This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS
1. BALACUIT VS CFI Facts: At issue in the petition for review before Us is the validity and constitutionality of Ordinance No. 640 passed by the Municipal Board of the City of Butuan on April 21, 1969, the title and text of which are reproduced below ORDINANCE PENALIZING ANY PERSON, GROUP OF PERSONS, ENTITY OR CORPORATION ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SELLING ADMISSION TICKETS TO ANY MOVIE OR OTHER PUBLIC EXHIBITIONS, GAMES, CONTESTS OR OTHER PERFORMANCES TO REQUIRE CHILDREN BETWEEN SEVEN (7) AND TWELVE (12) YEARS OF AGE TO PAY FULL PAYMENT FOR TICKETS INTENDED FOR ADULTS BUT SHOULD CHARGE ONLY ONE-HALF OF THE SAID TICKET Petitioners are Carlos Balacuit Lamberto Tan, and Sergio Yu Carcel managers of the theaters and they attack the validity and constitutionality of Ordinance No. 640 on the grounds that it is ultra vires and an invalid exercise of police power. Issue: Does this power to regulate include the authority to interfere in the fixing of prices of admission to these places of exhibition and amusement whether under its general grant of power or under the general welfare clause as invoked by the City? Ruling: No, the power to regulate and fix the amount of license fees for theaters and other places of amusement has been expressly granted to the City of Butuan under its charter. However, the ordinance is not justified by any necessity for the public interest. The police power legislation must be firmly grounded on public interest and welfare, and a reasonable relation must exist between purposes and means. The evident purpose of the ordinance is to help ease the burden of cost on the part of parents who have to shell out the same amount of money for the admission of their children. A reduction in the price of admission would mean corresponding savings for the parents; however, the petitioners are the ones made to bear the cost of these savings. The ordinance does not only make the petitioners suffer the loss of earnings but it likewise penalizes them for failure to comply with it. The ordinance does not provide a safeguard against this undesirable practice and as such, the respondent City of Butuan now suggests that birth certificates be exhibited by movie house patrons to prove the age of children. This is, however, not at all practicable. We can see that the ordinance is clearly unreasonable if not unduly oppressive upon the business of petitioners. Further, there is no discernible relation between the ordinance and the promotion of public health, safety, morals and the general welfare. Furthermore, there is nothing pernicious in demanding equal price for both children and adults. The petitioners are merely conducting their legitimate businesses. The object of every business entrepreneur is to make a profit out of his venture. In fact, no person is under compulsion to purchase a ticket. It is a totally voluntary act on the part of the purchaser if he buys a ticket to such performances Ordinance No. 640 clearly invades the personal and property rights of petitioners WHEREFORE, a new judgment is hereby rendered declaring Ordinance No. 640 unconstitutional and, therefore, null and void. (Sol Andoy)
2. DEL ROSARIO VS. BENGZON Facts: Class suit filed by the officers of Philippine Medical Association, wherein they asked the SC to declare as unconstitutional some provisons of Generics Act of 1988 and its implementing order AO No. 62. (for purposes of this case digest, the full text of the law is omitted but can be found in the ruling) The petitioner's main argument against paragraphs (a) and (b), Section 6 of the law, is the alleged unequal treatment of government physicians, dentists, and veterinarians, on one hand, and those in private practice on the other hand, in the manner of prescribing generic drugs, for, while the former are allegedly required to use only generic terminology in their prescriptions, the latter may write the brand name of the drug in parenthesis below the generic name. The favored treatment of private doctors, dentists and veterinarians under the law is allegedly a specie of invalid class legislation. Ruling: 1. There is no merit in that argument for it proceeds from a misreading and misinterpretation of the letter and intent of paragraphs (a) and (b), Section 6 of the Generics Act. Indeed, as explained by the public respondent: "x x x while paragraph (a) enumerates the government transactions ('purchasing, prescribing, dispensing and administering of drugs and medicines') where the sole use of generic terminology has been required, the 'prescription' of drugs is further governed by paragraph (b). And the use of the word 'all' in the latter provision emphasizes the absence of any distinction between government and private physicians. In other words, in prescribing drugs, physicians, whether in government service or in private practice, are both governed by exactly the same rules, and thus, are both authorized to include the brand name in their respective prescriptions." 2. Furthermore, it may be observed that while paragraph (a) refers to "all government health agencies, and their personnel as well as other government agencies" (not necessarily physicians, dentists and veterinarians), paragraph (b) refers to "all medical, dental and veterinary practitioners, including private practitioners." 3. The public respondent points out that the institution of generics in the Philippines will compel physicians to prescribe drugs based on their therapeutic or "active ingredient," instead of their well-known brand names. Multiple medications which may produce potentially adverse, even lethal, chemical reations in the patient will thereby be avoided. Patients with limited means will be able to buy generic drugs that cost less but
