You are on page 1of 17

Calalang vs.


G.R. No. 47800 December 2, 1940

Petitioner: Maximo Calalang

Respondents: A.D. Williams, Et al.
1. Whether the rules and regulations promulgated by the
Ponente: Laurel, J: respondents pursuant to the provisions of
Commonwealth Act NO. 548 constitute an unlawful
inference with legitimate business or trade and abridged
the right to personal liberty and freedom of locomotion?
2. Whether the rules and regulations complained of infringe
Maximo Calalang in his capacity as a private citizen and a taxpayer of upon the constitutional precept regarding the promotion
Manila filed a petition for a writ of prohibition against the respondents. of social justice to insure the well-being and economic
security of all the people?
It is alleged in the petition that the National Traffic Commission, in its
resolution of July 17, 1940, resolved to recommend to the Director of the Public
Works and to the Secretary of Public Works and Communications that animal-
drawn vehicles be prohibited from passing along Rosario Street extending
from Plaza Calderon de la Barca to Dasmariñas Street from 7:30 Am to 12:30 Held:
pm and from 1:30 pm to 530 pm; and along Rizal Avenue extending from the
railroad crossing at Antipolo Street to Echague Street from 7 am to 11pm for a 1. No. The promulgation of the Act aims to promote safe transit
period of one year from the date of the opening of the Colgante Bridge to traffic. upon and avoid obstructions on national roads in the interest
and convenience of the public. In enacting said law, the
The Chairman of the National Traffic Commission on July 18, 1940 National Assembly was prompted by considerations of public
recommended to the Director of Public Works with the approval of the convenience and welfare. It was inspired by the desire to
Secretary of Public Works the adoption of the measure proposed in the relieve congestion of traffic, which is a menace to the public
resolution aforementioned in pursuance of the provisions of the safety. Public welfare lies at the bottom of the
Commonwealth Act No. 548 which authorizes said Director with the approval promulgation of the said law and the state in order to
from the Secretary of the Public Works and Communication to promulgate promote the general welfare may interfere with personal
rules and regulations to regulate and control the use of and traffic on national liberty, with property, and with business and
roads. occupations. Persons and property may be subject to all
kinds of restraints and burdens in order to secure the general
On August 2, 1940, the Director recommended to the Secretary the comfort, health, and prosperity of the State. To this
approval of the recommendations made by the Chairman of the National fundamental aims of the government, the rights of the
Traffic Commission with modifications. The Secretary of Public Works individual are subordinated. Liberty is a blessing which
approved the recommendations on August 10, 1940. should not be made to prevail over authority because society
will fall into anarchy. Neither should authority be made to
The Mayor of Manila and the Acting Chief of Police of Manila have prevail over liberty because then the individual will fall into
enforced and caused to be enforced the rules and regulation. As a slavery. The paradox lies in the fact that the apparent
consequence, all animal-drawn vehicles are not allowed to pass and pick up curtailment of liberty is precisely the very means of
passengers in the places above mentioned to the detriment not only of their insuring its preserving.
owners but of the riding public as well.
2. No. Social justice means the promotion of the welfare of all 1. El Banco Español-Filipino (bank) instituted action against Engracio
the people, the adoption by the Government of measures Palanca
calculated to insure economic stability of all the competent to foreclose a mortgage upon various parcels of real property in Manila City.
elements of society, through the maintenance of a proper The property was used as security for a debt by Palanca with the bank.
economic and social equilibrium in the interrelations of the 2. After the execution of the instrument by the mortgagor, Palanca, he
members of the community, constitutionally, through the returned
adoption of measures legally justifiable, or extra- to China, his native country. He then died there.
constitutionally, through the exercise of powers underlying the 3. Since required pursuant to Section 399 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the
existence of all governments on the time-honored principles defendant being a nonresident at the time of the institution of the present
of salus populi est suprema lex. action, publication was made in due form in a newspaper of the City of
Manila. The court further directed that the clerk of the court should deposit
in the post office a copy of the summons and complain directed to the
Social justice must be founded on the recognition of the defendant at his last place of residence, the City of Amoy, in the Empire of
necessity of interdependence among divers and diverse units China.
of a society and of the protection that should be equally and 4. Whether the clerk complied with this order does not affirmatively appear.
evenly extended to all groups as a combined force in our There is however, an affidavit signed by an employee of the bank’s attorneys
social and economic life, consistent with the fundamental and showing that he (the employee) had deposited in the Manila post-office a
paramount objective of the state of promoting health, comfort registered letter of the summons, affidavit and the complaint.
and quiet of all persons, and of bringing about “the greatest 5. The case proceeded in the usual course. The defendant not having
good to the greatest number.” appeared,
the judgment was taken against him by default, in favor of the El Banco.
the defendant naturally did not satisfy the judgment, the mortgage property
PETITIONER: El Banco Español-Filipino was sold in a public auction and was bought by the bank.
RESPONDENTS: Vicente Palanca 6. 7 years after the sale, a motion was made by Vicente Palanca, as
SUMMARY: El Banco instituted a foreclosure for the mortageged properties administrator
of of the estate of the original defendant, wherein Vicente requested the court to
Palanca which he used for security for a loan. 7 years after the foreclosure set aside the previous order of default because the court had never acquired
and sale jurisdiction over the defendant or over the subject of the action.
of the property, Palanca’s administratix requested to set aside the previous 7. The lower court denied the application and from this, Vicente appealed.
judgement on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction because no notice
was ISSUE/s:
actually received by the defendant who is a nonresident. Trial court denied 1. WoN the acquired the necessary jurisdiction to enable it to proceed with
the the
motion. The SC affirmed saying that since the requirement publication in a foreclosure of the mortgage – YES
newspaper was met, the due process requirement of the defendant’s right to 2. WoN the irregularity in the proceedings (the notice not being
be secured)
heard is already met. Receipt of notice is not essential. The possibility of the was of such gravity as to amount to a denial of the due process of law -
clerk NO
failing to deliver the letter is not fatal.
DOCTRINE: In a foreclosure case, some notification of the proceedings to RULING: Judgement in question is affirmed.
the nonresident owner is everywhere recognized as essential. Statutes
generally provide for publication, and usually in addition for mailing the notice RATIO:
to the defendant, if his residence is known. However, among the two, only 1. The third requirement of due process is that the defendant shall have an
publication is necessarily essential. opportunity to be heard. In a foreclosure case, some notification of the
proceedings to the nonresident owner is everywhere recognized as essential.
2. Statutes generally provide for publication, and usually in addition for became emotional and started crying, prompting her to take her first shot of
mailing Emperador Brandy. After consuming more or less five glasses of drinks, she
the notice to the defendant, if his residence is known. felt dizzy so she laid her head down on Oporto’s lap. Oporto then started
3. It will be observed that this mode of notification does not inolve any kissing her head and they would remove her baseball cap. This angered her
absolute so she told them to stop, and simply tried to hide her face with the cap. The
assurance that the absent owner shall thereby receive actual notice. The group just laughed at her and still made her drink more. She fell asleep but
periodical containing the notice has a chance to not come in the defendant’s
was woken up so that she could drink the remaining liquor inside the Brandy
hands. The provision also of our law relative to the mailing of notice does not
bottle. She refused but they insisted so she drank. Again, AAA fell asleep.
absolutely require the mailing of notice unconditionally and in every event,
but only in the case where the defendant’s residence is known.
4. Hence, actual notice to the defendant in cases of this kind is not under the When she regained consciousness, she saw that she was already at the
law Alquizola Lodging House. She recognized that place because she had been
not be considered absolutely necessary. Reasoning of this rule: Property is there before. She would thereafter fall back asleep and wake up again. And
always assumed to be in the possession of the owner. It can be assumed during one of the times that she was conscious, she saw Oporto on top of
that her, kissing her on different parts of her body, and having intercourse with
he will know of any proceeding related to it for its condemnation and sale. her. At one point, AAA woke up while Carampatana was inserting his penis
5. Duty of the owner of the real estate who is a nonresident to take measures into her private organ. Alquizola then joined and started to kiss her. For the
that he is represented when his property is called into requisition. If he fails last time, she fell unconscious.
to do this or get notice of the publiczation which have usually been required,
it is his misfortune. Accused-appellants Carampatana, Oporto and Alquizola were charged with
6. If property of a nonresident cannot be reached by legal process upon
the crime of rape of a 16-year old girl. The RTC convicted Carampatana and
constructive notice, then our statues were passed in vain, for if the person is
not within the jurisdiction of the court, no judgment can operate on the Oporto guilty as principals and Alquizola as an accomplice while the CA
property and the courts would be powerless to assist a citizen against a acquitted them of the crime charged, hence, this present appeal, alleging that
nonresident. the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in acquitting respondents.
7. Notice was given by publication in a newspaper and this is the only form of
notice which the law unconditionally requires. This is in our (the SC) opinion Private respondents aver that a judgment of acquittal is immediately final and
all that was absolutely necessary to sustain the proceedings. executory and that the prosecution cannot appeal the acquittal because of
8. All that due process of law of law thereafter requires is an opportunity for the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy.
defendant to be heard. As publication was duly made, it would seem highly The OSG stated the following error:
unreasonable to hold that the failure to mail the notice was fatal.
9. In every situation of this character (property related cases) an appropriate “The appellate decision of acquittal is null and void for having been rendered
remedy is always at hand. If the property has been taken without due
with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, an
exception to the principle of double jeopardy.”
People of the Philippines and AAA v. Court of Appelas 21st Division,
Mindanao Station, Raymund Carampatana, Jeofhel Oporto, and Moises ISSUE:
Alquizola Did the Court of Appeals act with grave abuse of discretion in acquitting the
G.R. No. 183652, February 25, 2015 private respondents?

