconstitutional
(even if they were not assisted by a counsel)
This case was about a foreign vessel going to Zamboanga from Singapore to
deliver 2.2k mt of oil to Zamboanga; it anchored in Guianon Islands in Iloilo
without notice to authorities; since it was not able to present required ship and
shipping documents, a warrant for seizure and detention was issued since it
violated the Tarriff and Customs Code of the Philippines

34 Prior notice and hearing are not required before placement of bank under
receivership
Trust Savings Bank was found to be in a state of insolvency; Monetary Board
issued a resolution preventing the Bank from doing business in the Philippines and
CB v. CA placed it under receivership and appointing Ramon T. Tiaqui as receiver; TSB filed
a complaint before the trial court for an issuance of a TRO since the resolution was
done without them being found guilty of anything (they were not accorded their
right to due process as the resolution was issued without prior hearing)
Court ruled that the Banks right to due process was not violated; Section 29 of RA
265 does not contemplate prior notice and hearing before a bank may be directed
to stop operations and placed under receivership
Case is considered to be an exception to the general rule, because of the nature of
the business of the banking industry prior hearing is not required before the
issuance of a resolution placing a bank under receivership
35 If petitioner indeed found respondents fence to have encroached on the sidewalk,
his remedy is not to demolish the same summarily after respondents failed to
heed his request to move it; instead, he should go to court and prove respondents
Perez v. Madrona supposed violations in the construction of the concrete fence
SC held that the requisites of injunction were present: one, Madrona has a right to
the possession of his property, and two, the demolition order, which was the
subject of the injunction, was violative of that right; if Perez truly found that the
fence and gate were a nuisance to the welfare of the community, his recourse
should have been to bring it to court

36 Power of eminent domain of the government: the power of the government to

acquire private property for the purposes of public use, and by giving just
compensation to the owners of the private property
In this case, just compensation was not immediately given to the owners of the
land; the case fast-forwarded in 50 years time, and the spouses were asking for
DPWH v. Spouses Tecson just compensation in accordance to the value of the land at the present time and
not during the time when it was acquired by the government
The SC ruled the petition to be partly meritorious, saying that just compensation
must be given, but the price per square meter must be based on the price during
the time it was acquired by the government, since it would be unfair on the part of
the government to pay the price desired by the spouses

37 Jinggoy requested to be furnished with copies of counter-affidavits of the other

respondents; his request was made pursuant to the right of the respondent to
Estrada v. Ombudsman examine the evidence submitted by the complaint which he may not have been
furnished and to have access to the evidence on record
Ombudsman denied his request; petitioner was not deprived of due process of law
because there is no law or rule which requires the Ombudsman to furnish a
respondent with copies of the counter-affidavits of his co-respondents; what the
Rules of Procedure of the Office of Ombudsman require is for the
 Ombudsman to furnish the respondent with a copy of the complaint and
the supporting affidavits and documents at the time the order to submit
the counter-affidavit is issued to the respondent
Preliminary investigation only determines probable cause; not considered to be
part of the trial; rights of a respondent in a preliminary investigation are
limited to those granted by procedural law; Ang Tibay cardinal primary

Opinions:
Justice Velasco (dissenting opinion): right to the disclosure of the evidence
against a party prior to the issuance of a judgment against him is a vital
component of the due process of law, a clear disregard of such right constitutes
grave abuse of discretion
Justice Brion (dissenting opinion): a necessary starting point in considering
how preliminary investigation and its set of rights are to be viewed is the mother
of rights under the Bill of Rights the Due Process Clause under Section 1

38 American Inter-Fashion v. OP Procedural due process (for American Interfashion, OP had the incorrect findings
that violated the due process of Glorious)
For a judgment to be bar to a subsequent case, the following requisites must
concur: (1) it must be a final judgment; (2) the court which resolved it had
jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) it must be a judgment on
the merits; (4) there must be identity between the two cases, as to the parties,
subject matter and cause of action
The 1984 judgment did not resolve anything; the motion to withdraw the petition
arose from the fears of Mr. Nemesio Co that not only Glorious Sun but his other
businesses would be destroyed by the martial law regime
Judgment on merits is one rendered after a determination of which party
is right, as distinguished from a judgment rendered upon preliminary or
final or merely technical point
 As a matter of substance in law, as distinguished from matter of form, and as the
real or substantial grounds of action or defense in contradiction to some technical
or collateral matter raised in the course of the suit; a judgment is upon the merits
when it amount to a declaration of the law as to the respective rights and duties
of the parties
Issue on lack of due process: Before cancellation in 1984, the private
respondent had been enjoying export quotas granted to it since 1977; in effect the
private respondents export quota allocation which initially was a privilege evolved
into some form of property right which should not be removed from it arbitrarily
and without due process only to hurriedly confer it on another

Substantive Due Process

1 Police power, when exercised properly, does not violate due process
Toribio was penalized for violating RA 1147 for slaughtering a carabao for human
consumption without a permit from the treasurer of the municipality. He previously
applied for such permit but was denied because the carabao was found not unfit
US v. Toribio for agricultural purposes or draft work. Counsel for Toribio assails the
constitutionality of the law for depriving right to property without due process. The
court held that the regulation of private use of property if it is detrimental to the
public welfare. In this case, the law was passed to meet the demand for carabaos,
due to their almost extinction by an infectious disease. Since public interest
demands it, the law is a proper exercise of police power.

2 Penalty and confiscation in EO 262-A is an invalid exercise of police power, as it is

oppressive and arbitrary
SC held that there was no connection between the purpose of preventing
Ynot v. IAC slaughter to the method of preventing transport (since it does not matter where
 you have carabaos, the place will not decrease their chances of being slaughtered
because they can be slaughtered anywhere)
The purpose of the E.O. was not challenged, but rather the
implementation; for the government to validly exercise its power, it must
act by the general interest of the public and it its means must be
reasonably necessary to achieve the purpose of the goal, in such a way
that it shall not be unduly oppressive to the public
The EO merely provided the penalty for confiscation, to be carried out by
executive authorities (the police); such measure is violative of
substantive due process
3 Due process on deprivation of property
Police power: if a law relates to the public health, safety, morals, comfort or
general welfare of the community, it is within the scope of the police power of the
state (including the regulation of billboards)
While billboard stand may be situated in a private property, the images that is
Churchill v. Rafferty being shown in the billboard can be seen by people passing by in the
thoroughfares; the thoroughfares are part of the public, which therefore is part of
public regulation
Images in the billboard that are considered to be offensive in nature, may be
struck down by the Collector of Internal Revenue, and its considered to be
constitutional and not a violation of private property, because the images erected
in the billboard can be seen by the public in the highways

4 Undefined and unlimited delegation: where a municipal ordinance lacks

standards and thus confers arbitrary and unrestricted power to the mayor, such
ordinance is invalid as it is an undefined and unlimited delegation of power to
allow or prevent an activity which is per se lawful
A municipal ordinance is unreasonable and oppressive if it operates to
People v. Fajardo permanently deprive the right to use the property without just
 compensation
An ordinance was passed giving the mayor the power to deny construction
permits if the building to be constructed would destroy the view of the plaza.
Appellants were convicted for constructing a building which destroyed the view of
the plaza. The ordinance was held invalid as it permitted the arbitrary discretion of
the mayor to deny or grant permits. The ordinance did not have any standards to
guide or limit the mayor's action on the permits. In addition, the ordinance hinders
appellants from using their property which is tantamount to a taking from the
government. They are entitled to just compensation and a hearing.