dosage form. It is no different from the penalty of suspension or disbarment that this Court inflicts on lawyers and judges who misbehave or violate the laws and the Codes of Professional and Judicial Conduct. There is no merit in the petitioners' theory that the Generics Act impairs the obligation of contract between a physician and his patient. IAC FACTS. for no contract ever results from a consultation between patient and physician. RESTITUTO YNOT (petitioner) challenges the constitutionality of Executive Order No. It secures to the patient the right to choose between the brand name and its generic equivalent since his doctor is allowed to write both the generic and the brand name in his prescription form. significantly. with the accused being accorded all the rights safeguarded to him under the Constitution. and the property being transported is immediately impounded by the police and declared. The carabao. The EO will be conserving those still fit for farm work or breeding and preventing their improvident depletion. • However. when the following requisites are complied: 1. as distinguished from those of a particular class. without giving YNOT any chance to be heard. implements the constitutional mandate for the State "to protect and promote the right to health of the people" and "to make essential goods. is a valid regulation to prevent the circumvention of the law. 6. Hence. the penalty is outright confiscation of the carabaos. comfort. the statute was sustained because the penalty prescribed was fine and imprisonment. as the poor man’s tractor has a direct relevance to the public welfare. the police confiscated his carabaos. This power can neither be abdicated nor bargained away. Any violation of the said EO will amount to a confiscation of the carabao and carabeef by the government. 3. It was only returned when he had given a superdedeas bond. usually by the police only. Lawful means . The properties involved were not even inimical per se as to require their instant destruction. 1984. • Furthermore. SC believed that the prohibition of the inter-provincial transport of carabaos cannot prevent their indiscriminate slaughter. the law would be toothless. The law aims to benefit the impoverished (and often sickly) majority of the population in a still developing country like ours. there is no reasonable relation between between the means and the end. or general welfare of the community. YNOT VS. undergo surgery. or follow a recommended course treatment by his doctor . His claim is that the penalty is invalid because it is imposed without according the owner a right to be heard before a competent and impartial court as guaranteed by due process. of the Generics Act prescribing graduated penalties for violations of its provisions. SC held that: 1. YNOT had transported 6 carabaos from Masbate to Iloilo on January 13. generic equivalent would thereby be curtailed. c and d. and not unduly oppressive upon individuals. The penalty of suspension or cancellation of the physician's license is neither cruel. • There is substantive due process. 626-A (Oct. The prohibition against the use by doctors of "no substitution" and/or words of similar import in their prescription. may not be dispensed with because they are intended as a safeguard against official arbitrariness. on the contrary. such as the immediacy of the problem sought to be corrected and the urgency of the need to correct it. 626-A imposes an absolute ban not on the slaughter of the carabaos but on their movement. In any event. no private contract between doctor and patient may be allowed to override the power of the State to enact laws that are reasonably necessary to secure the health. dentists and veterinarians may freely ignore its prescriptions and prohibitions. Penal sanctions are indispensable if the law is to be obeyed. for physicians. • The minimum requirements of due process are notice and hearing which. Marcos in the exercise of his legislative power). paragraphs b. 1980 enacted by Pres. Under the challenged measure. 4. Executive Order No. In the case at bar. • In the case at bar. The carabao was confiscated by the police station commander.that the means are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose. royalties. packaging. A doctor may take in or refuse a patient. All contractual and property rights are held subject to a fair exercise 7. and strength as brand names.4-MANRESA 2008 2 possess the same active ingredients. just as the patient may take or refuse the doctor's advice or prescription. not worth the paper it is printed on. Toribio. The challenged measure is an invalid exercise of the police power because the method employed to conserve the carabaos is not reasonably . WON YNOT WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS. They are the "teeth" of the law. good order. to be imposed by the court after trial and conviction of the accused. safety. no doctor has ever filed an action for breach of contract against a patient who refused to take prescribed medication.it must appear that the interests of the public generally. considering that they can be killed anywhere. Ynot was denied due process. 25. The Court has been unable to find any constitutional infirmity in the Generics Act. YNOT argued that the EO is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes outright confiscation of the carabao or carabeef. RULING. The said EO prohibits the transportation of carabao and carabeef from one province to another. or degrading. EO 626-A has a lawful subject. ISSUE. If a doctor is allowed to prescribe a brand-name drug with "no substitution. and other inputs of production determine their pricing for the market. Lawful subject . by the measure itself. It. There certainly was no reason why the offense prohibited by the executive order should not have been proved first in a court of justice. and 2. generally speaking. inhuman. There are occasions when the notice and hearing may be dispensed with. Petitioners' allegation that these penalties violate the constitutional guarantee against excessive fines and cruel and degrading punishment. • To sum up then. Without them. many of which are priced beyond the reach of the common too because the high costs of advertising. In relation to US v. as forfeited to the government. no such trial is prescribed. but equally effective. has no merit. As aptly observed by the public respondent." the patient's option to buy a lower-priced. health and other social services available to all the people at affordable cost" 5. not the affluent and generally healthy minority. YES. Petitioners have also assailed Section 12. require such interference. there was no such pressure of time or action calling for the Ynot's peremptory treatment.