YES, the Court of Appeals erred in acquitting private respondents. As a
After attending a graduation dinner party, AAA, together with her friends, general rule, the prosecution cannot appeal or bring error proceedings from a
went to Alson’s Palace for a drinking session to celebrate their graduation. judgment rendered in favor of the defendant in a criminal case. The reason is
During such session, they shared their problems with each other. AAA that a judgment of acquittal is immediately final and executory, and the
prosecution is barred from appealing lest the constitutional prohibition conviction, he appealed the second, but was denied in state court. Before the
against double jeopardy be violated. Supreme Court, he argued that the Fourteenth Amendment should have
been interpreted to contain the freedom to contract among the rights
Despite acquittal, however, either the offended party or the accused may encompassed by substantive due process.
appeal, but only with respect to the civil aspect of the decision. Or, said
judgment of acquittal may be assailed through a petition for certiorari under
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court showing that the lower court, in acquitting the Question
accused, committed not merely reversible errors of judgment, but also
exercised grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of Does the Bakeshop Act violate the liberty protected by the Due Process
jurisdiction, or a denial of due process, thereby rendering the assailed Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
judgment null and void.

If there is grave abuse of discretion, however, granting petitioner’s prayer is Conclusion

not tantamount to putting private respondents in double jeopardy.
The Court invalidated the New York law. The majority maintained that the
The petitioner has sufficiently discharged the burden of proving that the
statute interfered with the freedom of contract, and thus the Fourteenth
respondent appellate court committed grave abuse of discretion in acquitting
Amendment's right to liberty afforded to employer and employee. The Court
private respondents. It appears that in reaching its judgment, the CA merely
further held that the New York law failed the rational basis test for
relied on the evidence presented by the defense and utterly disregarded that
determining whether government action is constitutional. The majority
of the prosecution. A more careful perusal will reveal that it was simply lifted,
reasoned that the Bakeshop Act had no rational basis because long working
if not altogether parroted, from the testimonies of the accused, especially that
hours did not dramatically undermine the health of employees, and baking is
of Oporto, Carampatana, and Alquizola. It presented the private respondents’
not particularly dangerous.
account and allegations as though these were the established facts of the
case, which it later conveniently utilized to support its ruling of acquittal.

WHEREFORE, the Supreme Court held that the assailed CA decision be Broadly interpreting state authority to regulate under its police powers,
Reversed and Set Aside and finding private respondents guilty of the crime Justice Harlan in his dissent articulated reasoning that would inform later
of rape. decisions in the post-Lochner era. Rather than requiring the government to
prove that a law had a rational basis, he would require the party challenging
the law to prove that the test was not met. (This is the current rule.)

Lanzetta V. New Jersey

Lochner v. New York In Lanzetta v. New Jersey (1938) 306 U.S. 451, the Supreme Court found
that a New Jersey statute was so vague and uncertain as to be repugnant to
the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The statute provided that " 'any person not engaged in any lawful occupation,
Facts of the case known to be a member of any gang consisting of two or more persons, who
has been convicted at least three times of being a disorderly person, or who
The state of New York enacted a statute known as the Bakeshop Act, which has been convicted of any crime, in this or in any other State, is declared to
forbid bakers to work more than 60 hours a week or 10 hours a day. Lochner be a gangster . . .' " and may be punished by fine or imprisonment. ( Lanzetta
was accused of permitting an employee to work more than 60 hours in one v. New Jersey, supra, 306 U.S. at p. 452.)
week. The first charge resulted in a fine of $25, and a second charge a few
years later resulted in a fine of $50. While Lochner did not challenge his first
Observing that the word "gang" has numerous and varied meanings and is does not explicitly protect a general right to privacy, the various guarantees
undefined by the common law, the Supreme Court determined that the within the Bill of Rights create penumbras, or zones, that establish a right to
descriptions and illustrations used by the lower court to ascribe meaning to privacy. Together, the First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments create the
the word "are not sufficient to constitute definition, inclusive or exclusive." ( right to privacy in marital relations. The Connecticut statute conflicted with
Id. at p. 45.) the exercise of this right and was therefore held null and void.

The court also found that "the lack of certainty of the challenged provision is
not limited to the word 'gang' or to its dependent 'gangster.' . . . The
enactment employs the expression, 'known to be a member.' It is ambiguous. Justice Goldberg, joined by Justices Warren and Brennan, concurred. Rather
There immediately arises the doubt whether actual or putative association is than finding that the right to privacy was contained in imaginary penumbras,
meant. If actual membership is required, that status must be established as a Goldberg located it in the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments.
fact, and the word 'known' would be without significance. If reputed Justice Harlan concurred, arguing that the Due Process Clause of the
membership is enough, there is uncertainty whether that reputation must be Fourteenth Amendment protects the right to privacy.
general or extend only to some persons. And the statute fails to indicate what
it constitutes membership or how one may join a 'gang.' " ( Id. at p. 458.) Justice White concurred, arguing that the Fourteenth Amendment was the
proper basis for the decision.
Because the statute condemned no act or omission, and the terms it used
were so "vague, indefinite and uncertain" (ibid.), the court concluded that it Justice Black, joined by Justice Stewart, dissented. Unpersuaded by the
violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. loose reasoning of the majority, Black felt that there was no way to infer that
the Constitution contained a right to privacy. He also dismissed the views of
Griswold v. Connecticut the concurrences that it could be found in the Ninth and Fourteenth
Facts of the case Amendments.

