ICHONG vs.

Hernandez (Due Process) be amended and cannot be made to curtail the police
power of the State.
1.) Ichong filed a petition assailing the constitutionality
of R.A. 1180 on 4 grounds PHILPOS vs. PIMPI (Supervisory Union)

 It denies aliens equal protection of the law and 1.) PMPI filed a petition before the Department of Labor
deprives them of their property and liberty and Employment a petition for certification election. It
without due process of law was seeking to represent the supervisory employees of
 The Subject of the act is not expressed in the PHILPOS.
title
2.) PHILPHOS did not oppose but filed a position paper
 It violates international treaties
asking that the necessary requirements provided by law
2.) Regarding the first issue the SC held that no violation should be followed and to exclude superintendents,
of the equal protection has been made. The State has a technical and confidential employees from the union.
valid reason to prefer the national over the alien. An Act
3.) Milado, the Mediator Arbiter, issued an order
is considered in accordance with due process if the act
directing the certification election. However PIMPI filed
is reasonably necessary to accomplish the legislature’s
an amended petition. This time they included the
purpose. The Act must not be unreasonable, arbitrary
superintendents, technical and confidential employees
and oppressive.
in the election.
3.) R.A. 1180 was passed on the grounds that the alien
4.) Milado then issued an order granting the amended
retailers in our country are not the harmless retailers
petition which directed the IMMEDIATE CONDUCT of a
we had back when society was still in its infancy. What
certification election which includes the
we have are powerful organizations who control the
superintendents, technical and confidential employees.
distribution of goods that has no allegiance to the state.
5.) PHILPOS appealed the order but was denied. They
4.) From this the SC held that there were genuine fears
moved for reconsideration but was still denied. Hence
of Alien Domination. As such R.A. 1180 was passed. In
this petition. PHILPOS averred that it was denied due
light of this the SC is convinced that the law was not
process in the proceedings when Milado immediately
passed by virtue of racial hostility. Aliens do not have
conducted the order.
sympathetic considerations for their customers, no
loyalty to the government, no sense of patriotism to 6.) The Supreme Court ruled that there was no denial of
boost the economy. due process. The SC reasoned that the essence of due
process is the opportunity to be heard, on opportunity
5.) Regarding the second issue that there shall only be
to explain ones side.
one subject one bill. The SC ruled against ICHONG. The
term in question here is the term “regulate”. Such a 7.) PHILPOS undoubtedly had the opportunity to be
term the petitioners claim does not connote heard. They were allowed to present their position
nationalization and prohibition of aliens from retail. paper. Furthermore they could have insisted on cross
examining the witness. Most importantly they had the
The SC held that the term regulate is more broader than
opportunity to vent all their arguments in their appeal
nationalization and prohibition. Both terms fall within
to the Secretary of Labor.
the purview of regulate. The general rule in creating a
title for a bill is to use general terms. This is precisely
why regulate was used, in order to include both the
terms nationalization and prohibition. If regulate was
not used then the bill would have certainly been log
rolling.

6.) Regarding the third issue that it violates

international treaties the SC held that such treaties are
only a recommendation. But even supposing that it
violates these treaties the SC notes that such treaty can
YNOT vs. Intermediate Appellate Court (Carabaos)
1.) EO 626-A was passed by Marcos banning
interprovincial movement of carabaos as well as
banning the interprovincial movement of carabeef.
2.) Restituto Ynot was caught transporting 6 carabaos
via a pump boat from Masbate to Illoilo. For violation of
EO-626-A Ynot’s carabaos were confiscated by the
police. It was here that Ynot raised the
unconstitutionality EO-626-A for confiscating carabaos
without being heard.
3.) After considering the merits of the case the RTC
rendered a decision sustaining the confiscation of the
Carabaos. They did not touch upon the issue
constitutionality for lack of authority and presumed
validity.
4.) Ynot appealed the decision but the Intermediate
appellate court sustained the RTC. Hence this petition
5.) The SC ruled in favor of Ynot. While there is a
presumption of constitutionality this is by no means
conclusive.
6.) Regarding the whether there was due process the
court ruled that there was not. Quoting Justice Felix due
process is the embodiment of the sporting idea of fair
play.
7.) It is part of the sporting idea of fair play to hear the
other side. The minimum requirements of due process
are notice and hearing. In this case there was no such
notice and hearing, the carabaos were immediately
confiscated.
8.) Although there are exceptions so that notice and
hearing may be dispensed with. The instant case is not
one of the exceptions as there was no urgency to cure
the problem of interprovincial movement of carabaos.
Alonte vs. Savellano (RAPE) (Waiver of right to due
process)
1.) Alonte along with Conception was charged with rape
based on the complaint of Juvielyn PunongBayan, a 17
year old. It was alleged that Conception befriended
Juvielyn and then lured her to Alonte’s house who was
the mayor of Binan.
2.) A petition to change venue was filed by Juvielyn’s
counsel and the prosecutor to have the case moved to
Metro Manila. It is also at this time that Juvielyn filed a
letter of desistance. In light of this, the opposition
moved to dismiss the petition to change venue since it
is already mooted by the letter of desistance.
3.) Due to possible miscarriage of justice because of
possible illicit influence and undue pressure the court
granted the petition for change of venue.
4.) The case raffled to Judge Savellano and he issued an
order for the arrest of Alonte and Conception. They
arraigned and after the arraignment Juvielyn was
presented and attested to the voluntariness of her
letter of desistance. She claimed that she did not want
media pressure and she had no evidence to prove the
guilt of Alonte and Conception
5.) Nonetheless Savellano issued a decision finding
Alonte and Conception guilty. Alonte and Conception
appealed claiming they have been denied due process.
6.) Savellano claims that the defendants have waived
their right to due process when they did not cross-
examine Juvielyn.
7.) SC ruled that there was no waiver on the part of
Alonte and Conception. They noted that waiver must be
voluntary, knowing, intelligent, and done with sufficient
awareness of the circumstances.
8.) Mere silence of the holder of the right should not be
construed as a waiver and the courts must indulge
every reasonable presumption against waiver.
9.) SC recommended that Savellano inhibit and
remanded the case to the lower courts for a proper
trial.