5 The legislature may not, under the guise of protecting the public
interest, arbitrarily interfere with private business using police power;
this case did not have a reasonable means necessary to intrude into
Balacuit v. CFI businesses
Lowering the ticket prices of children between 7 to 12 years old is
unconstitutional, because that would result to an unjust policy on the part of the
business; lowering the ticket prices based on a certain classification would mean
that the businesses would have to pay or vouch in for the tickets of 7 to 12 year
old people

6 The state, through its police power, may mandate the use of Early
Warning Devices to promote road safety and is not violative of due
process
Letter of instruction was issued in exercise of the police power which is the state
authority to enact legislation that may interfere with personal liberty or property in
Agustin v. Edu order to promote the general welfare
Country was a signatory to the 1868 Vienna Convention which required the
government to comply with road safety regulations

Opinions:
 Justice Teehankee (dissenting): alleges that the Letter of Instruction has yet to
show the public necessity of the EWD since they are not too vital to the prevention
of nighttime vehicular accidents; statistics shows that 26,000 motor vehicle
accidents that occurred in 1976, only 390 or 1.5 per cent involved rear-end
collisions

7 Test of a valid ordinance: (1) ordinance must not contravene the

Constitution or any statute; (2) must not be unjust or oppressive; (3)
must not be partial or discriminatory; (4) must not prohibit but regulate
trade; (4) must be general and consistent with public policy; (5) must not
Magtajas v. Pryce Properties be unreasonable must comply with the requirements of substantive
due process
The local council of Cagayan De Oro issued two ordinances prohibiting gambling
and penalizing such practice; the ordinances were considered to be unreasonable
since the local government cannot supersede the laws of the legislature; it
contravenes P.D. NO. 1869 which regulates gambling in the country

Opinion:
Justice Padilla (separate): ordinances cannot modify or repeal PAGCORs
authority; gambling in any form runs counter to the governments own efforts to
establish a clean community; what is legal is not always moral

8 It has long been settled that statutory forfeitures of property entrusted

by the innocent owner or lienor to another who uses it in violation of the
revenue laws of the United States is not a violation of the due process
clause of the Fifth Amendment
The State of Michigan wanted to abate the car jointly owned by Tina Bennis and
her husband on the ground that the car was a public nuisance. It was in that
Bennis v. Michigan parked car along the street of Detroit that Tinas husband was caught by Detroit
 Police in flagrante delicto with a prostitute. Husband was convicted of gross
indecency. Tina (petitioner) defended her car from abatement saying that she
entrusted her husband to use that car and did not know that his husband would do
this
The US Supreme Court affirmed Michigan Supreme Courts reinstatement of
Wayne County Circuit Courts decision in subjecting Tinas car in
forfeiture/abatement and that Tina was not deprived of the proper due process
accorded to every US citizen (notice of the complaint and opportunity to be heard)
The US Supreme Court cited several cases illustrating that the state has the power
to confiscate properties used in illegal activities by persons not the owner if such
effects are judicially and properly proven to be used in illegal activities and crimes
against the laws of the state

9 Any law or order that invades individual privacy will be subjected by the
Court to strict scrutiny
The petition is Sen. Blas F. Oples effort to prevent the shrinking of the right to
Ople v. Torres privacy by praying for the invalidation of AO308. AO308 was issued to provide
citizens with a decentralized Identification Reference System (with the use of
biometrics) that will enable them to efficiently avail of government services while
reducing/eradicating fraudulent transactions and representations
He argues that it impermissibly intrudes on our citizenrys protected zone of
privacy and in turn violates the Bill of Rights. The Court ruled in favor of Sen. Ople
stating that AO308 cannot pass constitutional scrutiny for it is narrowly drawn
The lack of proper safeguards against the possibilities of abuse and misuse of the
biometrics, computer technology, etc. threaten the right of privacy and the very
abuses that the Bill of Rights seeks to prevent
10 While the local government may impose conditions upon granting a
business permit, the conditions must not be unreasonable, oppressive,
discriminating, which will amount to the derogation of a common right;
in this case, the conditions set by the City Mayor were so unreasonable
 as to amount to the deprivation of Acebedos right to the conduct of its
lawful business
Office of the City Mayor of Iligan granted Acebedo Optical a business permit but
Acebedo Optical Co. v CA was subjected to several conditions. This permit was later revoked because
Acebedo allegedly violated the conditions upon which the permit was granted to
it. The issue at hand is whether or not a City Mayor, who undoubtedly has the
power to grant/deny business permits, can validly set conditions in
granting/denying corporations business permits as a valid exercise of police
power.
The SC ruled that Acebedo was applying for a business permit to operate its
business and not to practice optometry (the latter being within the jurisdiction PRC
Board of Optometry). The conditions attached by the mayor is ultra vires hence
cannot be given any legal application.
Neither is it a valid exercise of police power. Though the mayor can definitely
impose conditions in the granting of permits, he must base such conditions on law
or ordinances otherwise the conditions are ultra vires

11 Houston Police were dispatched to the private residence of Lawrence in response

to a reported weapons disturbance; at the residence, the police saw that Lawrence
and another male person were engaged in anal sex; they were arrested, charged,
Lawrence v. Texas and then convicted by virtue of Anti-Sodomy Law
The law violates substantive due process; it undermines the liberty to engage in
private conduct; it seems so arbitrarily promulgated in that it does not protect any
state interest; it demeans the lives of homosexual persons; though a small crime,
criminal conviction carries accessory penalties such as notations on job
application forms among others
The fact that the governing majority in a State had traditionally viewed a
particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law
prohibiting the practice; individual decisions by married persons, concerning the
intimacies of their physical relationship, even when not intended to produce
 offspring, are a form of liberty protected by the due process clause of the
fourteenth amendment; this protection extends to intimate choices by unmarried
as well as married persons

Opinions:
Justice Thomas (dissenting): there is no relevant liberty in the Constitution which
provides for consensual, homosexual conduct
Justice OConnor (concurring): the law which seeks to criminalize male-male but
not female-sodomy is violative of the equal protection clause; the sodomy law
which is neutral in application may pass as a constitutional law

12 Doctrine of Informed Consent: The Right of every individual to the possession

and control of his own person, free from all restraints or interference of others,
unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law
Requirement of clear and convincing evidence is constitutional
Patients generally possess the right not to consent, that is, to refuse treatment. If
the person is incompetent, a surrogate can exercise this right. Surrogates action
Cruzan v. Director, Missouri must be proven with clear and convincing evidence that they conform to the
DOH patients wishes while she was still competent
The State Supreme Court did not commit constitutional error in concluding that
the evidence adduced at trial did not amount to clear and convincing proof of
Cruzan's desire to have hydration and nutrition withdrawn. The trial court had not
adopted a clear and convincing evidence standard, and Cruzan's observations that
she did not want to live life as a "vegetable" did not deal in terms with withdrawal
of medical treatment or of hydration and nutrition
The due process clause does not require a State to accept the substituted
judgment of close family members in the absence of substantial proof that their
views reflect the patients
13 Valid exercise of police power = blood banks are under public health
safety measures
RA 7719 or the National Blood Services Act was passed seeking to provide an
adequate supply of safe blood by promoting voluntary blood donation and by
regulating blood banks in the country. Commercial blood banks were ordered to be
phased out. Petitioners, directors of an association for commercial blood banks are
assailing the constitutionality of the Act on the ff grounds: it constitutes undue
Beltran v. Secretary of delegation of legislative power, violates the equal protection and non-impairment
Health clause, and it is not a valid exercise of police power
Court disagrees. RA 7719 is complete in itself, the standard being the promotion of
public health by providing a safe and adequate supply of blood through voluntary
blood donation. It does not violate the equal protection clause because all
the bases for its reasonableness were present. It constitutes a valid
exercise of police power because the promotion of public health is a
fundamental obligation of the State and attaining that objective requires
the interference of the State. It does not violate the non-impairment clause
provided by the Constitution because individual rights have to give way to police
power exercised for public welfare

14 Preliminary Investigation is a substantive due process right in criminal

proceedings. In this case however, while Forfeiture of property in RA
1379 may be considered penal in nature, its application is limited to
public officials. Therefore Nelly Ong, not being a public official, cannot
claim the right to preliminary investigation under RA 1379
Ong v. Sandiganbayan BIR Commissioner Jose Ong was charged with violation of RA 1379 for allegedly
amassing properties worth disproportionately more than his lawful income. He was
questioned on his acquisition of properties totaling to P21.47M when his lawful
income from public employment and other sources only amounted to P1.06M. His
annual salary was only P200K
Forfeiture proceedings under RA 1379 are civil in nature and not penal or criminal
 in character, as they do not terminate in the imposistion of penalty but merely in
the forfeiture of the properties illegally acquired in favor of the State. Hence,
unlike in criminal proceeding, there is to be no reading of the information,
arraignment, trial and reading of the judgment in the presence of the accused
In this case, the preliminary investigation assailed by the petitioners are anchored
in the statutory privilege considered a component part of due process in criminal
justice. It is argued however, that even if RA1379 is considered a criminal
proceeding, Nelly Ong is still not entitled to a preliminary investigation because
the law itself withholds such right from a respondent who is not himself or herself
a public officer or employee, such as Nelly Ong