In 1879, Connecticut passed a law that banned the use of any drug, medical Justice Stewart, joined by Justice Black, filed a separate dissenting opinion.
device, or other instrument in furthering contraception. A gynecologist at the Stewart argued that despite his personal view that the law was "uncommonly
Yale School of Medicine, C. Lee Buxton, opened a birth control clinic in New silly," he felt that the Court had no choice but to find it constitutional.
Haven in conjunction with Estelle Griswold, who was the head of Planned
Parenthood in Connecticut. They were arrested and convicted of violating the Brief Fact Summary. Appellant Jane Roe, a pregnant mother who wished to
law, and their convictions were affirmed by higher state courts. Their plan obtain an abortion, sued on behalf of all woman similarly situated in an effort
was to use the clinic to challenge the constitutionality of the statute under the to prevent the enforcement of Texas statutes criminalizing all abortions except
Fourteenth Amendment before the Supreme Court. those performed to save the life of the mother.

Question Synopsis of Rule of Law. Statutes that make criminal all abortions except
when medically advised for the purpose of saving the life of the mother are an
Does the Constitution protect the right of marital privacy against state unconstitutional invasion of privacy.
restrictions on a couple's ability to be counseled in the use of contraceptives?
Roe v. Wade
A right to privacy can be inferred from several amendments in the Bill of
Rights, and this right prevents states from making the use of contraception
by married couples illegal. Facts. Texas statutes made it a crime to procure or attempt an abortion
except when medically advised for the purpose of saving the life of the
mother. Appellant Jane Roe sought a declaratory judgment that the statutes
In a 7-2 decision authored by Justice Douglas, the Court ruled that the were unconstitutional on their face and an injunction to prevent defendant
Constitution did in fact protect the right of marital privacy against state Dallas County District Attorney from enforcing the statutes. Appellant alleged
restrictions on contraception. While the Court explained that the Constitution that she was unmarried and pregnant, and that she was unable to receive a
legal abortion by a licensed physician because her life was not threatened by For the stage subsequent to viability, the State may regulate and even
the continuation of her pregnancy and that she was unable to afford to travel proscribe abortion, except where necessary for the preservation of the
to another jurisdiction to obtain a legal abortion. Appellant sued on behalf of mother’s life, based upon the State’s interest in the potential of the potential
herself and all other women similarly situated, claiming that the statutes were life of the unborn child.
unconstitutionally vague and abridged her right of personal privacy, protected
by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
Procedural due process
Issue. Do the Texas statutes improperly invade a right possessed by the
appellant to terminate her pregnancy embodied in the concept of personal ANG TIBAY v. CIR (HENRY)
liberty contained in the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, in the February 27, 1940 | Laurel, J. | Procedural Due Process
personal marital, familial, and sexual privacy protected by the Bill of Rights or PETITIONER: Ang Tibay, represented by Toribio Teodoro, et al.
its penumbras, or among the rights reserved to the people by the Ninth RESPONDENTS: The Court of Industrial Relations, et al.
Amendment? SUMMARY: Ang Tibay allegedly ran low of leather supplies and are unable
commit to the Philippine Army enough leather products. This lead to the
Held. The right to personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but the right
is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in
Teodoro, to decide to lay off some of its employees. All being part of NLU,
The abortion laws in effect in the majority of the States are of relatively recent
filed against Teodoro with unfair labor practice as ground, they were alleging
vintage, deriving from statutory changes generally enacted in the latter half of
the 19th century. At common law abortion performed before quickening (the
NWB was being unjustly favored as nobody from them was laid off. The CIR
first recognizable movement of the fetus in utero) was not an indictable
ruled in favor of Teodoro, however the NWB appealed to the SC, who
offense, and it is doubtful that abortion was ever a firmly established common
law crime even when it destroyed a quick fetus.
the decision. There was then a motion for a new trial filed by NLU with new
Three reasons have been advanced for the historical enactment of criminal solid evidence that made the SC grant their motion in the light of procedural
abortion laws. The first is that the laws are the product of a Victorian social due
concern to discourage illicit sexual conduct, but this argument has been taken process.
seriously by neither courts nor commentators. The second reason is that the DOCTRINE: The Court of Industrial Relations may be said to be free from
abortion procedure is hazardous, therefore the State’s concern is to protect the rigidity of certain procedural requirements but it does not mean that it
pregnant women. However, modern medical techniques have altered the can, in justifiable cases coming before it, entirely ignore or disregard the
situation, with abortions being relatively safe particularly in the first trimester. fundamental and essential requirements of due process in trials and
The third reason is the State’s interest is in protecting the prenatal life. investigations of an administrative case.
However, this is somewhat negated by the fact that the pregnant woman FACTS:
cannot be prosecuted for the act of abortion. 1. Petitioner Ang Tibay, a leather company, experienced shortage of leather
soles on 1938, making it necessary for Toribio Teodoro (owner) to
For the stage prior to the approximate end of the first trimester, the abortion temporarily lay off some of its employees (who in this case, apparently are
decision must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s members of the National Labor Union Inc.).
attending physician, and may not be criminalized by statute. 2. The NLU claims that Ang Tibay is guilty of unfair labor practices because
Teodoro is discriminating against the NLU and is unjustly favoring the
For the stage subsequent to the approximate end of the first trimester, the National Workers’ Brotherhood (company/employer union dominated by
State may regulate abortion in ways reasonably related to maternal health him) because nobody from NWB was included in those laid off.
based upon the State’s interest in promoting the health of the mother. 3. Aggrieved, the employees filed a case against Ang Tibay to the CIR,
it of unfair labor practice, that Teodoro’s claim of shortage of leather is
entirely falseand unsupported by records of the BOC and the Books of
Accounts, and was only in fact a scheme to discharge members of the NLU proceedings:
from work. CIR ruled in favor of NLU. a. Right to a hearing
4. By appeal to the SC, the ruling was reversed after the SC found that there b. Tribunal must consider evidence presented
was c. Decision must have something to support itself
no merit to NLU’s contention. d. Evidence must be substantial
5. NLU then prays for the vacation of the judgment rendered by the SC with e. Decision must be based on evidence presented at a hearing
the f. Tribunal or body or any of its judges must act n its own independent
following claims, among others: consideration of the law and facts of the controversy, and not simply
a. That Teodoro’s claim of shortage of leather soles in ANG TIBAY is accept the views of a subordinate
entirely false and unsupported g. The board or body should, in all controversial questions, render to
b. Shortage of leather materials was but a scheme to systematically its decision in such manner that the parties to the proceeding can
discharge all members of NLU from work know the various issue involved, and the reason for the decision
c. NWB is dominated by Teodoro rendered
6. NLU hence filed for a Motion for New Trial, with which Ang Tibay filed an 5. Since there was a failure to grasp the fundamental issue involved due to
opposition for. Hence, this motion. failure to receive all relevant evidence, the motion for a new trial was
ISSUE/s: granted.
2. WoN NLU was denied due process by the CIR. – YES
RULING: Motion for new trial granted, case is remanded to the CIR with YNOT v. IAC (ELIEL)
instruction March 20, 1987 | Cruz, J. | Substantial Due Process
that it reopen the case, receive all such evidence as may be relevant, and PETITIONER: Restituto Ynot
otherwise RESPONDENTS: Intermediate Appellate Court, Integrated Nation Polic, and
proceed in accordance with the requirements set forth. the
RATIO: Regional Director, Bureau of Animal Industry
1. Cir is a special court whose functions are stated in CA No. 103. It is more SUMMARY: President Marcos issued EO 626-A prohibiting the movement
of and
an administrative board than a part of the integrated judicial system. It not slaughtering of carabaos. Ynot was transporting six carabaos in a pump boat
only exercises judicial or quasi-judicial functions in the determination of from
disputes between employers and employees but its functions are far more Masbate to Iloilo when they were confiscated by the police station
comprehensive and extensive, as far as issues are concerned with commander.
employers Ynot sued for recovery but were unable to be produced. RTC sustained the
and laborers, landlords and tenants, among others. confiscation, and appealed to the IAC, upholding the same. Hence this
2. Its duty is to prevent or arbitrate disputes which are submitted to the petition.
Secretary DOCTRINE: Due process is violated because the owner of the property
of Labor which are to be dealt by the Court for the sake of public interest, confiscated is denied the right to be heard in his defense and is immediately
which is possible through reconciliation of parties and/or inducing them to condemned and punished.
settle by amicable agreement. FACTS:
3. SC had the occasion to point out that CIR is not narrowly constrained by 1. EO 626-A prohibiting interprovincial movement of carabaos and the
technical rules of procedure, and CA No. 103 requires it to act according to slaughtering of carabaos.
justice and equity and substantial merits of the case, without regard to 2. Ynot transported six carabaos in a pump boat from Masbate to Iloilo, when
technicalities or legal forms and shall not be bound by any technical rules of they were confiscated by the police station commander of Barotac Nuevo,
legal evidence but may inform its mind in such manner as it may deem just Iloilo, for violation of EO 626-A
and equitable. 3. Ynot sued for recovery, and the RTC issued a writ of replevin upon filing of
4. However, this does not entail that CIR is free from the rigidity of certain bond. RTC sustained confiscation, since they could not longer be produced,
procedural requirements most specially the fundamental and essential order the confiscation of the bond.
requirements of due process in trials and investigations of an administrative 4. Ynot appealed the decision to the IAC, which upheld the RTC decision.
character. There are cardinal primary rights which must be respected even in 5. Hence this petition. Alleging that the EO is unconstitutional as it violates
due process.
ISSUE/s: August 7, 1984 Students prayed for preliminary mandatory injunction for the
1. WoN EO 626-A violates due process– YES
RULING: EO 626-A is declared unconstitutional. refusal of the National Universty to let them enrol.
1. The minimum requirements of due process are notice and hearing, which
generally speaking, may not be dispensed with because they are intended as
September 24, 1984 University president replied that the petitioners failure to
a safeguard agasint official arbitrariness.
2. There are instances, previous judicial hearing may be omitted without
violation of due process in view of the nature of the property involved or the enrol for the first semester of SY 84-85 is due to their own fault because the
urgency of the need to protect the general welfare from a clear and present
danger. enrollment was already closed and that DeGuzman and Ramacula’s academic
3. In the instant case, the carabaos were arbitrarily confiscated by the police
station commander, were returned to the petitioner only after he had filed a showing was “poor” and they have failures in their records and are not of good
complaint for recovery and given a supersedeas bond of P12,000., which
was scholastic standing.
ordered confiscated upon his failure to produce the carabaos when ordered
the trial court. ISSUE:
4. The executive order defined the prohibition, convieted the petitioner and
immediately imposed punishment, which were carried out forthright. The Whether or not a school or university have the right to deny acceptance of
measures struck at once and pounce upon the petitioner without giving him a
chance to be heard, thus denying him the centures-old guaranty of
students without due process.
fair play.
5. 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 HELD:
punished. The 3 students were allowed by the court to enrol. The court declared illegal