the PPA through PPA General Manager Rogelio Dayan issued PPA-AO No. worse. .. Veteran pilots and neophytes alike are suddenly confronted with one-year terms which ipso facto expire at the end of that period. they enjoyed a measure of security knowing that after passing five examinations and undergoing years of on-the-job training. The GSIS cannot deny the claim of Milagros for survivorship benefits based on this invalid proviso. they would have a license which they could use until their retirement. Held: It is void for being violative of the constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection of the law. be only for a term of one (1) year from date of effectivity subject to yearly renewal or cancellation by the Authority after conduct of a rigid evaluation of performance. In order to fall within the aegis of this provision. the surviving spouse has no right to survivorship pension “if the surviving spouse contracted the marriage with the pensioner within three years before the pensioner qualified for the pension." A license is a right or permission granted by some competent authority to carry on a business or do an act which. liberty.: Sec. GSIS VS. and retirement of the government employees. henceforth. as the fundamental requirements of procedural due process. 04-92 unreasonable and constitutionally infirm. Section 1 of the Bill of Rights lays down what is known as the "due process clause" of the Constitution. 04-92 was issued in stark disregard of respondents' right against deprivation of property without due process of law. 04-92. Denial of Due Process. unless sooner revoked by the PPA for mental or physical unfitness. Under the new issuance. The Court is convinced that PPA-AO No." It is also "the system of granting licenses (as for professional practice) in accordance with establishment standards. which provides that “[n]o person shall be deprived of life. Renewal of their license is now dependent on a "rigid evaluation of performance" which is conducted only after the license has already been cancelled.4-MANRESA 2008 3 necessary to the purpose of the law and. (Liezel Cua) 5. is fair. The proviso is contrary to Section 1. without such license. is unduly oppressive. 04-92 must be examined in light of this distinction." It is this pre-evaluation cancellation which primarily makes PPA-AO No. namely. notice and hearing. or property without due process of law. It is readily apparent that PPA-AO No. Hence. a distinction must be made between matters of procedure and matters of substance. In the past. it is a deprivation of property without due process of law. 2. filed with GSIS a claim for survivorship pension. viz. are essential only when an administrative body exercises its quasi-judicial function. limiting the term of appointment of harbor pilots to one year subject to yearly renewal or cancellation." ISSUE: Whether or not. 04-92. two conditions must concur. death." while SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS "requires that the law itself. may be practiced only by duly licensed individuals. such as issuing rules and regulations. There is no dispute that pilotage as a profession has taken on the nature of a property right. they have to contend with an annual cancellation of their license which can be temporary or permanent depending on the outcome of their performance evaluation. Consequently. Due process is violated because the owner of the property confiscated is denied the right to be heard in his defense and is immediately condemned and punished. Providing therein that "all existing regular appointments which have been previously issued either by the Bureau of Customs or the PPA shall remain valid up to 31 December 1992 only" and that "all appointments to harbor pilot positions in all pilotage districts shall. There is outright confiscation of benefits due the surviving spouse without giving the surviving spouse an opportunity to be heard. the instant petition must be denied. Unconstitutional—No due process of law. regulation. Milagros.The conferment on the administrative authorities of the power to adjudge the guilt of the supposed offender is a clear encroachment on judicial functions and militates against the doctrine of separation of powers.” According to GSIS. the use of the term "renewal. 1146 or the Revised Government Service Insurance Act of 1977. When one speaks of due process of law. MONTESCLAROS (2004) Facts: Nicolas filed and was approved an application for retirement benefits under PD No. an administrative body need not comply with the requirements of notice and hearing. would be illegal. 1. As a general rule. just like other professions. Article III of the Constitution. liberty. In the performance of its executive or legislative functions. Licensure is "the granting of license especially to practice a profession. Pilotage.” Issue: WON the proviso in Section 18 of PD 1146 is valid and constitutional. as wife and designated beneficiary.” The proviso (Sec. that there is a deprivation and that such deprivation is done without proper observance of due process. In essence. PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS "refers to the method or manner by which the law is enforced. PD 1146) is unduly oppressive in outrightly denying a dependent spouse’s claim for survivorship pension if the dependent spouse contracted marriage to the pensioner within the threeyear prohibited period. nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws." PPAAO No. GSIS denied the claim because under Section 18 of PD 1146. and supervision of pilots and the pilotage profession. Nicolas wed Milagros on 10 July 1983. COMELEC (2004) . less than one year from his date of retirement on “17 February 1984. 04-92 unduly restricts the right of harbor pilots to enjoy their profession before their compulsory retirement. The proviso undermines the purpose of PD 1146. (Karla Deles) 6. which is to assure comprehensive and integrated social security and insurance benefits to government employees and their dependents in the event of sickness. HELD: Yes. . and just. HARBOR PILOTS FACTS: Pursuant to its power of control. 18. CORONA VS. . No person shall be deprived of life. however. (Aisa Maunting) 4. In a real sense. not merely the procedures by which the law would be enforced. reasonable. or property without due process of law. the PPA violated the respondents' right to exercise their profession and their right to due process of law in issuing PPA-AO No. CHAVEZ VS. disability.
the New Tropical Medicine Foundation released its final report of a study on the Philippine blood banking system. he filed the present petition. She directed the then PNP Chief. Such a license is not a contract. constituting the Implementing Rules and Regulations of said law was promulgated by DOH.4-MANRESA 2008 4 FACTS: Petitioner Chavez. However. the National Blood Services Act providing for the phase out of commercial blood banks took effect. billboards. Series of 1995. three billboards were set up along the Balintawak Interchange of the North Expressway. and one of the statutory conditions of this license is that it might be revoked by the selectmen at their pleasure. and a revocation of it does not deprive the defendant of any property. The bulk of jurisprudence is that a license authorizing a person to enjoy a certain privilege is neither a property nor property right. the first and foremost consideration must be whether life. SECRETARY Facts: Republic Act No. thus: Acting on President Arroyo’s directive. liberty or property interest exists. considering that the billboards adverted to are mere product endorsements and cannot be construed as paraphernalia for premature campaigning under the rules. which contained Section 32 requiring all propaganda materials such as posters. On August 23. CHAVEZ VS. which allowed the establishment and operation by licensed physicians of blood banks and blood processing laboratories. It was further found that blood sold by persons to blood commercial banks are three times more likely to have any of the infections or blood transfusion transmissible diseases than those donated to PNRC. Chavez. Chavez asked the COMELEC that he be exempted from the application of Section 32.” In evaluating a due process claim. 