15 Restrictive custody which is, at best, nominal restraint is beyond the

ambit of habeas corpusit is neither actual nor effective restraint that
would call for the grant of the remedy prayed for (this is in consideration
with the right to liberty; right to locomotion; people were not unlawfully
detained)
Restrictive Custody is a permissible precautionary measure to assure the
Philippine National Police (PNP) authorities that the police officers concerned are
Manalo v. PNP Chief always accounted for because although the PNP is civilian in character, its
members are subject to the disciplinary authority of the Chief, PNP under the
National Police Commission
Courts cannot, by injunction, review, overrule or otherwise interfere with valid acts
of police officials. The police organization must observe self-discipline and obey a
chain of command under civilian officials
It is evident that petitioners are not actually detained or restrained of their
liberties. What was ordered by the PNP is that their movements, inside
and outside the camp be monitored. It is crystal clear that petitioners are free
to go in and out of the Camp as they please. The only limitation imposed upon
them is that their movements within the premise of the camp shall be
monitored; that they have to be escorted whenever the circumstances
 warrants that they leave the camp; and that their ETD and arrival shall
be entered in the logbook

16 Ordinances characterized by overbreadth, ordinances where there was a

clear invasion of personal or property rights but guised under police
power, are unconstitutional
Lucena Grand Terminal v. JAC The weight of popular opinion must be balanced with that of an
Liner individuals rights.
Bus terminals per se do not, however, impede or help impede the flow of traffic.
How the outright proscription against the existence of all terminals, apart from
that franchised to petitioner, can be considered as reasonably necessary to solve
the traffic problem, this Court has not been enlightened
If terminals lack adequate space such that bus drivers are compelled to load and
unload passengers on the streets instead of inside the terminals, then reasonable
specifications for the size of terminals could be instituted, with permits to operate
the same denied those which are unable to meet the specifications
In the subject ordinances, however, the scope of the proscription against the
maintenance of terminals is so broad that even entities which might be able to
provide facilities better than the franchised terminal are barred from operating at
all. The grant of an exclusive franchise to petitioner has not been shown to be the
only solution to the problem

17 Ermita-Malate Hotel & Motel
Operators v. Manila
Standard of due process - responsiveness to the supremacy of reason,
obedience, and to the dictates of justice
The City of Manila enacted an ordinance to regulate hotels, motels, and lodging
areas within the city. Ermita-Malate Hotel & Motel Operators assail the ordinance
as unconstitutional because it is unreasonable, arbitrary, oppressive, and violative
of due process. The Supreme Court, however, held that the ordinance was
constitutional. This is because due process has no controlling and precise
definition. Its standard, both to procedural and substantive due process, is
 responsiveness to the supremacy of reason, obedience, and to the dictates of
justice. The ordinance fell within this standard because it wasnt created with no
reason - its purpose was to curb and prevent immoral and illegitimate use of these
premises

18 In exercising police power it should be prove that there is a general

City of Manila v. Laguio
interest that requires interference with public rights and that the means
adopted must be reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the
purpose and are not duly oppressive upon individuals
The case is about the ordinance No. 7783 which is about prohibiting the
establishment or operation of businesses providing certain forms of entertainment
where women are used as tools in entertainment in the Ermita Malate area,
prescribing penalties for the violations thereof and other purposes. This ordinance
prohibits certain forms of businesses like motels to conduct business around the
area since it adversely affect the social and moral welfare of the community. The
ordinance prohibits granting or renewal of licenses of the mentioned
establishments and these businesses will be given 3 months to wind up or transfer
to other locations or change these businesses to allowed businesses. Failure to do
so would cause to fine and eviction
It can only be attained by reasonable restriction on private rights and not absolute
prohibition. The closing, transferring or converting of businesses have no
reasonable relation with the accomplishment of its purpose of removing the social
ills like being of ill repute. The means do not answer the goal of the ordinance
These business are lawful pursuits which are not per se offensive to the
community like that of places of ill repute. As long as immorality exists, you will
just transfer the problem and not solve it. Instead of regulating property, regulate
human conduct. If you prohibit any place where such immorality might exist, then
every place might as well be restricted
Relevant issues of the case: (1) Mistake in the inclusion of motels and inns
since they do not provide entertainment or serve as facilities for amusement using
 women or annoy/disturb the community; (2) the ordinance does not constitute a
proper exercise of police power (closing these businesses has no relation to the
municipal interests); (3) confiscatory and consists of invasion of property rights;
(4) denial of equal protections clause by prohibiting motels and inns but not
hotels, pensions houses and other similar establishments

19 Main doctrine: requisites of a valid ordinance: (1) it must not contravene

White Light v. City of Manila
the Constitution or any statute; (2) it must not be unfair or oppressive;
(3) it must not be partial or discriminatory; (4) it must be general and
consistent with public policy; (5) it must not prohibit but may regulate
trade; (6) it must not be unreasonable must comply with the requisites
of substantive due process
A reasonable relation must exist between the purposes of the measure
and the means employed for its accomplishment, for even under the
guise of protecting the public interest, personal rights and those
pertaining to private property will not be permitted to be arbitrarily
invaded
The exercise of police power is subject to judicial review when life,
liberty or property is affected
Mayor Alfredo Lim signed into law Ordinance No. 7774 which prohibits short-time
admission, short-time admission rates and wash-up rate schemes in hotels, motels
and other similar establishments in the city. Malate Tourist and Development
Corporation filed a complaint for declaratory relief with a prayer for a TRO. White
Light and other corporations filed a motion to intervene and were granted
The rights at stake herein fall within the same fundamental rights to liberty which
includes the right to exist and the right to be free from arbitrary restraint or
servitude. The object of the ordinance is to curtail sexual behavior. However,
governmental powers should stop short of certain intrusions into the personal life
of the citizen
The Ordinance would proscribe or impair other legitimate and lawful activities and
 uses of the wash rate depriving patrons of a product and the petitioners of
business profits. A reasonable relation must exist between the purposes of the
measure and the means employed for its accomplishment, for even under the
guise of protecting the public interest, personal rights and those pertaining to
private property will not be permitted to be arbitrarily invaded. Lacking such, the
ordinance must be struck down as an arbitrary intrusion into private rights

20 Right of privacy does not bar the adoption of ID systems of the

government
PGMA passed EO 420 requiring all government agencies and GOCCs which
currently have ID systems to adopt a uniform data collection and to harmonize
KMU v. Director General their ID systems in the government
Petitioners claim that EO 420 is a usurpation of legislative power by the President
and it infringes on the citizens right to privacy
EO 420 is not constitutional since it only applies to government employees and
the data collected is of confidential nature and not open to public; it even narrowly
limits the data that can be collected, recorded and shown compared to the
existing ID systems of government entities; further provides strict safeguards to
protect the confidentiality of data collected

21 It bears stressing that under the provisions of E.O. No. 125, as amended,
it is the DOTC, and not the MMDA, which is authorized to establish and
implement a project such as the one subject of the cases at bar. Thus,
MMDA v. Viron the President, although authorized to establish or cause the
implementation of the Project, must exercise the authority through the
instrumentality of the DOTC which, by law, is the primary implementing
and administrative entity in the promotion, development and regulation
of networks of transportation, and the one so authorized to establish
and implement a project such as the Project in question
By designating the MMDA as the implementing agency of the Project, the
 President clearly overstepped the limits of the authority conferred by
law, rendering E.O. No. 179 ultra vires
PGMA issued EO 179, which provided for the establishment of a Mass Transport
System for Greater Manila. Pursuant to this EO, the Metro manila Council of the
MMDA cited the need to remove the bus terminals located along major
thoroughfares of Metro Manila. Respondents, provincial bus operators who had bus
terminals that were threatened to be removed, alleges that EO should be declared
unconstitutional and illegal for transgressing the possessory rights of owners and
operators of public land transportation units over their respective terminals
Issue: Whether or not EO 179 is a valid exercise of police power. Held: Petition
denied.
EO 179 is null and void. MMDA has no police power, let alone legislative power. In
light of the administrative nature of its powers and functions, the MMDA is devoid
of authority to implement the Project as envisioned by the EO; hence it could not
have been validly designated by the President to undertake the Project
It follows that the MMDA cannot validly order the elimination of the respondents
terminals. The exercise should have been done through the DOTC which, by law, is
the primary implementing and administrative entity in the promotion,
development and regulation of networks of transportation, and the one so
authorized to establish and implement a project such as the Project in question