Diosdado Guzman vs National University the University’s act of imposing sanctions on students without due

Students Diosadado Guzman, Ulyses Urbiztondo, and Ariel Ramacula seeks

relief from what they describe as their school’s ” continued and persistent
Under the Education Act of 1982, the petitioners, have the right among others
refusal to allow them to enrol”
“to freely choose their field of study subject to existing curricula and to continue

BACKGROUND: their course up to graduation except in case of academic deficiency, or

violation of disciplinary regulations.”

resolutions of the Congress approved in its capacity as a constituent
Petitioners were being denied this right , or being disciplined without due assembly convened for the purpose of calling a convention to propose
amendments to the Constitution. After election of delegates held on
process, in violation of the admonition in the Manual of Regulations for Private November 10, 1970, the Convention held its inaugural session on June 1,
1971. In the morning of September 28, 1970, the Convention approved
Schools that ” no penalty shall be imposed upon any student except for cause Organic Resolution No. 1 which is entitled as, "A RESOLUTION AMENDING
as defined in the Manual and/or in the school rules and regulations as duly THE VOTING AGE TO 18." On September 30, 1971, the COMELEC
"resolved" to follow the mandate of the Convention, that it will hold the said
promulgated and only after due investigation shall have been conducted.” plebiscite together with the senatorial elections on November 8, 1971 .

Tatad vs Sandiganbayan
Petitioner, Arturo Tolentino, filed a petition for prohibition, its main thrust
FACTS: being that Organic Resolution No. 1 and the necessary implementing
In October 1974, a formal report was filed charging petitioner with alleged resolutions subsequently approved have no force and effect as laws in so far
violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. No action was taken on as they provide for the holding of a plebiscite co-incident with the senatorial
said report until it was revived on December 12, 1979, two months after it elections, on the ground that the calling and holding of such a plebiscite is,
became public that petitioner had a falling out with the president. Criminal by the Constitution, a power lodged exclusively in Congress as a legislative
charges were thereafter lodged against petitioner. body and may not be exercised by the Convention, and that, under Article XV
Section 1 of the 1935 Constitution, the proposed amendment in question
ISSUE(S): cannot be presented to the people for ratification separately from each and
Whether or not the delay in the termination of the preliminary investigation all other amendments to be drafted and proposed by the Constitution.
violates petitioner’s right to due process.
Whether or not the Organic Resolution No. 1 of the 1971 Constitutional
YES. Substantial adherence to the requirements of the law governing the
conduct of preliminary investigation, including substantial compliance with Convention violative to the Constitution.
the time limitation prescribed by the law for the resolution of the case by the
prosecutor, is part of the procedural due process constitutionally guaranteed HELD:
by the fundamental law. Not only under the broad umbrella of the due
process clause, but under the constitutional guarantee of “speedy NO.
disposition” of cases as embodied in Section 16 of the Bill of Rights, the
inordinate delay is violative of the petiitioner’s constitutional rights. All the amendments to be proposed by the same Convention must be
submitted to the people in a single "election" or plebiscite. In order that a
Petition is GRANTED. Criminal charges against petitioner are DISMISSED. plebiscite for the ratification of a Constitutional amendment may be validly
held, it must provide the voter not only sufficient time but ample basis for an
intelligent appraisal of the nature of the amendment per se but as well as its
Guiani vs. Sandiganbayan 386 SCRA 436 relation to the other parts of the Constitution with which it has to form a
Tolentino v. Comelec harmonious whole.