1994. 2003. on various dates. It was revealed that the Philippines heavily relied on commercial sources of blood.32 is an invalid exercise of police power. ISSUE #1: W/N Sec. 2004. Petitioner Francisco I. On December 30. He contends that the PNP Guidelines violate the due process clause of the Constitution because: 1. RA 7719 provides for the phasing out of commercial blood banks. respondent Ebdane issued the assailed guidelines in the implementation of the ban on the carrying of firearms outside of residence. A licensee takes his license subject to such conditions as the Legislature sees fit to impose. respondent Ebdane. It does not confer an absolute right. a PTCFOR. The catena of American jurisprudence involving license to bear arms is perfectly in accord with our ruling that a PTCFOR is neither a property nor a property right. the COMELEC was acting well within its scope of powers when it required petitioner to discontinue the display of the subject billboards. or privilege within the meaning of these words in the Declaration of Rights. and such as may thereafter be reasonably imposed. petitioner filed his certificate of candidacy for the position of Senator under Alyansa ng Pag-asa. 1517. On January 6. etc showing the image or name of the candidate to be removed otherwise the same shall be considered as premature campaigning. on the other. Consequently. petitioners have already been operating commercial blood banks under Republic Act No. Pursuant to these agreements. Therefore. On April 28. liberty or property without due process of law. ROMULO (2004) Facts: In January 2003. or to cover them from public view pending the approval of his request. to equalize the situation between popular or rich candidates. 6520. In January of 1994. may be revoked any time. by preventing the former from enjoying undue advantage in exposure and publicity on account of their resources and popularity. the billboards featuring his name and image assumed partisan political character because the same indirectly promoted his candidacy. The law. he acted as a private individual and had all the right to lend his name and image to these products. Thus. (Jo Anne Beltran) 7. 1995. to suspend the issuance of Permits to Carry Firearms Outside of Residence (PTCFOR). requested the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) to reconsider the implementation of the assailed Guidelines. Issue: Whether pr not the PNP Guidelines violate the due process clause of the constitution Ruling: Section 1. It is true that when petitioner entered into the contracts or agreements to endorse certain products. his request was denied. immunity. Petitioner was directed to comply with the said provision by the COMELECâ€™s Law Department. but only a personal privilege to be exercised under existing restrictions. 7719 or the National Blood Services Act of 1994 was enacted into law and it . the ownership and carrying of firearms are constitutionally protected property rights which cannot be taken without due process of law and without just cause. seeks to provide an adequate supply of safe blood by promoting voluntary blood donation and by regulating blood banks in the country. and lesser-known or poorer candidates. when he filed his certificate of candidacy for Senator. (Norliza Mamukid) 8. President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo delivered a speech before the members of the PNP stressing the need for a nationwide gun ban in all public places to avert the rising crime incidents. entered into formal agreements with certain establishments to endorse their products. Years prior to the passage of the National Blood Services Act of 1994. RULING: NO. respondent COMELEC issued Resolution No. However. The COMELEC answered petitioner’s request by issuing another letter wherein it ordered him to remove or cause the removal of the billboards. however. Administrative Order No. the right to own and carry firearm is necessarily intertwined with the people’s inherent right to life and to protect life: and 2. 9. just like ordinary licenses in other regulated fields. BELTRAN VS. a licensed gun owner to whom a PTCFOR has been issued. on one hand. A close examination of the assailed provision reveals that its primary objectives are to prohibit premature campaigning and to level the playing field for candidates of public office. Article III of the Constitution provides that “no person shall be deprived of life. .
night clubs. day clubs.A. motels and inns in the ErmitaMalate area. deprivation of personal liberty and property. but the means adopted must be reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive upon individuals. Police power is the State authority to enact legislation that may interfere with personal liberty or property in order to promote the general welfare.” Held: The Ordinance is so replete with constitutional infirmities that almost every sentence thereof violates a constitutional provision. in each appropriate case. it must not only be within the corporate powers of the local government unit to enact and must be passed according to the procedure prescribed by law. () The tests of a valid ordinance are well established. liberty or property. require an interference with private rights. LAGUIO At issue is the constitutionality of the City Ordinance of Manila entitled: entitled– AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING THE ESTABLISHMENT OR OPERATION OF BUSINESSES PROVIDING CERTAIN FORMS OF AMUSEMENT. The guaranty serves as a protection against arbitrary regulation. Therefore. the Legislature deemed it necessary to phase out commercial blood banks. as the phrase implies. as well as the employees. as distinguished from those of a particular class. In other words. to be unmeritorious. it must also conform to the following substantive requirements: (1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute. (Sol Andoy) 9. usually called “procedural due process” and “substantive due process. That ordinances should be constitutional uphold the principle of the supremacy of the Constitution. ENTERTAINMENT. CITY OF MANILA VS. cabarets. This standard is aptly described as a responsiveness to the supremacy of reason. liberty and property of individuals. and (6) must not be unreasonable Anent the first criterion. SERVICES AND FACILITIES IN THE ERMITA-MALATE AREA. liberty. It must be evident that no other alternative for the accomplishment of the purpose less intrusive of private rights can work. namely. to secure the individual from the arbitrary exercise of the powers of the government.4-MANRESA 2008 5 Issue: WHETHER OR NOT R. . dance halls. and to secure to all persons equal and impartial justice and the benefit of the general law. or property. AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES The Ordinance disallows the operation of sauna parlors. The requirement that the enactment must not violate existing law gives stress to the precept that local government units are able to legislate only by virtue of their derivative legislative power. Classic procedural due process issues are concerned with what kind of notice and what form of hearing the government must provide when it takes a particular action. The purpose of the guaranty is to prevent governmental encroachment against the life. under the circumstances.” Procedural due process. (2) must not be unfair or oppressive. asks whether the government has an adequate reason for taking away a person’s life. (3) must not be partial or discriminatory. super clubs. . substantive due process looks to whether there is a sufficient justification for the government’s action Requisites for the valid exercise of Police Power are not met (TEST) To successfully invoke the exercise of police power as the rationale for the enactment