22 In relation to substantive due process, the Revised Securities Act

intended to protect the interests of the investing public by regulating
the conduct of insiders who can potentially manipulate the market
through the non-public information that they possess. The Act was
SEC v. Interport capable of reasonable construction and did not need any IRRs to make
them binding and effective
Interport Resources Corporation (IRC) approved a memorandum of agreement with
Ganda Holdings Berhad (GHB) to acquire 100% of the capital stock of Ganda
Energy Holdings, Inc. (GEHI), which was to own and operate a 102MW power
 generating barge. The output of this barge was then to be purchased by National
Power Corporation for 5 years. In addition, IRC was to acquire 67% of the capital
stock of Philippine Racing Club
According to SEC, IRC failed to make timely public disclosures of such
negotiations. Also, some of IRCs directors heavily traded IRC shares utilizing this
material information. However, the CA issued a permanent injuction that stopped
SEC from making further investigations. According to the CA, the SEC failed to
promulgate the IRR of Sec. 30 of the Revised Securities Act (RSA) and thus, no
action could be taken against IRC without violating their right to due process and
equal protection
The SC reversed the CA decision and held that IRRs were not necessary in order to
make the Revised Securities Act binding and effective. The Court did not see any
vagueness or ambiguity in the RSA. Sections 30 and 36 of the Revised Securities
Act were enacted to promote full disclosure in the securities market and prevent
unscrupulous individuals, who by their positions obtain non-public information,
from taking advantage of an uninformed public. Section 30 of the Revised
Securities Act prevented the unfair use of non-public information in securities
transactions, while Section 36 allowed the SEC to monitor the transactions entered
into by corporate officers and directors as regards the securities of their
companies. These provisions are sufficiently clear and complete by themselves.
Their requirements are specifically set out, and the acts which are enjoined are
determinable

23 The writ of habeas data is a remedy available to any person whose right
to privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by an
unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee or of a private
individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of
data or information regarding the person, family, home and
correspondence of the aggrieved party
Meralco v. Lim Lims plea does not fall within the province of a writ of habeas data
 May an employee invoke the remedies available under such writ where an
employer decides to transfer her workplace on the basis of copies of an
anonymous letter posted therein, imputing to here disloyalty to the company and
calling for her to leave, which imputation it investigated but fails to inform her of
the details thereof? No
There is no showing from the facts presented that petitioners committed any
unjustifiable or unlawful violation of Lims right to privacy vis--vis the right to life,
liberty and property

24 The constitutional guarantee is not a prohibition of all searches and

seizures but only of unreasonable searches and seizures
Government employees are not exempt from searches imposed on them
by their government employers; in imposing such searches, the
government acts as employers and not as law enforcers
A search is justified when there are reasonable grounds for suspecting
that it will produce evidence that the employee is guilty of work-related
misconduct
The case is about Mr. Polio who works in the Civil Service Commission. He was
given a government-owned laptop which he can use for work. There was a letter
Pollo v. Constantino
given to CSC Chairman Constantino-David, saying that Mr. Polio was allegedly
lawyering and creating pleadings for the people in Mamamayan Muna Hindi
Mamaya Na. The CSC Region IV Office created an IT team which monitored the
files that Mr. Polio stored in his government-owned laptop. The team saw that
there were 17 diskettes and a lot of pleadings that were stored in the laptop. Mr.
Polio said that the search violated his right to privacy of communication. The SC
ruled that the search was valid, since a memorandum was issued that waived the
rights of employees working in the government

Opinions:
Justice Carpio (separate concurring): A government employee cannot expect any
 privacy when he uses a government-owned laptop because he knows he cannot
us the computer for any private purpose; classication of CSC commissioners fails
the EPC
Justice Bersamin (concurring and dissenting opinion): employees also need to
have some privacy in their workplace since they need to be given the time to rest

25 Police power: inherent and plenary power of the State to prohibit all what is hurtful
to the comfort, welfare and safety of people
Sto. Tomas v. Paneda Police power; recruitment; OFW; RA No. 8042 is a police power measure intended
to regulate the recruitment and deployment of OFWs; it aims to curb, if not
eliminate, the injustices and abuses suffered by numerous OFWs seeking to work
abroad
Presumption of constitutionality: the court cannot inquire into wisdom or
expediency of the laws enacted by the legislative department

26 Writ of Amparo is an equitable and extraordinary remedy to safeguard the right of

the people to life, liberty and security as enshrined in the 1987 Constitution. It is
issued as an exercise of the Supreme Courts power to promulgate rules
concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights. The procedure
was devised to afford swift but decisive relief due to the delicate and urgent
nature of the controversies such as extra-judicial killings and enforced
disappearances
The court held that the privilege of the writ of amparo is an equitable and
De Lima v. Gatdula extraordinary remedy to safeguard the right of the people to life, liberty and
security. The procedure was devised to afford swift but decisive relief due to the
delicate and urgent nature of the controversies. The judge/justice makes an
immediate evaluation of the facts alleged and decides if the issuance of the writ
is proper. Return is required to serve as responsive pleading to the petition and not
an answer. Only after the return is filed should the summary hearing proceed.
Once allegations are proven, can the judgment of issuance of the writ be made
 which is appealable via rule 45
Gatdula filed a Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Amparo in RTC directed
against De Lima et. al. The case was filed to cease and desist from framing up
Gatdula for the fake ambush incident by filing bogus charges of Frustrated Murder
against Gatdula in relation to the alleged ambush incident

27 Fernando v. St. Scholasticas Requisites of a valid ordinance (6 elements); rational relationship test;
College requirements of a valid state intervention (2 elements)
The ordinance in regulating the fences particularly St. Scholasticas College. This is
not considered to be a valid ordinance and must be struck down for not being
reasonably necessary to accomplish the citys purpose; considered to be
oppressive of the rights of private entities

28 An investigation by the Ombudsman has found herein petitioner Lt. Gen. Ligot and
Ligot v. Republic his family to be in possession of more or less P54 million worth of undeclared
properties and bank accounts among many other things. Taking into consideration
the fact that the familys main source of income is drawn from Gen. Ligots salary
as an AFP officer, the same Ombudsman inferred that the Ligots abovementioned
properties and assets were procured illegally. It was found that Mrs. Ligots brother
was in possession of some of their properties, and has served as a dummy for the
purposes of registration. It was also found that the Ligot family was in possession
of various bank accounts with several financial institutions. Due to all of the
foregoing, a freeze order was issued against them. The said freeze order has a 20-
day period of validity attached to it. Eleven days after its issuance, it was
extended for an indefinite period of time. The Ligots filed a motion to lift this
freeze order, assailing that it deprived them of their property without due process
and punished them before their guilt could be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
This motion was denied by the appellate court
Freeze order cannot be issued in an indefinite time; its only allowed to have a
lifetime of six months; issuance of an indefinite freeze order to Ligot is illegal
29 Requisites for Declaratory Relief: First, the subject matter of the controversy
must be a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, statute, executive order
or regulation, or ordinance; second, the terms of said documents and the validity
Republic v. Roque thereof are doubtful and require judicial construction; third, there must have been
no breach of the documents in question; fourth , there must be an actual
justiciable controversy or the "ripening seeds" of one between persons whose
interests are adverse; fifth , the issue must be ripe for judicial determination; and
sixth , adequate relief is not available through other means or other forms of
action or proceeding
Case was assailing the constitutionality of RA 9372