FACTS: In the present context, where the Convention has hardly started considering
the merits, if not thousands, of proposals to amend the existing Constitution,
The 1971 Constitutional Convention came into being by virtue of two
to present to the people any single proposal or a few of them cannot comply Section 45, Republic Act (R.A.) 8291 otherwise known as the GSIS Act of
with this requirement. 1997, specifies its disciplining authority, viz:
By this legal provision, petitioner, as President and General Manager of
WINSTON F. GARCIA v. MARIO I. MOLINA, GR No. 157383, 2010-08-18 GSIS, is vested the authority and responsibility to remove, suspend or
otherwise discipline GSIS personnel for cause.
However, despite the authority conferred on him by law, such power is not
Respondents Molina and Velasco, both Attorney V of the GSIS, received two without limitations for it must be exercised in accordance with Civil Service
separate Memoranda[5] dated May 23, 2002 from petitioner charging them rules. The Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service lays
with grave misconduct. Specifically, Molina was charged for allegedly down the procedure to be observed in issuing a... formal charge against an
committing the following acts: 1) directly... and continuously helping some erring employee, to wit:
alleged disgruntled employees to conduct concerted protest actions and/or
illegal assemblies against the management and the GSIS President and First, the complaint.
General Manager; 2) leading the concerted protest activities held in the
Second, the Counter-Affidavit/Comment.
morning of May 22, 2002 during... office hours within the GSIS compound;
and 3) continuously performing said activities despite warning from his Third, Preliminary Investigation.
immediate superiors. [6] In addition to the charge for grave misconduct for
performing the same acts as Molina, Velasco was accused of performing... Fourth, Investigation Report.
acts in violation of the Rules on Office Decorum for leaving his office without
informing his supervisor of his whereabouts; and gross insubordination for Fifth, Formal Charge.
persistently disregarding petitioner's instructions that Velasco should report It is undisputed that the Memoranda separately issued to respondents were
to the petitioner's office.[7] These acts, according to petitioner, were the formal charges against them. These formal charges contained brief
committed in open betrayal of the confidential nature of their positions and in statements of material or relevant facts, a directive to answer the charges
outright defiance of the Rules and Regulations on Public Sector Unionism. In within seventy two (72) hours from receipt thereof, an... advice that they had
the same Memoranda, petitioner required respondents to submit... their the right to a formal investigation and a notice that they are entitled to be
verified answer within seventy two (72) hours. Considering the gravity of the assisted by a counsel of their choice.
charges against them, petitioner ordered the preventive suspension of
respondents for ninety (90) days without pay, effective immediately.[8] The Indeed, the CSC Rules does not specifically provide that a formal charge
following day, a committee... was constituted to investigate the charges without the requisite preliminary investigation is null and void. However, as
against respondents. clearly outlined above, upon receipt of a complaint which is sufficient in form
and substance, the disciplining authority shall... require the person
Issues: complained of to submit a Counter-Affidavit/Comment under oath within three
WHETHER THE RESPONDENTS WERE FULLY ACCORDED THE days from receipt. The use of the word "shall" quite obviously indicates that it
REQUISITE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD, WERE IN FACT HEARD AND is mandatory for the disciplining authority to conduct a preliminary
BEING HEARD, AND WHETHER THE CONDUCT OF PRELIMINARY investigation or at least... respondent should be given the opportunity to
INVESTIGATION IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS IS AN ESSENTIAL comment and explain his side. As can be gleaned from the procedure set
REQUISITE TO THE CONDUCT OF ADJUDICATION. forth above, this is done prior to the issuance of the formal charge and the
comment required therein is different from the answer that may later be filed
WHETHER THE PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION ORDERS ISSUED AGAINST by... respondents. Contrary to petitioner's claim, no exception is provided for
RESPONDENTS MOLINA AND VELASCO ARE VALID, WELL-FOUNDED in the CSC Rules. Not even an indictment in flagranti as claimed by

