This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
L-24693 Police Power – Due Process Clause On 13 June 1963, the Manila Municipal Board enacted Ord 4760 and the same was approved by then acting mayor Astorga. Ord 4760 sought to regulate hotels and motels. It classified them into 1st class (taxed at 6k/yr) and 2ndclass (taxed at 4.5k/yr). It also compelled hotels/motels to get the demographics of anyone who checks in to their rooms. It compelled hotels/motels to have wide open spaces so as not to conceal the identity of their patrons. Ermita-Malate impugned the validity of the law averring that such is oppressive, arbitrary and against due process. The lower court as well as the appellate court ruled in favor of Ermita-Malate. ISSUE: Whether or not Ord 4760 is against the due process clause. HELD: The SC ruled in favor of Astorga. There is a presumption that the laws enacted by Congress (in this case Mun Board) is valid. W/o a showing or a strong foundation of invalidity, the presumption stays. As in this case, there was only a stipulation of facts and such cannot prevail over the presumption. Further, the ordinance is a valid exercise of Police Power. There is no question but that the challenged ordinance was precisely enacted to minimize certain practices hurtful to public morals. This is to minimize prostitution. The increase in taxes not only discourages hotels/motels in doing any business other than legal but also increases the revenue of the lgu concerned. And taxation is a valid exercise of police power as well. The due process contention is likewise untenable, due process has no exact definition but has reason as a standard. In this case, the precise reason why the ordinance was enacted was to curb down prostitution in the city which is reason enough and cannot be defeated by
mere singling out of the provisions of the said ordinance alleged to be vague. POLICE POWER On the legislative organs of the government, whether national of local, primarily rest the exercise of the police power, which, it cannot be too often emphasized, is the power to prescribe regulations to promote the health, morals, peace, good order, safety and general welfare of the people. Police power is based upon the concept of necessity of the State and its corresponding right to protect itself and its people.43 Police power has been used as justification for numerous and varied actions by the State. These range from the regulation of dance halls,44 movie theaters,45 gas stations46 and cockpits.47 The awesome scope of police power is best demonstrated by the fact that in its hundred or so years of presence in our nation’s legal system, its use has rarely been denied. May Courts Inquire Upon the Exercise of Police Power? In view of the requirements of due process, equal protection and other applicable constitutional guaranties, however, the exercise of such police power insofar as it may affect the life, liberty or property of any person is subject to judicial inquiry. Where such exercise of police power may be considered as either capricious, whimsical, unjust or unreasonable, a denial of due process or a violation of any other applicable constitutional guaranty may call for correction by the courts. Two types of Due Process Procedural Due Process: Procedural due process refers to the procedures that the government must follow before it deprives a person of life, liberty, or property.49 Procedural due process concerns itself with government action adhering to the established process when it makes an intrusion into the private sphere. Examples range from the form of notice given to the level of formality of a hearing.
Substantive Due Process: Substantive due process completes the protection envisioned by the due process clause. It inquires whether the government has sufficient justification for depriving a person of life, liberty, or property. Define police power. It is the power vested in the legislature by the Constitution to make, ordain, and establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws for the good and welfare of the State and its people. (ERMITA MALATE HOTEL VS. CITY MAYOR, July 31, 1967) What are the basic purposes/aspects of police power: a. to promote the general welfare, comfort and convenience of the people; (ASSOCIATION OF SMALL LANDOWNERS VS. SECRETARY, 175 SCRA 343; US VS. TORIBIO, 15 Phil. 85 b. to promote and preserve public health; (VILLANUEVA VS. CASTANEDA, September 21, 1987; DECS VS. SAN DIEGO, 180 SCRA 533 [NMAT]; LORENZO VS. DIRECTOR OF HEALTH, 50 Phil. 595—apprehend and confine lepers in a leprosarium) c. to promote and protect public safety; (AGUSTIN VS. EDU, 88 SCRA 195; TAXICAB OPERATORS VS. JUINIO, 119 SCRA 897 ) d. to maintain and safeguard peace and order; (GUAZON VS. DE VILLA) e. to protect public morals; (DE LA CRUZ VS. PARAS, 123 SCRA 569; ERMITA MALATE HOTEL VS. CITY MAYOR, July 31, 1967; JMM PROMOTIONS VS. CA, 260 SCRA 319; VELASCO VS. VILLEGAS, February 13, 1983) f. to promote the economic security of the people. (ICHONG VS. HERNANDEZ, 101 Phil. 11155) 2-a. May an Ordinance of the City of Manila validly require people/couples checking in the different motels in the
city to  register at the motel’s desk facing a public street; and  show their identification card, etc.? A. Yes. It is a valid exercise of police power to promote public morals, i.e., curb prostitution or illicit relationships. ERMITA MALATE HOTEL VS. CITY MAYOR, July 31, 1967) G.R. No. 122846: White City of Manila Light Corp., Exercised vs –