30 A reasonable relation must exist between the purposes of the measure

and the means employed for its accomplishment, for even under the
guise of protecting the public interest, personal rights and those
BAP v. COMELEC pertaining to private property will not be permitted to be arbitrarily
invaded. (Though the intent [i.e., to curb vote buying and selling] is
laudable, the means employed is not reasonably necessary and is
oppressive on an individuals rights.)
COMELEC issued a Money Ban Resolution which prohibited the withdrawal of cash,
encashment of checks and conversion of any monetary instrument into cash from
May 8 to 13, 2013 exceeding P100k, possession, transportation and/or carrying of
cash exceeding P500k, and that all withdrawals of cash or encashment of checks
or series of withdrawals or encashment of checks in cash involving a total amount
exceeding P500k within 1 banking day from date of the publication of the
resolution until May 13, 2013 shall be presumed to be for the purpose of
accumulating funds for vote buying and election fraud and shall therefore be
treated as a suspicious transaction under Republic Act No. 9160 or the Anti -
Money Laundering Act of 2001
The petitioners also claim that the Money Ban Resolution violates a number of
 constitutional rights. The Constitution guarantees that no person shall be deprived
of life, liberty and property without due process of law. The Money Ban Resolution
violates an individuals due process rights because it unduly and unreasonably
restricts and prohibits the withdrawal, possession, and transportation of cash
Though the intent (i.e., to curb vote buying and selling) is laudable, the means
employed is not reasonably necessary and is oppressive on an individuals rights
The Comelec defends the Money Ban Resolution as a reasonable measure that is
not unduly oppressive on individuals. It merely limits transactions involving cash
(withdrawal, encashment, possession, etc.), but does not affect other noncash
transactions such as those involving checks and credit cards. Hence, only the
medium or instrument of the transaction is affected; the transaction may proceed
using noncash medium or instrument. There is, therefore, no impairment of rights
and contracts that would invalidate the Money Ban Resolution.

31 Police power has primacy over property rights; in the exercise of police
power, a property right is impaired by regulation, or the use of property
is merely prohibited, regulated or restricted to promote public welfare
Manila Memorial Park v. In this case, there was regulation to promote the welfare of the elderly
DSWD to which the Constitution affords preferential concern
Petitioners assail the constitutionality of RA 7432 as amended by RA 9257 and the
IRR of the DSWD and DOF. The IRR of the DSWD and DOF provides that the cost of
the discount shall be allowed as the deduction from gross income for the same
taxable year that the discount is granted
RA No. 7342 is a valid exercise of police power or eminent domain and it also
conforms with the standards of police power

32 Test for a valid ordinance (6 elements)

Legaspi v. City of Cebu
 On January 27, 1997 the Sangguniang Panlungsod of the City of Cebu enacted
Ordinance No. 1664 to authorize the traffic enforcers of Cebu City to immobilize
any motor vehicle violating the parking restrictions and prohibitions defined in
Ordinance No. 801 (Traffic Code of Cebu City)
Ordinance is considered to be valid
33 No right is absolute, and the proper regulation of a profession, calling,
business or trade has always been upheld as a legitimate subject of a
valid exercise of the police power of the State particularly when their
conduct affects the execution of legitimate governmental functions, the
preservation of the State, public health and welfare and public morals.
To pretend that licensing or accreditation requirements violate the due
process clause is to ignore the settled practice, under the mantle of
police power, of regulating entry to the practice of various trades or
Remnan Enterprises v. PRB professions
RA 9464 or Real Estate Service Act of the Philippines was signed into law which
aims to professionalize the real estate service sector under a regulatory scheme of
licensing, registration and supervision of real estate service practitioners in the
country. REI and CREBA, real estate developers, filed a petition to declare said law
as void and unconstitutional because: 1) violates the due process clause as it
impinges on the real estate developers most basic ownership rights 2) violates
the equal protection clause as no substantial distinctions exist between real estate
developers and the exempted group mentioned. These issues were brought to SC,
however were found to be of no merit. It does not violate the DPC since there is no
restriction on their use and enjoyment of property is caused by the
implementation but only an added restriction to secure the services of a licensed
real estate broker which is within the police power of legislature. As to the EPC,
there was also no violation since the classification is reasonable and relevant to its
legitimate purpose. Thus the petition was denied

34 The operation of educational institutions involves public interest. The

 U.E. v. Pepanio government has a right to ensure that the only qualified persons, in
possession of sufficient knowledge and teaching skills, are allowed to
teach in such institutions. Government regulation in the field of human
activity is desirable for protecting, not only the students, but the public
as well from ill-prepared teachers, who are lacking in the required
specific or technical knowledge. They may be required to take an
examination or to possess postgraduate degrees as a prerequisite to
employment.
Case is about professors with no postgraduate degrees
CBA may take a form of a contract but it should not be against public policy.
Educational institutions involve public interest, CHED being authorized to set
minimum standards for tertiary education makes the necessity of requiring
masters degree valid. It is to protect the public from ill equipped teachers who are
lacking in the specific required scientific or technical knowledge. Regulation valid
35 It is a constitutional commonplace that the ordinary requirements of
procedural due process must yield to the necessities of protecting vital
public interests, among which is the protection of women and children
Garcia v. Drilon from violence and threats to their personal safety and security
RA 9262 is not violative of the substantive due process when the TPO is granted
ex parte; all they needed was the signature of the victims to grant the TPO
Case was about the abusive husband who maltreated his wife and children

36 Power of eminent domain (expropriation); publication of the laws; The

requirement of publication is indispensable to give effect to law. An
omission of the publication requirement would offend due process as it
would deny the public knowledge of the laws that are supposed to
Nagkakaisang Maralita v. govern it.
Sitio Nagkakaisang Maralita and Western Bicutan Lot Owners Association, who were
occupants of lots in Western Bicutan filed a petition with the Commission on
Settlement of Land Problems (COSLAP). They sought the reclassification of the
 areas they occupied in Western Bicutan, from public land to alienable and
disposable land and the eventual sale of such land. The COSLAP granted the
petition, but was later on reversed by the CA.
The issue is whether the lots in question can be considered alienabe and
disposable by virtue of the handwritten addendum of President Marcos which was
not included in the publication of Proclamation 2476
SC held that the written addendum which was not included in the publication did
not acquire the force and effect of law. The requirement of publication is
indispensable to give effect to law. An omission of the publication requirement
would offend due process as it would deny the public knowledge of the laws that
are supposed to govern it

37 The putting up of the access fence on the petitioners property was in the valid
exercise of police power, assailable only upon proof that such putting up unduly
violated constitutional limitations like due process and equal protection of the law
A tollway is not an ordinary road. As a facility designed to promote the fastest
access to certain destinations, its use, operation, and maintenance require close
regulation. Public interest and safety require the imposition of certain restrictions
on toll ways that do not apply to ordinary roads. As a special kind of road, it is but
reasonable that not all forms of transport could use it
Hermano Oil Manufacturing Clearly, therefore, the access fence was a reasonable restriction on the
v. TRB petitioners property given the location thereof at the right side of Sta. Rita Exit of
the NLEX. Although some adjacent properties were accorded unrestricted access
to the expressway, there was a valid and reasonable classification for doing so
because their owners provided ancillary services to motorists using the NLEX, like
gasoline service stations and food stores. A classification based on practical
convenience and common knowledge is not unconstitutional simply because it
may lack purely theoretical or scientific uniformity
Lastly, the limited access imposed on the petitioners property did not partake of a
compensable taking due to the exercise of the power of eminent domain. There is
 no question that the property was not taken and devoted for public use. Instead,
the property was subjected to a certain restraint, i.e. the access fence, in order to
secure the general safety and welfare of the motorists using the NLEX. There
being a clear and valid exercise of police power, the petitioner was certainly not
entitled to any just compensation