of the Ordinance. It is in this regard that the Court finds the related grounds and/or issues raised by petitioners. of commercial blood banks but their interests must give way to serve a higher end for the interest of the public. and to free it from the imputation of constitutional infirmity. discotheques. A long line of decisions has held that for an ordinance to be valid. adopted a course of action that is both necessary and reasonable for the common good. Substantive due process.” Further. it states in Section 4 that in cases of subsequent violations of the provisions of the Ordinance. unrestrained by the established principles of private rights and distributive justice. liberty or property without due process of law. and destruction without a trial and conviction by the ordinary mode of judicial procedure. The Ordinance must satisfy two requirements: it must pass muster under the test of constitutionality and the test of consistency with the prevailing laws.” There is no controlling and precise definition of due process. forfeiture. a delegation of legislative power from the national legislature. This clause has been interpreted as imposing two separate limits on government. (5) must be general and consistent with public policy. A reasonable relation must exist between the purposes of the police measure and the . obedience to the dictates of justice. refers to the procedures that the government must follow before it deprives a person of life. It furnishes though a standard to which governmental action should conform in order that deprivation of life. liberty. In serving the interest of the public. not only must it appear that the interests of the public generally. and violation of the non-impairment clause. massage parlors. This action may seriously affect the owners and operators. the Legislature. 7719 IS A VALID EXERCISE OF POLICE POWER. and private corporations and partnerships are “persons” within the scope of the guaranty insofar as their property is concerned. karaoke bars. (4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade. as that phrase connotes. and to give meaning to the purpose of the law. to protect property from confiscation by legislative enactments. ordinances shall only be valid when they are not contrary to the Constitution and to the laws. owners and/or operators of the enumerated establishments are given three (3) months from the date of approval of the Ordinance within which “to wind up business operations or to transfer to any place outside the Ermita-Malate area or convert said businesses to other kinds of business allowable within the area. Held: The Court finds that the National Blood Services Act is a valid exercise of the State’s police power. The constitutional safeguard of due process is embodied in the fiat “(N)o person shall be deprived of life. from seizure. beerhouses. the “premises of the erring establishment shall be closed and padlocked permanently. PRESCRIBING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION THEREOF. be valid. and as such it is a limitation upon the exercise of the police power. In Section 3 thereof. . or property.
(Jazzie M. Try as the Ordinance may to shape morality. being a human frailty. Liberty in the constitutional sense not only means freedom from unlawful government restraint. The proviso. infringes on the constitutional guarantees of a person’s fundamental right to liberty and property. Liberty as guaranteed by the Constitution was defined by Justice Malcolm to include “the right to exist and the right to be free from arbitrary restraint or servitude. was signed into law. We lay stress on the acrid truth that sexual immorality. Liberty should be the rule and restraint the exception. The proviso “as of the date of his retirement” runs afoul of the due process clause as it outrightly deprives the surviving spouses whose respective marriages to the retired SSS members were contracted after the latter’s retirement of their survivor’s benefits. he acquires a vested right to benefits that is protected by the due process clause and retirees enjoy a protected property interest whenever they acquire a right to immediate payment under pre-existing law. Adults have a right to choose to forge such relationships with others in the confines of their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons. The Ordinance seeks to legislate morality but fails to address the core issues of morality. Section 4 (a) of the Act states: The senior citizens shall be entitled to the following: (a) the grant of twenty percent (20%) discount from all establishments relative to the utilization of services in hotels and similar lodging establishments. Means employed are constitutionally infirm It is readily apparent that the means employed by the Ordinance for the achievement of its purposes. By this outright disqualification. it is in the hearts of men.” Motel patrons who are single and unmarried may invoke this right to autonomy to consummate their bonds in intimate sexual conduct within the motel’s premises. It cannot be classified as a house of illrepute or as a nuisance per se on a mere likelihood or a naked assumption. That these are used as arenas to consummate illicit sexual affairs and as venues to further the illegal prostitution is of no moment. In a pension plan where employee participation is mandatory. This presumption. Sarona ) 11. it should not foster the illusion that it can make a moral man out of it because immorality is not a thing. The object of the Ordinance was. it would be extinguished of its soul as well as every human activity. employees have contractual or vested rights in the pension where the pension is part of the terms of employment. No. HELD: The proviso infringes the due process clause. DYCAICO VS. as long as they do not run afoul of the law.A. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows persons the right to make this choice. the means employed for the accomplishment thereof were unreasonable and unduly oppressive. Section 12-B(d) of RA 8282 provides that the primary beneficiaries who are entitled to survivor’s pension are those who qualify as such as of the date of retirement of the deceased member. The mandatory contributions to the SSS under RA 8282 form part of the employees’ compensation. He married Elena on January 1997 and he died on June 19997. 7432. SSS FACTS: Bonifacio became a member of SSS in 1980 and named Elena and their 8 children as his beneficiaries. Standards of due process require that the petitioner be allowed to present evidence to prove that her marriage to Bonifacio was contracted in good faith and as his bona fide spouse she is entitled to the survivor’s pension accruing upon his death. The right to be let alone is the beginning of all freedoms. accordingly. restaurants and recreation centers. He retired in 1989 and began receiving his SSS pension. According to the SSC. as it creates this conclusive presumption. but is deemed to embrace the right of man to enjoy the facilities with which he has been endowed by his Creator. 2004. in its every nook and cranny would be laid bare to the estimation of the authorities. is unconstitutional because it presumes a fact which is not necessarily or universally true. CARLOS SUPERDRUG VS. Bonifacio and Elena lived together as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage. is conclusive because the said surviving spouses are not afforded any opportunity to disprove the presence of the illicit purpose. The term cannot be dwarfed into mere freedom from physical restraint of the person of the citizen. There is outright confiscation of benefits due such surviving spouses without giving them an opportunity to be heard. amending R. for even under the guise of protecting the public interest. DSWD Facts: On February 26. Granting for the sake of argument that the objectives of the Ordinance are within the scope of the City Council’s police powers. Be it stressed that their consensual sexual behavior does not contravene any fundamental state policy as contained in the Constitution. Where the employee retires and meets the eligibility requirements. the proviso “as of the date of his retirement” in Section 12-B(d) which deprives the petitioner and those similarly situated dependent spouses of retired SSS members this opportunity to be heard must be struck down. personal rights and those pertaining to private property will not be permitted to be arbitrarily invaded. it has consistently ruled that entitlement to the survivor’s pension in one’s capacity as primary beneficiary is premised on the legitimacy of relationship with and dependency for support upon the deceased SSS member during his lifetime. Elena filed for survivor’s pension but said application was denied on the ground that they were married after Bonifacio’s retirement. it cannot for that reason alone be punished. the promotion and protection of the social and moral values of the community. 