WHETHER PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION IS A PENALTY AND, THUS, MAY The cardinal precept is that where there is a violation of basic constitutional
NOT BE IMPOSED WITHOUT BEING PRECEDED BY A HEARING. rights, courts are ousted from their jurisdiction. The violation of a party's right
to due process raises a serious jurisdictional issue which cannot be glossed
Ruling: over or disregarded at will. Where the... denial of the fundamental right to
due process is apparent, a decision rendered in disregard of that right is void
for lack of jurisdiction. This rule is equally true in quasi-judicial and JUL
administrative proceedings, for the constitutional guarantee that no man shall
be deprived... of life, liberty, or property without due process is unqualified by FACTS
the type of proceedings (whether judicial or administrative) where he stands
Gamboa alleged that the Philippine National Police in Ilocos Norte (PNP–
to lose the same.
Ilocos Norte) conducted a series of surveillance operations against her and
Although administrative procedural rules are less stringent and often applied her aides, and classified her as someone who keeps a Private Army Group
more liberally, administrative proceedings are not exempt from basic and (PAG). Purportedly without the benefit of data verification, PNP–Ilocos Norte
fundamental procedural principles, such as the right to due process in forwarded the information gathered on her to the Zeñarosa Commission,
investigations and hearings.[37] In... particular, due process in administrative thereby causing her inclusion in the Report’s enumeration of individuals
proceedings has been recognized to include the following: (1) the right to maintaining PAGs. Contending that her right to privacy was violated and her
actual or constructive notice to the institution of proceedings which may reputation maligned and destroyed, Gamboa filed a Petition for the issuance
affect a respondent's legal rights; (2) a real opportunity to be heard
of a writ of habeas data against respondents in their capacities as officials of
personally or... with the assistance of counsel, to present witnesses and
evidence in one's favor, and to defend one's rights; (3) a tribunal vested with the PNP-Ilocos Norte.
competent jurisdiction and so constituted as to afford a person charged ISSUE
administratively a reasonable guarantee of honesty as well as... impartiality;
and (4) a finding by said tribunal which is supported by substantial evidence Whether or not the petition for the issuance of writ of habeas data is proper
submitted for consideration during the hearing or contained in the records or when the right to privacy is invoked as opposed to the state’s interest in
made known to the parties affected. preserving the right to life, liberty or security.
It is well-settled that a decision rendered without due process is void ab initio RULIG
and may be attacked at anytime directly or collaterally by means of a
separate action, or by resisting such decision in any action or proceeding NO.
where it is invoked.[39] Moreover, while respondents failed to raise before
the GSIS the lack of preliminary investigation, records show that in their The writ of habeas data is an independent and summary remedy designed to
Urgent Motion to Resolve (their Motion to Lift Preventive Suspension Order) protect the image, privacy, honor, information, and freedom of information of
filed with the CSC, respondents questioned the validity of... their preventive an individual, and to provide a forum to enforce one’s right to the truth and to
suspension and the formal charges against them for lack of preliminary informational privacy. It seeks to protect a person’s right to control
investigation.[40] There is, thus, no waiver to speak of. information regarding oneself, particularly in instances in which such
In the procedure adopted by petitioner, respondents were preventively information is being collected through unlawful means in order to achieve
suspended in the same formal charges issued by the former without the latter unlawful ends. It must be emphasized that in order for the privilege of the writ
knowing that there were pending administrative cases against them. It is true to be granted, there must exist a nexus between the right to privacy on the
that prior notice and hearing are not required in the... issuance of a one hand, and the right to life, liberty or security on the other.
preventive suspension order.[41] However, considering that respondents
were preventively suspended in the same formal charges that we now
declare null and void, then their preventive suspension is likewise null and In this case, the Court ruled that Gamboa was unable to prove through
substantial evidence that her inclusion in the list of individuals maintaining
As the administrative proceedings involved in this case are void, no PAGs made her and her supporters susceptible to harassment and to
delinquency or misconduct may be imputed to respondents and the... increased police surveillance. In this regard, respondents sufficiently
preventive suspension meted them is baseless. explained that the investigations conducted against her were in relation to the
criminal cases in which she was implicated. As public officials, they enjoy the
Gamboa v. Chan, G.R. No. 193636, 24 July 2012
presumption of regularity, which she failed to overcome. [T]he state interest
31 of dismantling PAGs far outweighs the alleged intrusion on the private life of
Gamboa, especially when the collection and forwarding by the PNP of
information against her was pursuant to a lawful mandate. Therefore, the The petition is DENIED and the Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan are
privilege of the writ of habeas data must be denied. AFFIRMED.
The Supreme Court ruled against petitioners Bugarin. The Supreme
G.R. No. 174431 BUGARIN vs REPUBLIC of the Court cited the following:
PHILIPPINES August 6, 2012
Section 2 of R.A. No. 1379 provides that ”in Filing of Petition. Whenever
I. Facts:
any public officer or employee has acquired during his incumbency an
amount of property which is manifestly out of proportion to his salary as
A. The late Jolly Bugarin was the Director of the National Bureau of such public officer or employee and to his other lawful income and the
Investigation (NBI) when Ferdinand E. Marcos was still the president income from legitimately acquired property, said property shall be
of the country from 1965-1986. presumed prima facie to have been unlawfully acquired”
B. After the downfall of Marcos in 1986, the new Aquino administration,
through the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), Thus, when the government, through the PCGG, filed forfeiture
filed a petition for forfeiture of properties (of Bugarin) under Republic proceedings against Bugarin, it took on the burden of proving the
Act (R.A.) No. 1379 in the Sandiganbayan. following:
C. The Sandiganbayan dismissed the petition for insufficiency of
evidence. 1. The public official or employee acquired personal or real properties
D. Bugarin filed a motion for reconsideration but was deinied by the during his/her incumbency;
Sandiganbayan thus the PCGG filed for the dismissal of the case 2. This acquisition is manifestly disproportionate to his/her salary or other
before the Supreme Court on Dec. 18, 1991. legitimate income; and
E. The Supreme Court found manifest errors and misapprehension of 3. The existence of which gives rise to a presumption that these same
facts leading it "to pore over the evidence extant from the records," properties were acquired prima facie unlawfully.
F. The Supreme Court found Bugarin to have amassed wealth
totaling P2,170,163.00 from 1968 to 1980 against his total income for Melendrez vs. PAGC, GR No. 163859
the period 1967 to 1980 totaling only ₱766,548.00.
G. With this, the Court held that Bugarin’s properties, which were visibly
out of proportion to his lawful income from 1968 to 1980, should be
forfeited in favor of the government Constitutionality of ex-parte applications for issuance of protections orders in
RA 9262 or the Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act of 2004
II. Reliefs proposed for:
G.R. No. 170701. January 22, 2014.]
A. Petitioners claim that they have been deprived of their right to due RALPH P. TUA, vs. HON. CESAR A. MANGROBANG, Presiding Judge,
process of law when the Sandiganbayan ordered for the forfeiture of Branch 22, Regional Trial Court, Imus, Cavite; and ROSSANA HONRADO-
Bugarin’s properties. TUA,
B. They fault the selection process laid down in the said case which PERALTA, J p:
purportedly denied them the opportunity to show that "not all of the Facts: Respondent and petitioner were married on January 10, 1998 in
late Bugarin’s properties may be forfeited." Makati City. They have three children, namely, Joshua Raphael born on
C. Petitioners want another round of trial or hearing be conducted for February 9, 1999, Jesse Ruth Lois, born on June 27, 2000, and Jezreel
"further reception of evidence" to determine which among the Abigail, born on December 25, 2001. Respondent claimed, among others,
properties enumerated in the Republic case are ill-gotten wealth. that: there was a time when petitioner went to her room and cocked his gun
and pointed the barrel of his gun to his head as he wanted to convince her
Issue: WHETHER OR NOT BUGARIN’S HEIRS SHOULD BE not to proceed with the legal separation case she filed; she hid her fears
ACCORDED THEIR RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS. although she was scared; there was also an instance when petitioner fed her
children with the fried chicken that her youngest daughter had chewed and
III. Court Ruling: spat out; in order to stop his child from crying, petitioner would threaten him
with a belt; when she told petitioner that she felt unsafe and insecure with the
latter's presence and asked him to stop coming to the house as often as he of procedural due process must yield to the necessities of protecting vital
wanted or she would apply for a protection order, petitioner got furious and public interests, among which is protection of women and children from
threatened her of withholding his financial support and even held her by the violence and threats to their personal safety and security.
nape and pushed her to lie flat on the bed; and, on May 4, 2005, while she It should be pointed out that when the TPO is issued ex parte, the court shall
was at work, petitioner with companions went to her new home and forcibly likewise order that notice be immediately given to the respondent directing
took the children and refused to give them back to her. him to file an opposition within five (5) days from service. Moreover, the court
Respondent thus filed a Petition for the issuance of a protection order, shall order that notice, copies of the petition and TPO be served immediately
pursuant to Republic Act (RA) 9262 or the Anti-Violence Against Women and on the respondent by the court sheriffs. The TPOs are initially effective for
their Children Act of 2004, against her husband, petitioner. The Petition was thirty (30) days from service on the respondent. SDTaHc
for herself and in behalf of her minor children. Where no TPO is issued ex parte, the court will nonetheless order the
The RTC issued ex parte a Temporary Protection Order (TPO). immediate issuance and service of the notice upon the respondent requiring
Petitioner assailed the constitutionality of RA 9262 and sought to lift the TPO. him to file an opposition to the petition within five (5) days from service. The
Without awaiting the resolution of the RTC on the foregoing, Petitioner filed a date of the preliminary conference and hearing on the merits shall likewise
petition for certiorari with the CA assailing the TPO issued for violating the be indicated on the notice.
due process clause of the Constitution. The opposition to the petition which the respondent himself shall verify, must
Issue: be accompanied by the affidavits of witnesses and shall show cause why a
1.Is Section 15 of RA 9262, allowing ex parte application of a TPO, temporary or permanent protection order should not be issued.
2. Is there an invalid delegation of legislative power to the court and to It is clear from the foregoing rules that the respondent of a petition for
barangay officials to issue protection orders? protection order should be apprised of the charges imputed to him and
Ruling: afforded an opportunity to present his side. . . . . The essence of due process
1. Yes. The court is authorized to issue a TPO on the date of the filing of the is to be found in the reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit any
application after ex parte determination that there is basis for the issuance evidence one may have in support of one's defense. "To be heard" does not
thereof. Ex parte means that the respondent need not be notified or be only mean verbal arguments in court; one may be heard also through
present in the hearing for the issuance of the TPO. Thus, it is within the pleadings. Where opportunity to be heard, either through oral arguments or
court's discretion, based on the petition and the affidavit attached thereto, to pleadings, is accorded, there is no denial of procedural due process.
determine that the violent acts against women and their children for the Petitioner also assails that there is an invalid delegation of legislative power
issuance of a TPO have been committed. to the court and to barangay officials to issue protection orders.
Since "time is of the essence in cases of VAWC if further violence is to be
2. No. Section 2 of Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution provides that "the
prevented," the court is authorized to issue ex parte a TPO after raffle but
Congress shall have the power to define, prescribe, and apportion the
before notice and hearing when the life, limb or property of the victim is in
jurisdiction of the various courts but may not deprive the Supreme Court of its
jeopardy and there is reasonable ground to believe that the order is
necessary to protect the victim from the immediate and imminent danger of jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Section 5 hereof." Hence, the primary
VAWC or to prevent such violence, which is about to recur. judge of the necessity, adequacy, wisdom, reasonableness and expediency
of any law is primarily the function of the legislature. The act of Congress
There need not be any fear that the judge may have no rational basis to entrusting us with the issuance of protection orders is in pursuance of our
issue an ex parte order. The victim is required not only to verify the authority to settle justiciable controversies or disputes involving rights that
allegations in the petition, but also to attach her witnesses' affidavits to the are enforceable and demandable before the courts of justice or the redress
petition. of wrongs for violations of such rights.
The grant of a TPO ex parte cannot, therefore, be challenged as violative of As to the issuance of protection order by the Punong Barangay, Section 14
the right to due process. Just like a writ of preliminary attachment which is pertinently provides:
issued without notice and hearing because the time in which the hearing will
SEC. 14.Barangay Protection Orders (BPOs); Who May Issue and How. —
take could be enough to enable the defendant to abscond or dispose of his
Barangay Protection Orders (BPOs) refer to the protection order issued by
property, in the same way, the victim of VAWC may already have suffered
harrowing experiences in the hands of her tormentor, and possibly even the Punong Barangay ordering the perpetrator to desist from committing acts
death, if notice and hearing were required before such acts could be under Section 5 (a) and (b) of this Act. A Punong Barangay who receives
applications for a BPO shall issue the protection order to the applicant on the
prevented. It is a constitutional commonplace that the ordinary requirements
date of filing after ex parte determination of the basis of the application. If the
Punong Barangay is unavailable to act on the application for a BPO, the
application shall be acted upon by any available Barangay Kagawad. If the Petitioner was issued a Delinquency Report (DR) because he was late for two
BPO is issued by a Barangay Kagawad, the order must be accompanied by minutes in his ENG 412 class, other cadets were also reported late for 5
an attestation by the Barangay Kagawad that the Punong Barangay was minutes. The DRs reached the Department of Tactical Officers and were
unavailable at the time of the issuance of the BPO. BPOs shall be effective logged and transmitted to the Company of Tactical Officers (TCO) for
for fifteen (15) days. Immediately after the issuance of an ex parte BPO, the explanation. Cudia incurred the penalty of 11 demerits and 13 touring hours.
Punong Barangay or Barangay Kagawad shall personally serve a copy of the
same on the respondent, or direct any barangay official to effect its personal
The parties may be accompanied by a non-lawyer advocate in any Several days after, Cudia was reported to the Honor Committee (HC) per
proceeding before the Punong Barangay. violation of the Honor Code. Lying that is giving statements that perverts the
Hence, the issuance of a BPO by the Punong Barangay or, in his truth in his written appeal stating that his 4th period class ended at 3:00 that
unavailability, by any available Barangay Kagawad, merely orders the made him late for the succeeding class.
perpetrator to desist from (a) causing physical harm to the woman or her
child; and (2) threatening to cause the woman or her child physical harm.
Such function of the Punong Barangay is, thus, purely executive in nature, in Cudia submitted his letter of explanation on the honor report. The HC
pursuance of his duty under the Local Government Code to "enforce all laws
constituted a team to conduct the preliminary investigation on the violation, it
and ordinances," and to "maintain public order in the barangay."
recommended the case be formalized. Cudia pleaded not guilty. The result
was 8-1 guilty verdict and upon the order of the Chairman, the HC reconvened
First Class Cadet Aldrin Jeff Cudia v. The Superintendent of the in the chambers, after, the Presiding Officer announced a 9-0 guilty verdict.
Philippine Military Academy