38 Doctrine is concerned on property rights; licenses on permit to carry

Chavez v. Romulo firearms is considered to be a privilege given by the government and not
a property right; it is subject to regulation of government
Chavez is assailing the constitutionality of the guidelines issued by the PNP Chief
implementing the ban on carrying firearms outside of residence, which was issued
after then President Arroyo delivered a speech to the PNP regarding the need for a
nationwide gun ban and ordering PNP Chief Ebdane to suspend the issuance of
Permits to Carry Firearms Outside of Residence
According to petitioner, it violated the constitutional right to life and property
rights, as well as the right to carry firearms, and was violative of due process
because of the revocation of existing licenses without just cause. Petitioner also
argued that it was beyond the PNP Chiefs power to issue said guidelines, and that
the nationwide ban was an invalid exercise of police power as it unduly curtailed
constitutional rights to life and property
The Supreme Court ruled against petitioner, stating that the right to carry firearms
is merely statutory in nature. The need for a license connotes that citizens have
no vested rights over carrying firearms and is merely a privilege. And just like any
license, it may be revoked any time. It does not confer an absolute right but only a
personal privilege to be exercised under existing restrictions and such as may be
reasonably imposed. It was not an invalid exercise of police power as the basis for
the issuance of the gun ban was the need for peace and order in society and even
assuming arguendo that the right to carry firearms is a property right, it is still not
beyond the scope of the states police power since it is not absolute
39 Deprivation of property without due process
The GSIS are assailing the decisions of the RTC and the CA that granted Milagros
Montescarlos eligibility for survivorship pension as the surviving spouse of Nicolas
Montescarlos, a retitred member of the Sangguniang Bayan. The GSIS contest that
under Section 18 of PD 1146 (The Revised Government Service Insurance Act), a
GSIS v. Montescarlos surviving spouse is ineligible for survivorship pension if the marriage with the
pensioner was contracted within three years of before the pensioner became
eligibile for pension
It is undisputed that Nicolas married Milagros in 1983, and the former was only
granted eligibility for pension in 1984. Despite Milagros withdrawing her
application, the GSIS insisted the Court to rule on the issue for future application.
The Court held that section 18 of PD 1146 is unconstitutional for it constitutes a
taking of property without due process. The court held that retirement benefits are
compensation for the work provided by the government workers to the public.
Also, such pension are derived from mandatory contributions from the government
employee
The court held that these constitutes property interests over the pension. The
outright denial of survivorship pension under Section 18 constitutes a deprivation
of a right to property without due process. Even if the purpose of Section 18 is to
prevent sham marriages for monetary gain, it does not provide a valid and
reasonable classification in contrast of legitimate marriages. Therefore, Milagros is
eligible for survivorship pension

40 Requisites of a valid exercise of police power (2 elements); primary

objective is to equalize the situation between popular and rich
candidates, on one hand, and lesser known or poorer candidates on the
other
Chavez v. COMELEC This is a valid reason to exercise police power. This objective is of special
importance and urgency in a country which, like ours, is characterized by
extreme disparity in income distribution between the economic elite and
 the rest of society, and by the prevalence of poverty, with so many of our
population falling below the poverty line
Removal of all campaign propaganda prior to campaign season; petitioner was
modelling for a brand; he was saying he was not campaigning and he was just
endorsing a brand, but this was not granted by the Court

41 This is a case consisting of three consolidated petitions of the three petitioners. All
three petitioners alleged that they were taxpayers and citizens of the Philippines,
and that their rights as organizations and individuals were violated, when the
three conducted rallies (independently and at different dates and places) and was
Bayan v. Ermita abruptly dispersed by the police force, which led to many of their members being
injured and arrested
All three also question the constitutionality of BP 880 and the CPR (Calibrated
Preemptive Response) released by Exec Sec Ermita. BP 880 enforces violent
dispersals due to the no permit, no rally policy and the CPR policy which directed
the PNP and the LGUs to strictly comply with the no permit, no rally, by
authorizing arrests of violators in lieu of maximum tolerance. Petitioners also
aver that the Constitution sets no limits on the rights to assembly, and that BP 880
cannot require a permit as a pre-requisite to such right. Petitioners also contend
that it is in violation of the UDHR and the ICCPR

42 While the right of workers to security of tenure is guaranteed by the

Constitution, its exercise may be reasonably regulated pursuant to the
police power of the State to safeguard health, morals, peace, order,
safety, and the general welfare of the people
Consequently, persons who desire to engage in the learned professions requiring
scientific or technical knowledge may be required to take an examination as a
prerequisite to engaging in their chosen careers. The most concrete example of
St. Lukes v. NLRC this would be in the field of medicine, the practice of which in all its branches has
been closely regulated by the State. It has long been recognized that the
 regulation of this field is a reasonable method of protecting the health and safety
of the public to protect the public from the potentially deadly effects of
incompetence and ignorance among those who would practice medicine. The
same rationale applies in the regulation of the practice of radiologic and xray
technology. The clear and unmistakable intention of the legislature in prescribing
guidelines for persons seeking to practice in this field is embodied in
Despite these warnings, petitioner Santos was still unable to comply and pass the
required exam. To reiterate, the requirement for Board certification was set by
statute. Justice, fairness and due process demand that an employer should not be
penalized for situations where it had no participation or control

43 Right to security of person yield various permutations of the exercise of

this right
Freedom from fear: in the Amparo context, it is more correct to say that the
right of security is actually the freedom from threat
Sec. of DND v. Manalo It is a guarantee of bodily and psychological integrity or security: when
force is employed to vitiate the freewill such as to force the victim to admit, reveal
or fabricate incriminating information, it constitutes an invasion of both bodily and
psychological integrity as the dignity of the human person includes the exercise of
free will
It is a guarantee of protection of ones rights by the government
On February 14, 2006, Raymond and Reynaldo Manalo were abducted from their
home in Bulacan by elements of the CAFGU. They were brought to several places
(most of which are military camps), detained there and were constantly tortured
by soldiers. Eventually, they were able to escape to Manila where they executed
affidavits and on August 2007, respondents filed in the SC for a petition for
prohibition, injunction and TRO for protection from their captors. Meanwhile, on
October 2007, the writ of amparo took effect and respondents changed their
petition into an amparo petition. The SC remanded it to the CA. The CA granted
the petition. Hence, petitioner filed for a petition for review
 The SC held that the candid account of Raymond Manalo was enough proof for the
grant of the privilege of the writ of amparo. Only substantial evidence is required
by express provision of the law. It further held that there is a continuing violation
of respondents right of security as the circumstances and evidence show that
there is a high probability that respondents may yet again be abducted and
subjected to more torture. The probability of such actually became higher now
that respondents have impleaded specific names of the AFP. These constitute
threats to their liberty, security, and life, actionable through a petition for a writ of
amparo

44 Doctrine of Command Responsibility is a rule of substantive law that

establishes the liability, and by this account, cannot be a proper legal
basis to implead a party-responded in an amparo petition. The
application of command responsibility presupposed an imputation of
individual liability. Rather than the Doctrine of Command Responsibility
in a summary amparo proceeding, responsibility, or at least
Roxas v. GMA accountability can be used
The writ of amparo is a protective remedy aimed at providing judicial relief
consisting of the appropriate remedial measures and directives that may be
crafted by the court, in order to address specific violations or threats of violation of
the constitutional rights to life, liberty or security. While the principal objective of
its proceedings is the initial determination of whether an enforced disappearance,
extralegal killing or threats thereof had transpired the writ does not, by so doing,
fix liability for such disappearance, killing or threats, whether that may be
criminal, civil or administrative under the applicable substantive law. It is not an
action to determine criminal guilt requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt, or
liability for damages requiring preponderance of evidence, or administrative
responsibility requiring substantial evidence that will require full and exhaustive
proceedings
 The writ of habeas data was conceptualized as a judicial remedy enforcing the
right to privacy, most especially the right to informational privacy of individuals.
An indispensable requirement before the privilege of the writ maybe enforced is
the showing, at least by substantial evidence, of an actual or threatened violation
of the right to privacy in life, liberty or security of the victim
Petitioner is an American citizen of Filipino descent who enrolled in an exposure
program to the Philippines with the group Bagong Alyansang Makabayan-United
States of America (BAYAN-USA) of which she is a member. In April of 2009, she
volunteered to join members of BAYAN-Tarlac in conducting an initial health survey
in La Paz, Tarlac for a future medical mission
Petitioner was abducted and released. Petitioner filed a Petition for the Writs of
Amparo and Habeas Data, impleading public officials occupying the uppermost
echelons of the military and police hierarchy as respondents, on the belief that it
was government agents who were behind her abduction and torture