10.4-MANRESA 2008 6 means employed for its accomplishment. the governmental interference itself. If that were so and if that were allowed. Hence. moreover. the proviso qualifying the term “primary beneficiaries” for the purpose of entitlement to survivor’s pension has created the presumption that marriages contracted after the retirement date of SSS members were entered into for the purpose of securing the benefits under RA 8282. may take place in the most innocent of places While a motel may be used as a venue for immoral sexual activity. then the Ermita-Malate area would not only be purged of its supposed social ills. Their right to liberty under the due process clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. R. t is the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. if it is to be a repository of freedom. No. 9257. subject only to such restraint as are necessary for the common welfare. At that time. and purchase of medicines in all establishments for the exclusive use or . a building or establishment. it must include privacy as well.A. reprehensible or not.
property rights must bow to the primacy of police power because property rights. there is no basis for its nullification in view of the presumption of validity which every law has in its favor. Police power as an attribute to promote the common good would be diluted considerably if on the mere plea of petitioners that they will suffer loss of earnings and capital. impede or help impede the flow of traffic. the elimination of the bus terminals brings forth the distinct possibility and the equally harrowing reality of traffic congestion in the common parking areas. v. in the absence of evidence demonstrating the alleged confiscatory effect of the provision in question. WHEREFORE. Sec. While the Constitution protects property rights. including funeral and burial services for the death of senior citizens. No. statutes. On May 28. Issue: Are the means employed appropriate and reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose? GEROCHI VS. Ruling: No. 170656 August 15. (Felai Puerto) Facts: In 2003 to decongest traffic in the MM. ordain. The establishment and maintenance of the Special Trust Fund. with permits to operate the same denied those which are unable to meet the specifications. not repugnant to the constitution. VIRON TRANSPORTATION [G. similar to the power of eminent domain. and to grant benefits and privileges to them for their improvement and well-being as the State considers them an integral part of our society. can impose upon private establishments the burden of partly subsidizing a government program. and establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws. Issue: Was the law a valid exercise of legislative power? Ruling: Yes. R. and of the subjects of the same. 2007] As in Lucena Grand Central Terminal. Petitioners assail the constitutionality of Section 4 (a) of the Expanded Senior Citizens Act on the ground that: it violates the equal protection clause (Art. the EO is null and void. then reasonable specifications for the size of terminals could be instituted. (f). How the outright proscription against the existence of all terminals can be considered as reasonably necessary to solve the traffic problem. The establishment may claim the discounts granted under (a). so that they have not been able to show properly whether or not the tax deduction scheme really works greatly to their disadvantage. III. JAC Liner. PGMA issued EO 179 (Providing for the Establishment of Greater Manila Mass Transport System). On the contrary. the DSWD approved and adopted the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R. Accordingly. the SC also noted that bus terminals per se do not. 34 of the EPIRA and Rule 18 of its IRR were alleged as unconstitutional on the ground that the imposition of the Universal Charge on all end-users (of electricity) is oppressive and confiscatory and amounts to taxation without representation as the consumers were not given a chance to be heard and represented. a case of transference from one site to another.R. Held: The Court believes so. it is incorrect for petitioners to insist that the grant of the senior citizen discount is unduly oppressive to their business. though sheltered by due process. Issue: whether the State. this Court has not been enlightened. petitioners must accept the realities of business and the State. To establish common bus parking terminal areas. . in promoting the health and welfare of a special group of citizens. the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. Hence. when the conditions so demand as determined by the legislature. MMDA VS. No. that comprehensive sovereign authority we designate as the police power of the State. 34 of the EPIRA and its IRR are valid and constitutional.A." It is "[t]he power vested in the legislature by the constitution to make. it was. In the same case. 2004. The law is a legitimate exercise of police power which. Inc. MMDA issued a resolution recognizing the need for the following: 1. (g) and (h) as tax deduction based on the net cost of the goods sold or services rendered. has general welfare for its object. Sec. To remove the bus terminals located along EDSA and other major thoroughfares of MM.A. 2007 Facts: Sec. however. hence. Moreover. either with penalties or without. Given these. 9136. The constitutionality of the EO was questioned on the ground that it transgresses the possessory rights of owners and operators of public land transportation units over their respective terminals. If terminals lack adequate space such that bus drivers are compelled to load and unload passengers on the streets instead of inside the terminals. and ordinances. Inc. 9257. 1) of the Constitution. hence. which designated MMDA as the project’s implementing agency. it has been described as "the most essential.. The Senior Citizens Act was enacted primarily to maximize the contribution of senior citizens to nationbuilding. extending as it does to all the great public needs. as they shall judge to be for the good and welfare of the commonwealth. under the last paragraph of Section 34. in the exercise of police power. must yield to general welfare. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY July 17. To implement the same. because petitioners have not taken time to calculate correctly and come up with a financial report.4-MANRESA 2008 7 enjoyment of senior citizens. is well within the pervasive and nonwaivable power and responsibility of the government to secure the physical and economic survival and wellbeing of the community. this Court fails to see how the prohibition against the existence of the bus terminals can be considered a reasonable necessity to ease traffic congestion in the metropolis. insistent and the least limitable of powers." For this reason. the elimination of the terminals does not satisfy the standards of a valid police power measure. the questioned provision is invalidated. can intervene in the operations of a business which may result in an impairment of property rights in the process. No. and 2.