GR Number 211362
The HC denied Cudia’s appeal. The Headquarters Tactics Group (HTG)
conducted a formal review and checking of findings. Special orders were
issued placing Cudia on indefinite leave of absence and pending approval of
Petition: Petition for Mandamus separation from the Armed Forces of the Philippines. Cudia submitted a letter
Petitioner: First Class Cadet Aldrin Jeff P. Cudia to the Office of the Commandant of Cadets requesting his re-instatement. The
matter was referred to Cadet Review and Appeals Board (CRAB) and it upheld
Respondent: The Superintendent of the Philippine Military Academy, The the decision.
Honor Committee of 2014 of the PMA and HC members, and the Cadet
Review and Appeals Board (CRAB)

Ponente: Peralta, J. Cudia wrote a letter to President Aquino but the President sustained the
findings of the CRAB. CHR-CAR issued a resolution finding probable cause
Date: February 24, 2014 for Human Rights Violations.

Facts: Issue:

Petitioner, Cadet First Class Cudia, was a member of the Siklab Diwa Class 1. Whether or not the PMA committed grave abuse of discretion in
of 2014 of the Philippine Military Academy. He was supposed to graduate with dismissing Cudia in utter disregard of his right to due process and in
honors as the class salutatorian, receive the Philippine Navy Saber as the top holding that he violated the Honor Code through lying.
Navy Cadet graduate and be commissioned as an ensign of the Navy. 2. Whether or not the court can interfere with military affairs
Ruling: military version stating that "the evidence shows to the contrary that Rolando
Galman had no subversive affiliations. Only the soldiers in the staircase with
1. No. The determination of whether the PMA cadet has rights to due Sen. Aquino could have shot him; that Ninoy's assassination was the product
process, education, and property should be placed in the context of
of a military conspiracy, not a communist plot. Only difference between the
the Honor Code. All the administrative remedies were exhausted. A
two reports is that the majority report found all the twenty-six private
student of a military academy must be prepared to subordinate his
private interest for the proper functioning of the institution. The PMA respondents above-named in the title of the case involved in the military
may impose disciplinary measures and punishments as it deems fit conspiracy; " while the chairman's minority report would exclude nineteen of
and consistent with the peculiar needs of the institution. PMA has them.
regulatory authority to administratively dismiss erring cadets.
PMA has a right to invoke academic freedom in the enforcement of Then Pres. Marcos stated that evidence shows that Galman was the killer.
the internal rules and regulations.
2. Yes. The court is part of the checks-and-balance machinery mandated Petitioners pray for issuance of a TRO enjoining respondent court from
by Article VIII of the Constitution. The court’s mandate (according to rendering a decision in the two criminal cases before it, the Court resolved by
Section 1, Article 8) is expanded that the duty of the courts is not only nine-to-two votes 11 to issue the restraining order prayed for. The Court also
to “settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally granted petitioners a five-day period to file a reply to respondents' separate
demandable and enforceable” but also “to determine whether or not comments and respondent Tanodbayan a three-day period to submit a copy
there has been a grave abuse of discretion on the part of any branch
of his 84-page memorandum for the prosecution.
or instrumentality of the Government” even if the latter does not
exercise judicial, quasi-judicial, or ministerial functions. No one is
above the law, including the military, especially in violations of But ten days later, the Court by the same nine-to-two-vote ratio in reverse,
Constitutionally guaranteed rights. resolved to dismiss the petition and to lift the TRO issued ten days earlier
enjoining the Sandiganbayan from rendering its decision. The same Court
majority denied petitioners' motion for a new 5-day period counted from
Dispositive: receipt of respondent Tanodbayan's memorandum for the prosecution (which
apparently was not served on them).
The petition is denied. The dismissal of Cudia from PMA is affirmed.