45 Since it is extant from the pleadings filed that what is involved is the issue of child
custody and the exercise of parental rights over a child, who, for all intents and
purposes, has been legally considered a ward of the State, the Amparo rule cannot
be properly applied
To reiterate, the privilege of the writ of amparo is a remedy available to victims of
Caram v. Segui extra-judicial killings and enforced disappearances or threats of a similar nature,
regardless of whether the perpetrator of the unlawful act or omission is a public
official or employee or a private individual. It is envisioned basically to protect and
guarantee the right to life, liberty and security of persons, free from fears and
threats that vitiate the quality of life
Ma. Christina filed a petition for issuance of a writ of amparo, alleging that DSWD
and the other respondents blackmailed her into surrendering custody of Baby
Julian to the DSWD utilising an invalid certificate of availability for adoption which
respondents allegedly used as basis to misrepresent that all legal requisites for
 adoption of the minor child had been complied with

46 The fundamental function of the writ of amparo is to cause the disclosure of

Mison v. Gallegos details concerning the extrajudicial killing or the enforced disappearance
of an aggrieved party. The Writ of Amparos present form, is confined to these
two instances or to threats thereof. Extralegal killings are killings committed
without due process of law. On the other hand, enforced disappearances are
attended by the following characteristics: an arrest, detention or abduction of a
person by a government official or organized groups or private individuals acting
with the direct or indirect acquiescence of the government; the refusal of the State
to disclose the fate or whereabouts of the person concerned or a refusal to
acknowledge the deprivation of liberty which places such persons outside the
protection of law
Section 5 of the Amparo Rule enumerates what an amparo petition should contain,
among which is the right to life, liberty and security of the aggrieved party
violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of the
respondent, and how such threat or violation is committed with the attendant
circumstances detailed in supporting affidavits
Interpol Seoul asked the Philippine government for assistance in the location and
deportation of respondent, Ja Joon for arbitrarily spending money allotted as
reserve fund of Phildip Korea Co., Ltd. The Korean Embassy also wrote letter
requests to petitioner, Hon. Siegfred mison, Chairperson of the Bureau of
Immigration (BI), for the arrest and deportation of Ku to Korea for being an
undesirable alien. Ku filed a Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Amparo and
Judge Gallegos granted his request as he found the petition to be sufficient in form
and substance. He also granted Ku a Temporary Protection Order (TPO). The
petitioner, Hon. Mison, Chairperson of the Bureau of Immigration (BI), challenged
the orders of Gallegos since the Court intimated the possibility of misuse by Ku of
the writ of amparo given that he was validly arrested and placed under the
jurisdiction and custody of the BI; thus the case cannot be categorized as one of
 extralegal killing or enforced disappearance

47 Writ of habeas data: a remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in
life, liberty, or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of
a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity engaged in the
Zarate v. Aquino gathering, collecting, or storing of data or information regarding the person,
family, home and correspondence of the aggrieved party
In the present petition, petitioners fail to show how their right to privacy is violated
given that the information contained in the "lists" are only their names, their
positions in their respective organizations, and their photographs. All these data
are of public knowledge and are readily accessible even to civilians, especially
since petitioners are known personalities who are often featured in news reports
Petitioners aver that they are members of various progressive party-lists and/or
national and religious organizations that have been wrongfully tagged by the
military and the police as communist front organizations

Equal Protection of Law

1 Guarantee of equal protection of laws; legislation based on reasonable

classification; it is an established principle of constitutional law that the
guaranty of the equal protection of the laws is not violated by a
legislation based on reasonable classification
Four-fold test of EPC: (1) must rest of substantial distinctions; (2) must
People v. Cayat be germane to the purpose of the law; (3) must apply to future cases
(not just the present ones); (4) it must apply equally to all persons
belonging in the same class
Prohibition to buy liquor and other forms of alcoholic drinks is designed to insure
peace and order in and among the non-Christian tribes
 Act applies to all members of the class is evident from a perusal thereof the
argument that it may be unfair in its operation against a certain number of non-
Christians by reason of their degree of culture, is not a valid argument against the
equality of its application

2 Once an alien is admitted, he cannot be deprived of life without due

process of law
Mayor Villegas signed an Ordinance prohibiting aliens from being employed in
Villegas v. Hiu Chiong Tsai Manila without a permit costing P50.00. Hiu Chiong filed a petition for writ of
Pao Ho injunction and judgment that the ordinance be null and void since it is
discriminatory and violates the equal protection of the law. Such was granted by
the CFI, but petitioner now seeks to reverse that decision. The issue is WON such
an ordinance is violative of the equal protection of the law. Yes it is, since the
amount is fixed and does not consider the substantial differences between
different resident aliens. To add, it does not lay down a criterion for the mayor to
exercise his discretion. This is tantamount to denying a means to engage in
livelihood, since once an alien is admitted, he cannot be deprived of life without
the equal protection of the law

3 Petitioner Patricio Dumlao, is a former Governor of Nueva Vizcaya, who has filed
Dumlao v. COMELEC
his certificate of candidacy for said position of Governor in the forthcoming
elections of January 30, 1980
Petitioner Dumlao specifically questions the constitutionality of section 4 of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 52 as discriminatory and contrary to the equal protection and due
process guarantees of the Constitution which provides that .Any retired elective
provincial city or municipal official who has received payment of the retirement
benefits to which he is entitled under the law and who shall have been 65 years of
age at the commencement of the term of office to which he seeks to be elected
shall not be qualified to run for the same elective local office from which he has
retired. He likewise alleges that the provision is directed insidiously against him,
 and is based on purely arbitrary grounds, therefore, class legislation
In the case of a 65-year old elective local official, who has retired from a
provincial, city or municipal office, there is reason to disqualify him from running
for the same office from which he had retired, as provided for in the challenged
provision
The need for new blood assumes relevance. The tiredness of the retiree for
government work is present, and what is emphatically significant is that the
retired employee has already declared himself tired and unavailable for the same
government work, but, which, by virtue of a change of mind, he would like to
assume again. It is for this very reason that inequality will neither result from the
application of the challenged provision. Just as that provision does not deny equal
protection, neither does it permit of such denial

4 The statute arbitrarily discriminates between male and female owners of liquor
establishments. A male owner, although he himself is always absent from his bar,
may employ his wife and daughter as barmaids. A female owner may neither work
Goesart v. Cleary as a barmaid herself nor employ her daughter in that position, even if a man is
always present in the establishment to keep order. This inevitable result of the
classification belies the assumption that the statute was motivated by a legislative
solicitude for the moral and physical wellbeing of women who, but for the law,
would be employed as barmaids. Since there could be no other conceivable
justification for such discrimination against women owners of liquor
establishments, the statute should be held invalid as a denial of equal protection
The law forbidding female bartenders to be licensed is not
unconstitutional: The Court held that regulation of liquor traffic is one of the
oldest and most untrammeled legislative power. Despite the vast change in the
social and legal landscape of the status of women, the state is not precluded from
drawing a sharp line between the sexes especially in the matters of liquor traffic.

5 Equal protection clause applies only to pursues or things identically

 situated and does not bar a reasonable classification of the subject of
legislation; four-fold test
Municipal Board of Ormoc City passed Ordinance No. 4, Series of 1964, imposing
"on any and all productions of centrifugal sugar milled at the Ormoc Sugar
Company, Inc., in Ormoc City a municipal tax equivalent to one per centum (1%)
per export sale to the United States of America and other foreign countries.
Ormoc filed a complaint alleging that such ordinance is violative of the equal
Ormoc Sugar Central v. protection clause. Both CFI of Leyte and CA held that it did not violate such
Ormoc City constitutional limit. When raised to SC, the court held otherwise. Equal protection
clause applies only to persons or things identically situated and does not bar a
reasonable classification of the subject of legislation. A classification is reasonable
where: 1) it is based on substantial distinctions which make real differences; 2)
these are germane to the purpose of the law; 3) the classification applies not only
to present conditions but also to future conditions which are substantially identical
to those of the present; 4) the classification applies only to those who belong to
the same class
It is true that Ormoc Sugar Company, Inc. was the only sugar central in the city of
Ormoc. Still, the classification, to be reasonable, should be in terms applicable to
future conditions as well. The taxing ordinance should not be singular and
exclusive as to exclude any subsequently established sugar central, of the same
class as plaintiff, for the coverage of the tax