. net of any amount due to the distribution utility. to ensure the viability of the country's electric power industry. Universal Charge. on or before the fifteenth (15th) of the succeeding month.. shall create a Special Trust Fund which shall be disbursed only for the purposes specified herein in an open and transparent manner. (c) The equalization of the taxes and royalties applied to indigenous or renewable sources of energy vis-à-vis imported energy fuels. — Within one (1) year from the effectivity of this Act. (b) Missionary electrification. shall be imposed on all electricity end-users for the following purposes: (a) Payment for the stranded debts in excess of the amount assumed by the National Government and stranded contract costs of NPC and as well as qualified stranded contract costs of distribution utilities resulting from the restructuring of the industry. Any end-user or self-generating entity not connected to a distribution utility shall remit its corresponding universal charge directly to the TRANSCO.0025/kWh). and (e) A charge to account for all forms of crosssubsidies for a period not exceeding three (3) years.4-MANRESA 2008 8 This feature of the Universal Charge further boosts the position that the same is an exaction imposed primarily in pursuit of the State's police objectives. (d) An environmental charge equivalent to one-fourth of one centavo per kilowatt-hour (P0. . The universal charge shall be a non-bypassable charge which shall be passed on and collected from all endusers on a monthly basis by the distribution utilities. All amount collected for the universal charge shall be distributed to the respective beneficiaries within a reasonable period to be provided by the ERC. fixed and approved by the ERC. i.e. Collections by the distribution utilities and the TRANSCO in any given month shall be remitted to the PSALM Corp. The PSALM Corp. which shall accrue to an environmental fund to be used solely for watershed rehabilitation and management. as administrator of the fund. (Felai Puerto) SECTION 34. Said fund shall be managed by NPC under existing arrangements. a universal charge to be determined. The STF reasonably serves and assures the attainment and perpetuity of the purposes for which the Universal Charge is imposed.
In the case at bar. With this. not to speak of the fact that it can open the door to the adoption of multiple standards. this being only one of the options open to the Board. in each appropriate case. . motels. lodging houses. equal protection of the law. Inc. who are grantees of Certificates of Public Convenience to operate taxicabs within the City of Manila and to any other place in Luzon accessible to vehicular traffic. On Equal Protection of the Law: Petitioners alleged that the Circular in question violates their right to equal protection of the law because the same is being enforced in Metro Manila only and is directed solely towards the taxi industry. 4760. obedience to the dictates of justice. Pursuant to this policy.. and even graft and corruption. each being an operator and grantee of such certificate of public convenience. On December 29. 44 SCRA 307 (1972): It is not essential to the validity of general rules or regulations promulgated to govern future conduct of a class or persons or enterprises. motels and lodging houses would be open for inspection either by the City Mayor. It makes it unlawful for the owner. fairly. It prohibits a person less than 18 years old (minor) from being accepted in such hotels. that the leeway accorded the Board gives it a wide range of choice in gathering necessary information or data in the formulation of any policy. It is not mandatory that it should first call a conference or require the submission of position papers or other documents from operators or persons who may be affected. Petitioners cannot justifiably claim. It would thus be an affront to reason to stigmatize an ordinance enacted precisely to meet what a municipal lawmaking body considers an evil of rather serious proportion an arbitrary and capricious exercise of authority. 3. INC. The span of six years supplies that reasonable standard. therefore. there is no question that the act of Board of Manila was an exercise of police power for the said ordinance was precisely enacted to minimize certain practices hurtful to public morals. THE BOARD OF TRANSPORTATION and THE DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF LAND TRANSPORTATION. providing for the Phasing out and Replacement of Old and Dilapidated Taxis. keeper or duly authorized representative of a hotel. A reasonable standard must be adopted to apply to all vehicles affected uniformly. The law simply imposes restrictions to serve its purpose. respondent Board of Transportation (BOT) issued Memorandum Circular No.4-MANRESA 2008 9 4. 101 however. It would require the owner. TAXICAB OPERATORS OF METRO MANILA.. unless the law provides otherwise. motel. be valid. the prohibition by the ordinance cannot be considered unreasonable and oppressive because the petitioners are not prohibited by the said ordinance to stop their operations. THE HONORABLE CITY MAYOR OF MANILA Facts: On June 13. manager. Issue: W/N Ordinance No. There is no controlling and precise definition of due process. 1977. 1981. tavern or common inn unless accompanied by parents or a lawful guardian. Petitioners Ace Transportation Corporation and Felicisimo Cabigao are two of the members of TOMMI. 5. that they were deprived of procedural due process. from imputation of legal infirmity. As held in Central Bank vs. plan or program. 4. the Municipal Board of the City of Manila enacted Ordinance No. the Board hereby declares that no car beyond six years shall be operated as taxi. Hon. Held: On Procedural and Substantive Due Process: It is clear from the provision of Presidential Decree No. The standard of due process which exist both as a procedural and as substantive requisite to free the challenged ordinance or any governmental action for that matter. 