Note: Affidavit of desistence does not pardon persons
who committed private crimes. In fact it can be taken as
evidence.
Aniag Jr. vs. COMELEC (Preliminary investigation)
1.) In preparation for the synchronized national and
local elections on May 11 1992 the COMELEC issued a
resolution on “Gun Ban”. This includes bans on gun
transporatation and bearing guns by security personnel
or bodyguards and police organizations.
2.) The Sergeant at Arms of the house of reps wrote
Congressman Aniag the return of two firearms. Aniag
then instructed his driver, Arellano, to pick up the
firearms from his house and return them to Congress.
3.) On that day the PNP set up a checkpoint 20 meters
away from the Batasan Complex. Arellano’s car was
flagged down. The PNP searched the car and found guns
that were neatly placed in a bag in the trunk of the car.
4.) Arellano was detained. However Aniag was not
included among those charged with election offenses.
Then the City Prosecutor invited Aniag to shed light on
the situation. Aniag confirmed Arellano’s sworn
statement to deliver the guns. They asked Arellano be
released since he was complying with the gun ban and
that he was not a bodyguard or security personnel but
is a driver.
5.) Another issue raised is about Aniag’s qualification in
the elections. However this was mooted since he lost
his bid for a seat in Congress.
6.) SC focused on the issue of on warrantless searches
and violation of due process. Regarding the first issue
the search of the PNP was violative of the Constitution.
The General Rule a warrantless search is accepted only
if it remains as merely visual. The guns in this case were
neatly packaged. This cannot lead to a suspicion that
these were guns. The PNP still proceeded to inspect the
guns thereby violating Arellano’s privacy and security.
Furthermore Arellano’s reactions to the search were
not indicative of malice.
7.) Regarding the second issue the SC ruled that Aniag’s
right to due process was violated. Aniag was not one of
this who were charged of election offenses nor was he
one of those charged with a criminal offense in the
preliminary investigation of the City prosecutor. Thus
the opportunity to heard was not present.
8.) Aniag was merely invited to the preliminary
investigation. He was not informed of him being a
respondent thereby denying him the full-extent of his
right to due process.
Philippine Communications Satelite Corp vs. Alcuaz
1.) PHILCOMSAT provides satellite services to
companies in the Philippines. Under R.A. 5514
PHILCOMSAT was exempted from the jurisdiction of the
NTC.
2.) Executive Order 196 was then passed putting
PHILCOMSAT under the jurisdiction of the NTC.
Thereafter PHILCOMSAT filed an application to the NTC
for the authority to continue operating and maintaining
the facilities they have been continuously operating
since 1967.
3.) They were granted authority for 6 months and after
the expiration it was re-extended for another 6 months.
In that re-extension it was also stated by the NTC that
PHILCOMSAT should have reduced charging rates by
15%.
4.) PHILCOMSAT assails such fixing of rates claiming that
the enabling act allowing NTC to fix rates constitutes an
undue delegation of legislative power.
5.) The second issue raised was that even if there was a
valid delegation the manner which the said power was
exercised violated procedural due process and
substantive due process.
6.) Regarding the first issue the SC ruled that there is a
valid delegation of legislative power since the
legislature in passing E.O. 196 set up some standard for
its exercise. The legislature in this case only prescribed
that it be reasonable and just.
7.) Regarding procedural process PHILCOMSAT claims
that they were not given notice and a proper hearing.
The order PHILCOMSAT claims is quasi-judicial and this
needs notice and proper hearing.
8.) The Court ruled in favor of PHILCOMSAT. The SC
noted that when a public administrative body acts in a
particular and immediate rather than general and
prospective, the person whose rights or property may
be affected are entitled to notice and hearing. Thus
procedural due process is violated since they were not
give the opportunity to present evidence.
9.)
Ang Tibay vs. Court of Appeals (Rules in administrative
proceedings)
1.) Toribio operates and owns Ang Tibay, a leather
company which supplies the Philippine Army. Due to
alleged shortage of leather Toribio layed off members
of the National Labor Union.
2.) The National Labor Union averred that the act of Ang
Tibay is not valid for there was no shortage of leather
and that they only layed off members of NLU and no
members from the National Workers Brotherhood. NLU
prayed that the case be remanded to the Court of
Industrial Relations.
3.) The SC granted that the case be remanded to the
Court of Industrial Relations. The SC noted that in cases
such as this the CIR must adhere to certain guiding
principles, although in Commonwealth Act no. 103 it is
expressly stated that CIR must act justly without regard
for technicalities. Though the CIR is free from the
rigidity of certain procedural requirements it must
adhere to certain guiding principles.
 Right to a hearing
 The tribunal must consider the evidence
presented
 A reason for the decision
 There must be substantial evidence
 The decision must be rendered based on the
evidence presented by the parties or at least in
the record
 The CIR must be independent
 In promulgating its decisions it must be done in
such a manner wherein the parties are
informed of the issues and reasons for the
decision rendered.
4.) The SC noted that the principles enumerated herein
does not preclude the concession of a new trial and that
it is in the best interest of justice to allow for a new
trial.
Ateneo De Manila vs. Capulong
1.) Lennie Villa, a first year student, along with another
freshman died of serious physical injuries and acute
renal failure respectively.
2.) These injuries were brought about by the
membership requirement of the fraternity Aquila legis.
In response Dean Castillo created an investigative
committee to make a report regarding the controversy
and circumstances of the death of Villa.