6 Recognizing the existence of real differences among men, the equal

protection clause does not demand absolute equality. It merely requires
Himagan v. People that all persons shall be treated alike, under like circumstances and
conditions both as to the privileges conferred and liabilities enforced
The language of the first sentence of Sec. 47 of R.A. 6975 is clear, plain and free
from ambiguity. It gives no other meaning than that the suspension from office of
the member of the PNP charged with grave offense where the penalty is six years
and one day or more shall last until the termination of the case. The suspension

7 Sison, a taxpayer, alleged that Batas Pambansa Blg. 135, since he would be
Sison v. Ancheta
8 Equal protection clause require equality among equals of a valid
Philippine Judges v. Prado
cannot be lifted before the termination of the case. The second sentence of the
same Section providing that the trial must be terminated within ninety (90) days
from arraignment does not qualify or limit the first sentence. The two can stand
independently of each other. The first refers to the period of suspension. The
second deals with the time frame within which the trial should be finished.
Classification is valid because PNP carry weapons and the badge of law which can
be susceptible to abuse
unduly discriminated against by the imposition of higher rates of tax upon his
income arising from the exercise of his profession, in relation to those which are
imposed upon fixed income or salaried taxpayers
SC said that it does not violate equal protection clause Sison invoked that
taxation should be grounded on the concept of unity: this ground is met according
to Justice Laurel in Philippine Trust Company v. Yatco, which was a case that was
decided in 1940, when the tax operates with the same force and effect in every
place where the subject may be found. It should also be noted that the rule on
uniformity does not call for perfect uniformity or perfect equality, because this is
hardly unattainable
In the case of professionals in the practice of their calling and businessmen, there
is no uniformity in the costs or expenses necessary to produce their income
classification
Petitioners are assailing sec 35 of RA 7354 for removing the franking privilege for
the judiciary and a few other agencies. It contests that the withdrawal of the
privilege while retaining the same for the President and Vice President, the
Senators and House representative violates the equal protection clause. Equal
protection clause require equality among equals of a valid classification. Since the
court found that there was no valid classification in deciding who gets keep the
 franking privilege, it held that sec 35 of RA 7354 is unconstitutional
9 The constitutionality and validity of EO 97-A, that provides that the grant and
Tiu v. CA enjoyment of the tax and duty incentives authorized under RA 7227 were limited
to the business enterprises and residents within the fenced-in area of the Subic
Special Economic Zone (SSEZ), was questioned
The Court held that the classification was based on valid and reasonable
standards and does not violate the equal protection clause

10 Petitioners assail the validity of the point-of-hire classification that the

International School practices
This classification grants foreign-hires certain benefits and a salary 25% higher
International School v. than what local-hires receive. Court ruled in favor of petitioners stating the equal
Quisumbing pay for equal work principle
They further said that the grants and benefits that they receive is enough to
compensate the dislocation factor of foreign-hires
Foreign workers do not need to be in the same CBA as local workers
Classification for the salary is not valid = equal work equal pay should be the rule

11 The petitioners in this case are either City or Municipal Election Officers who were
reassigned to different stations following the enactment of The Voters Registration
Act of 1996. The Voters Registration Act contains a provision which directs
COMELEC to reassign City or Municipality Election Officers who has held office for
more than 4 years in the said City or Municipality
The petitioners file a case with the Supreme Court assailing the provision in the
De Guzman v. COMELEC Voters Registration Act as unconstitutional for being violative of equal protection
clause of the Constitution and their security of tenure
The Court held that purpose of the law is to prevent widespread anomalies in the
elections caused by the complicity of the City and Municipality Election Officers
who are the authorized representatives of COMELEC
 There was also no violation of the security of tenure because what the
Constitution prohibits is the capricious exercise of the power to dismiss, where it is
the lawmaking body itself who provides the ground for the transfer of a class of
employees, no such capriciousness can be raised so long as the remedy proposed
to cure a perceived evil is germane to the purposes of the law

12 Petitioners contend that Sec 14 of RA No. 9006 or the Fair Election Act which
repeals Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code violates the equal protection
clause of the Constitution. Under Sec 66 and 67, appointive and elective officials
respectively shall be considered ipso facto resigned from their current position if
they choose to run for another office. With the repeal of Sec 67 however, elective
Farinas v. Executive officials will no longer be considered ipso facto resigned
Secretary According to petitioners this gives undue benefit to elective officials as against the
appointive ones because the repeal does not include appointive officials and
therefore they will still be considered ipso facto resigned
The court ruled that the repeal does not violate the equal protection clause
because substantial distinctions exist between elective and appointive officials. By
repealing Section 67 but retaining Section 66 of the Omnibus Election Code, the
legislators deemed it proper to treat these two classes of officials differently

13 The concept of Relative Constitutionality: A statute valid at one time may

become void at another time because of altered circumstances. Thus, if a statute
in its practical operation becomes arbitrary or confiscatory, its validity is open to
inquiry and investigation in the light of changed conditions
Central Bank Employees In the present case, it was pointed out that the assailed proviso is violative of the
Association v. NLRC equal protection clause because after the New Central Bank Law was enacted,
subsequent laws were enacted which exempted the rank-and-file employees if 7
other GFIs from the SSL
In 2001, the Central Bank Employees Association, Inc. filed a petition for
prohibition against the BSP and the Office of the President in which petitioners
 sought to have the implementation of Section 15(c) of RA 7653 on the ground that
it violated the equal protection clause and was, therefore, unconstitutional

14 Grace was an employee of the PT&T and she was being discriminated because she
Philippine Telegraph and was married; she was forced to hide her true marital status just to get the job
Telephone Co. v. NLRC Grace was illegally dismissed by the company because the policy of PT&T of not
accepting or considering as disqualified from work any woman worker who
contracts marriage violate womens right against discrimination afforded by the
Constitution
15 Mirasol v. DPWH Standard in exercising police power is reasonableness
Petitioners sought the declaration of nullity of administrative issuances of the
DPWH for being inconsistent with RA 2000, Limited Access Highway Act. One of
which is AO1, requiring that motorcycles should have engine displacement of at
least 400cc. Court partly granted petitioners decision since AO1 does not impose
unreasonable restrictions

16 Parreno v. COA If the groupings are characterized by substantial distinctions that make
real differences, one class may be treated and regulated differently from
another
There is a substantial difference between retirees who are citizens of the
Philippines and retirees who lost their Filipino citizenship by naturalization in
another country, such as petitioner in the case before us
The constitutional right of the state to require all citizens to render personal and
military service necessarily includes not only private citizens but also citizens who
have retired from military service. A retiree who had lost his Filipino citizenship
already renounced his allegiance to the state. Thus, he may no longer be
compelled by the state to render compulsory military service when the need
arises. Petitioners loss of Filipino citizenship constitutes a substantial distinction
that distinguishes him from other retirees who retain their Filipino citizenship. If
 the groupings are characterized by substantial distinctions that make real
differences, one class may be treated and regulated differently from another

17 Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (BFOQ) is valid if it reflects an

inherent quality reasonably necessary for satisfactory job performance
Yrasuegi v. PAL Yrasuega was an overweight PAL flight attendant and he was not able to keep
down his weight despite the many chances PAL gave to him; this led PAL to
dismiss him
The court held that requiring cabin crew to maintain their weight is a valid BFOQ
since it was reasonable policy in order to ensure flight and passenger safety

18 Computation of separation pay for illegal dismissal; Section 10 of RA No.

Serrano v. Gallant 8042; strict scrutiny test
The law violated EPC; disparity in the treatment of the two groups becomes more
aggravating because prior to RA No 8042, all OFWs regardless of contract periods
or the unexpired portions, were treated alike in terms of their monetary benefits in
case of illegal dismissal

19 British American Tobacco v.

Camacho

20 People v. Siton

21 Quinto v. COMELEC
22 Biraogo v. PTC

23 In the matter of the

brewing controversies in
the elections of the IBP

24 Aquino v. Philippine Ports

Authority

25 Garcia v. Drilon

26 Almario v. ES
27 LTFRB v. Stronghold
Insurance Company

28 Spouses Dacudao v. DOJ

29 Goldenway v. Equitable

30 Espinas v. COA

31 Imbong v. Ochoa

32 Disini v. Secretary of Justice

33 People v. Jumanan

34 Bartolome v. SSS

35 League of Cities v.
COMELEC

36 Villanueva v. JBC

37 Ferrer v. Bautista

38 1-United v. COMELEC