4760 has the following provisions: Also. Issue: WON the memorandum Circulars did not afford petitioners procedural and substantive due process. is responsiveness to the supremacy of reason. or lodging house to refrain from entertaining or accepting any guest or customer or letting any room or other quarter to any person or persons without his filling up the prescribed form in a lobby open to public view at all times. vs. Ruling: No. On October 10. It furnishes though a standard to which the governmental action should conform in order that deprivation of life. liberty or property. which is given wide discretionary authority. vs. manager." Petitioners further take the position that fixing the ceiling at six (6) years is arbitrary and oppressive. It would seem that what should be deemed unreasonable and what would amount to an abdication of the power to govern is inaction in the face of an admitted deterioration of the state of public morals. Ordinance No. 77-42. Due to this. Petitioners who were operators of hotels and motels filed a petition against respondent assailing the constitutionality of Ordinance No. Cloribel and Banco Filipino. the mantle of protection associated with the due process guaranty does not cover petitioners. Dispensing with a public hearing prior to the issuance of the Circulars is neither violative of procedural due process. INC. (Teen Pague) 5. As public respondents contend. possible collusion. Facts: Petitioner Taxicab Operators of Metro Manila. 4760. the present Petition was instituted. (TOMMI) is a domestic corporation composed of taxicab operators. and protection against arbitrary and unreasonable classification and standard. 2. or their duly authorized representatives. or the Chief of Police. This particular manifestation of a police power measure being specifically aimed to safeguard public morals is immune from such imputation of nullity resting purely on conjecture and unsupported by anything of substance. It would be different if the law prohibits the operation of motels and hotels. 4760 of the City of Manila is violative of the due process clause. however. It also being provided that the premises and facilities of such hotels. keeper or duly authorized representative of such establishments to lease any room or portion thereof more than twice every 24 hours. it is impractical to subject every taxicab to constant and recurring evaluation. and justly. 1963. ERMITA-MALATE HOTEL AND MOTEL OPERATORS ASSOCIATION. At the outset it should be pointed out that implementation 1.
It is a police power measure. LUPANGCO VS. DEPARTMENT VS. To be valid. 77-42. What is needed to be done by the respondent is to find out the source of such leakages and stop it right there. (Jazzie M. it need only be recalled that the equal protection clause does not imply that the same treatment be accorded all and sundry. VELASCO VS. HELD: Such resolution is unreasonable. of the unconstitutionality of such ordinance. The enforcement of Resolution No. BENGZON 9. Thus is of common knowledge. ERICTA VS. The challenged Circulars satisfy the foregoing criteria. compared to those of other places. DEL ROSARIO VS. envisioned in days immediately proceeding every examination day including examination day.’ FACTS: This is an appeal from an order of the lower court dismissing a suit for declaratory relief challenging the constitutionality based on Ordinance No. therefore. It applies to things or persons identically or similarly situated. No costs. instructor official or employee of any of the aforementioned or similars institutions during the 3 . Furthermore. YNOT VS. the appealed order of the lower court is affirmed. a substantial distinction exists so that infringement of the equal protection clause can hardly be successfully claimed. or shall receive any hand-out. which make for real differences. briefing. are subjected to heavier traffic pressure and more constant use. WHEREFORE. or any review center or the like or any reviewer. then they must be held to be invalid. such rules and regulations must be reasonable and fairly adapted to the end in view. What is required under the equal protection clause is the uniform operation by legal means so that all persons under identical or similar circumstance would be accorded the same treatment both in privilege conferred and the liabilities imposed. PRC has no authority to dictate on the reviewees as to how they should prepare themselves for the licensure examinations. review material. The objectives behind its enactment are: "(1) To be able to impose payment of the license fee for engaging in the business of massage clinic. VILLEGAS ‘A city ordinance prohibiting barbershop operators from rendering massage service to their customers in a separate room is a valid exercise of the police power. college or university. CFI 8. In so far as the non-application of the assailed Circulars to other transportation services is concerned. 105 is not a guarantee that the alleged leakages in the licensure examinations will be eradicated or at least minimized. Sarona ) 12. UNITED HARBOR The Board's reason for enforcing the Circular initially in Metro Manila is that taxicabs in this city. 7. If shown to bear no reasonable relation to the purposes for which they are authorized to be issued. This Court has been most liberal in sustaining ordinances based on the general welfare clause. CORONA VS. SANDIEGO 13. and that it must apply equally to each member of the class. CA FACTS: PRC issued a resolution directing that no examinee for the CPA Board Exam shall attend any review class. Administrative authorities should not act arbitrarily and capriciously in the issuance of rules and regulations. lecturer. It permits of classification of the object or subject of the law provided classification is reasonable or based on substantial distinction. IAC 11.Bhing doquilla 6. There is no showing. Such resolution also violates the academic freedom of the schools concerned. HELD: Attack against validity cannot succeed. it is inconceivable how the Commission can manage to have a watchful eye on each and every examinee during the three days before the examination period. BALACUIT VS. Considering that traffic conditions are not the same in every city. (2) To forestall possible immorality which might grow out of the construction of separate rooms for massage of customers. and. The unreasonableness is more obvious in that one who is caught committing the prohibited acts even without any ill motives will be barred from taking future examinations conducted by the respondent PRC. or any tip from any school. conference or the like conducted by. 4964 of the City of Manila. CITY 10.4-MANRESA 2008 10 outside Metro Manila is also Memorandum Circular No. as this will infringe n the examinees’ right to libery. the contention being that it amounts to a deprivation of property of petitioners-appellants of their means of livelihood without due process of law.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.