3.) Dean Castillo also required the respondent students
to file written statements within 24 hours as a reply.
Though they received a copy of the notice they failed to
give a reply.
4.) The investigative committee found that the students
had violated Rule 3 of the Law School Catalogue
regarding Discipline. In the said rule students are
prevented from engaging in Hazing Activities.
5.) The students were required to file their answers to
the formal charge. IN light of this Dean Castillo created
a Board to hear the students statements. However the
students were found guilty and Fr. Bernas dismissed the
students from the school. He reasoned that the act of
one is the act of all.
6.) The students filed a temporary restraining order
since they were still enrolled. Judge Capulong, upon
appeal of the students, ordered Ateneo to reinstate the
students.
7.) The SC reversed the decision of Capulong in
reinstating the students. The students averred that their
right to due process was violated. However the SC cited
the case of Guzman werein the requirement for due
process in academic institutions were enunciated.
 The students must be informed in writing
 That they have the right to answer the charges
against them
  They shall be informed of the evidence against
them
 They have the right to present evidence
 The evidence must be duly considered.
8.) SC stated that it cannot be said that the said rules in
academic due process was violated especially when the
Dean required the students to be notified and to file an
answer. Going so far as to even give extension to the 24
hour limit.
Anonymous vs. Radam
1.) Victoria Radam a utility worker in the office of the
Clerk of Court was charged with immorality. The
unnamed complainant alleged that Radam was
unmarried but got pregnant.
2.) In connection to the complaint Judge Abella
conducted a discreet investigation and in his report he
confirmed that Radam had given birth to a child and she
was unmarried. Abella recommended that Radam be
found guilty and be suspended.
3.) Abella’s report was reviewed by Office of Court
Administrator. The OCA exonerated Radam of the
charges of immorality because it did not affect the
nature of her position but was dealt with a fine of 5000
for conduct unbecoming of a court employee.
4.) The SC ruled that in order for an act to be subject of
administrative liability it must be grossly immoral.
Giving birth out of wedlock is not per se immoral. The
court gave 2 scenarios.
 If the father was unmarried and Radam was
unmarried then she is not administratively
liable since law penalizes such conduct
 If the father is married and Radam is not the
lawful wife then she is subject to
administratively liable since this violates the
sanctity of marriage.
5.) It is undisputed that the father was unmarried this
Radam should not be liable.
6.) Furthermore her right to due process was violated
since the report of Abella focuses solely on charge of
immorality. Thus the recommendation of the OAC that
she should be administratively liable for stating the
name of the child as unknown came like a thief in the
night.
7.) She was not confronted nor given the chance to
explain. To hold her liable for a charge she was totally
unaware violates due process.
Tabuena vs. SandiganBayan
Then President Marcos instructed Luis
Tabuena over the phone to pay directly to
the president’s office and in cash what the
Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA)
owes the Philippine National Construction
Corporation (PNCC), pursuant to the 7
January 1985 memorandum of then Minister
Trade and Industry Roberto Ongpin. Tabuena
agreed. About a week later, Tabuena
received from Mrs. Fe Roa-Gimenez, then
private secretary of Marcos, a Presidential
Memorandum dated 8 January 1986
reiterating in black and white such verbal
instruction. In obedience to President
Marcos’ verbal instruction and
memorandum, Tabuena, with the help of
Gerardo G. Dabao and Adolfo Peralta, caused
the release of P55 Million of MIAA funds by
means of three (3) withdrawals. On 10
January 1986, the first withdrawal was made
for P25 Million, following a letter of even date
signed by Tabuena and Dabao requesting
the PNB extension office at the MIAA the
depository branch of MIAA funds, to issue a
manager’s check for said amount payable to
Tabuena. The check was encashed, however,
at the PNB Villamor Branch. Dabao and the
cashier of the PNB Villamor branch counted
the money after which, Tabuena took
delivery thereof. The P25 Million in cash was
delivered on the same day to the office of
Mrs. Gimenez. Mrs. Gimenez did not issue
any receipt for the money received. Similar
circumstances surrounded the second
withdrawal/encashment and delivery of
another P25 Million, made on 16 January
1986. The third and last withdrawal was
made on 31 January 1986 for P5 Million.
Peralta was Tabuena’s co-signatory to the
letter- request for a manager’s check for this
amount. Peralta accompanied Tabuena to
the PNB Villamor branch as Tabuena is that an appeal throws the whole case open
requested him to do the counting of the P5 to review, and it becomes the duty of the
Million. After the counting, the money was appellate court to correct such errors as may
loaded in the trunk of Tabuena’s car. Peralta be found in the judgment appealed from
did not go with Tabuena to deliver the whether they are made the subject
money to Mrs. Gimenez’ office. It was only of assignments of error or not.
upon delivery of the P5 Million that Mrs.
Gimenez issued a receipt for all the amounts
she received from Tabuena. The receipt was
dated January 30,1986. Tabuena and Peralta
were charged for malversation of funds,
while Dabao remained at large. One of the
justices of the Sandiganbayan actively took
part in the questioning of a defense witness
and of the accused themselves; the volume
of the questions asked were more the
combined questions of the counsels. On 12
October 1990, they were found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt. Tabuena and Peralta filed
separate petitions for review, appealing the
Sandiganbayan decision dated 12 October
19990 and the Resolution of 20 December
1991.