Roquero vs, UP Manila Chancellor, GR No. 181851 (March 9, 2010) Thus, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, alleging that the dismissal
did not indicate the legal ground for such action and urging that the case be
Galman vs. Sandiganbayan, 144 SCRA 43 set for a full hearing on the merits that the people are entitled to due process.

Facts: Assassination of former Senator Benigno "Ninoy" Aquino, Jr. He was However, respondent Sandiganbayan issued its decision acquitting all the
killed from his plane that had just landed at the Manila International Airport. accused of the crime charged, declaring them innocent and totally absolving
His brain was smashed by a bullet fired point-blank into the back of his head them of any civil liability. Respondents submitted that with the
by an assassin. The military investigators reported within a span of three Sandiganbayan's verdict of acquittal, the instant case had become moot and
hours that the man who shot Aquino (whose identity was then supposed to academic. Thereafter, same Court majority denied petitioners' motion for
be unknown and was revealed only days later as Rolando Galman) was a reconsideration for lack of merit.
communist-hired gunman, and that the military escorts gunned him down in
turn. Hence, petitioners filed their motion to admit their second motion for
reconsideration alleging that respondents committed serious irregularities
President was constrained to create a Fact Finding Board to investigate due constituting mistrial and resulting in miscarriage of justice and gross violation
to large masses of people who joined in the ten-day period of national of the constitutional rights of the petitioners and the sovereign people of the
mourning yearning for the truth, justice and freedom. Philippines to due process of law.

The fact is that both majority and minority reports were one in rejecting the
Issues: suspected guilty participation in the assassination. such a procedure would
be a better arrangement because, if the accused are charged in court and
(1) Whether or not petitioner was deprived of his rights as an accused. subsequently acquitted, they may claim the benefit of the doctrine of double
jeopardy and thereby avoid another prosecution if some other witnesses
(2) Whether or not there was a violation of the double jeopardy clause. shall appear when President Marcos is no longer in office.

More so was there suppression of vital evidence and harassment of

Held: Petitioners' second motion for reconsideration is granted and ordering witnesses. The disappearance of witnesses two weeks after Ninoy's
a re-trial of the said cases which should be conducted with deliberate assassination. According to J. Herrera, "nobody was looking for these
dispatch and with careful regard for the requirements of due process. persons because they said Marcos was in power. The assignment of the
case to Presiding Justice Pamaran; no evidence at all that the assignment
Deputy Tanodbayan Manuel Herrera (made his expose 15 months later was indeed by virtue of a regular raffle, except the uncorroborated testimony
when former Pres. was no longer around) affirmed the allegations in the of Justice Pamaran himself. The custody of the accused and their
second motion for reconsideration that he revealed that the Sandiganbayan confinement in a military camp, instead of in a civilian jail. The monitoring of
Justices and Tanodbayan prosecutors were ordered by Marcos to whitewash proceedings and developments from Malacañang and by Malacañang
the Aquino-Galman murder case. Malacañang wanted dismissal to the extent personnel. The partiality of Sandiganbayan betrayed by its decision: That
that a prepared resolution was sent to the Investigating Panel. Malacañang President Marcos had wanted all of the twenty-six accused to be acquitted
Conference planned a scenario of trial where the former President ordered may not be denied. In rendering its decision, the Sandiganbayan overdid
then that the resolution be revised by categorizing the participation of each itself in favoring the presidential directive. Its bias and partiality in favor of the
respondent; decided that the presiding justice, Justice Pamaran, (First accused was clearly obvious. The evidence presented by the prosecution
Division) would personally handle the trial. A conference was held in an inner was totally ignored and disregarded.
room of the Palace. Only the First Lady and Presidential Legal Assistant
Justice Lazaro were with the President. The conferees were told to take the The record shows that the then President misused the overwhelming
back door in going to the room where the meeting was held, presumably to resources of the government and his authoritarian powers to corrupt and
escape notice by the visitors in the reception hall waiting to see the make a mockery of the judicial process in the Aquino-Galman murder cases.
President. During the conference, and after an agreement was reached, "This is the evil of one-man rule at its very worst." Our Penal Code penalizes
Pres. Marcos told them 'Okay, mag moro-moro na lamang kayo;' and that on "any executive officer who shall address any order or suggestion to any
their way out of the room Pres. Marcos expressed his thanks to the group judicial authority with respect to any case or business coming within the
and uttered 'I know how to reciprocate'. exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of justice."

The Court then said that the then President (code-named Olympus) had Impartial court is the very essence of due process of law. This criminal
stage-managed in and from Malacañang Palace "a scripted and collusion as to the handling and treatment of the cases by public respondents
predetermined manner of handling and disposing of the Aquino-Galman at the secret Malacañang conference (and revealed only after fifteen months
murder case;" and that "the prosecution in the Aquino-Galman case and the by Justice Manuel Herrera) completely disqualified respondent
Justices who tried and decided the same acted under the compulsion of Sandiganbayan and voided ab initio its verdict. The courts would have no
some pressure which proved to be beyond their capacity to resist. Also reason to exist if they were allowed to be used as mere tools of injustice,
predetermined the final outcome of the case" of total absolution of the deception and duplicity to subvert and suppress the truth. More so, in the
twenty-six respondents-accused of all criminal and civil liability. Pres. Marcos case at bar where the people and the world are entitled to know the truth,
came up with a public statement aired over television that Senator Aquino and the integrity of our judicial system is at stake.
was killed not by his military escorts, but by a communist hired gun. It was,
therefore, not a source of wonder that President Marcos would want the case There was no double jeopardy. Courts' Resolution of acquittal was a void
disposed of in a manner consistent with his announced theory thereof which, judgment for having been issued without jurisdiction. No double jeopardy
at the same time, would clear his name and his administration of any attaches, therefore. A void judgment is, in legal effect, no judgment at all. By
it no rights are divested. It neither binds nor bars anyone. All acts and all
claims flowing out of it are void.

Motion to Disqualify/Inhibit should have been resolved ahead. In this case,

petitioners' motion for reconsideration of the abrupt dismissal of their petition
and lifting of the TRO enjoining the Sandiganbayan from rendering its
decision had been taken cognizance of by the Court which had required the
respondents', including the Sandiganbayan's, comments. Although no
restraining order was issued anew, respondent Sandiganbayan should not
have precipitately issued its decision of total absolution of all the accused
pending the final action of this Court. All of the acts of the respondent judge
manifest grave abuse of discretion on his part amounting to lack of
jurisdiction which substantively prejudiced the petitioner.

With the declaration of nullity of the proceedings, the cases must now be
tried before an impartial court with an unbiased prosecutor. Respondents
accused must now face trial for the crimes charged against them before an
impartial court with an unbiased prosecutor with all due process.

The function of the appointing authority with the mandate of the people,
under our system of government, is to fill the public posts. Justices and
judges must ever realize that they have no constituency, serve no majority
nor minority but serve only the public interest as they see it in accordance
with their oath of office, guided only the Constitution and their own
conscience and honor.