Issue:
Whether or not petitioners are guilty of the
crime of malversation.
 
Held:
Luis Tabuena and Adolfo Peralta are
acquitted of the crime of malversation.
Tabuena acted in strict compliance with the
MARCOS Memorandum. The order emanated
from the Office of the President and bears
the signature of the President himself, the
highest official of the land. It carries with it
the presumption that it was regularly issued.
And on its face, the memorandum is patently
lawful for no law makes the payment of an
obligation illegal. This fact, coupled with the
urgent tenor for its execution constrains one
to act swiftly without question. Records show
that the Sandiganbayan actively took part in
the questioning of a defense witness and of
the accused themselves. The questions of
the court were in the nature of cross
examinations characteristic of confrontation,
probing and insinuation. Tabuena and Peralta
may not have raised the issue as an error,
there is nevertheless no impediment for the
court to consider such matter as additional
basis for a reversal since the settled doctrine
Spouses Diaz vs. Asadon
1.) Spouses Diaz were charged of Slight Physical Injuries
in the court were Judge Asadon presided. The Spouses
alleged that they were arrested, an arrest granted by
Asadon, without being properly heard in court. They
were not allowed to present controverting evidence
and counter affidavits.
2.) They also averred that Judge Asadon was not
punctual in that he would return home early. In one
instance when the Spouses, through their counsel, filed
an Omnibus Motion in court no one was there to act on
it since Judge Asadon already went home. Furthermore
they allege that the judge was biased and partial since
one of the complainants is a relative of his wife.
3.) In his answer Judge Asadon claimed that the reason
was away during the afternoon was because he was
tasked to attend a criminal case in a different court.
4.) Judge Asadon claimed that he was impartial since he
had no knowledge of the relation between one of the
complainants to his wife. Lastly the warrant was issued
hastily since Judge Asadon had knowledge that the
spouses were going to escape.
5.) During the pendency of the case Judge Asadon died
of pneumonia.

6.) In a resolution the Court administrator exonerated

the late judge from all charges except the one regarding
abuse of authority.

7.) Judge Asadon committed grave abuse of authority

when he hastily issued a warrant of arrest against the
spouses. This is in violation of the spouses right to due
process. They should be notified and given the chance
to present controverting evidence and counter
affidavits. Such a rule cannot be violated since he had
information that they might escape.