only to a limited group of people. The SC reiterates that individual rights may be adversely affected only to the extent that may fairly be required by the legitimate demands of public interest or public welfare. 2-b. May the City of Manila validly prohibit hotels and motels, etc., at the Ermita-Malate area, to offer “short time” admission therein? A. The Ordinance is unconstitutional and is not a valid exercise of police power. There is nothing immoral in staying in a motel or hotel for a period of three (3) hours only because a person’s stay therein could be for purposes other than having sex or using illegal drugs. Further, there is nothing that would prevent people engaged in illicit relationships to check in in said motels by paying 12 hours or more though they will just stay there for 3 hours. (WHITE LIGHT CORPORATION VS. CITY OF MANILA, represented by MAYOR ALFREDO LIM, G.R. No. 122846, January 20, 2009.) G.R. No. 118127: City of Manila vs Judge Perfecto Laguio Police Power On 30 Mar 1993, Mayor Lim signed into law Ord 7783 entitled AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING THE ESTABLISHMENT OR OPERATION OF BUSINESSES PROVIDING CERTAIN FORMS OF AMUSEMENT, ENTERTAINMENT, SERVICES AND FACILITIES IN THE ERMITA-MALATE AREA, PRESCRIBING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION THEREOF, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. It basically prohibited establishments such as bars, karaoke bars, motels and hotels from operating in the Malate District which was notoriously viewed as a red light district harboring thrill seekers. Malate Tourist Development Corporation avers that the ordinance is invalid as it includes hotels and motels in the enumeration of places offering amusement or entertainment. MTDC reiterates that they do not market such nor do they use women as tools for entertainment. MTDC also avers that under the LGC, LGUs can only regulate motels but cannot prohibit their
operation. The City reiterates that the Ordinance is a valid exercise of Police Power as provided as well in the LGC. The City likewise emphasized that the purpose of the law is to promote morality in the City. ISSUE: Whether or not Ordinance 7783 is valid. HELD: The SC ruled that the said Ordinance is null and void. The SC noted that for an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the corporate powers of the local government unit to enact and must be passed according to the procedure prescribed by law, it must also conform to the following substantive requirements: (1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute; (2) must not be unfair or oppressive; (3) must not be partial or discriminatory; (4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade; (5) must be general and consistent with public policy; and (6) must not be unreasonable. The police power of the City Council, however broad and far-reaching, is subordinate to the constitutional limitations thereon; and is subject to the limitation that its exercise must be reasonable and for the public good. In the case at bar, the enactment of the Ordinance was an invalid exercise of delegated power as it is unconstitutional and repugnant to general laws. 2-b. May the City of Manila validly prohibit the operation of night clubs, sauna parlors, massage parlors, karaoke bars, beerhouses, and similar establishments in the Ermita-Malate Area and gives the existing establishments three (3) months to transfer to any place outside said area under pain of imprisonment of up to 1 year and fine of P5,000.00 or change the nature of their business to gift shops, restaurants, etc. ?
Police Power – Not Validly Infringement of Private Rights
On 3 Dec 1992, then Mayor Lim signed into law Ord 7774 entitled "An Ordinance" prohibiting short time admission in hotels, motels, lodging houses, pension houses and similar establishments in the City of Manila. White Light Corp is an operator of mini hotels and motels who sought to have the Ordinance be nullified as the said Ordinance infringes on the private rights of their patrons. The RTC ruled in favor of WLC. It ruled that the Ordinance strikes at the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution. The City maintains that the ordinance is valid as it is a valid exercise of police power. Under the LGC, the City is empowered to regulate the establishment, operation and maintenance of cafes, restaurants, beerhouses, hotels, motels, inns, pension houses, lodging houses and other similar establishments, including tourist guides and transports. The CA ruled in favor of the City. ISSUE: Whether or not Ord 7774 is valid. HELD: The SC ruled that the said ordinance is null and void as it indeed infringes upon individual liberty. It also violates the due process clause which serves as a guaranty for protection against arbitrary regulation or seizure. The said ordinance invades private rights. Note that not all who goes into motels and hotels for wash up rate are really there for obscene purposes only. Some are tourists who needed rest or to “wash up” or to freshen up. Hence, the infidelity sought to be avoided by the said ordinance is more or less subjected
Finally. The welfare of Filipino performing artists. there is no conflict at all between the raised generally accepted principle and with RA 1180. even assuming that the said Ordinance is intended to promote public morals. HELD: The SC ruled in favor of the lower court. He said that as a Chinese businessman engaged in the business here in the country who helps in the income generation of the country he should be given equal opportunity. it follows that the burden rests upon petitioners to demonstrate that the said order. 120095: JMM Promotion Management vs Court of Appeals Police Power Due to the death of one Maricris Sioson in 1991. Note however that there are restrictions and limitations. No. Ichong can no longer assert his right to operate his market stalls in the Pasay city market. It violates the due process clause by depriving the owners of said establishments of their legitimate businesses. The above provision has been omitted in the 1987 Constitution. being inherent could not be bargained away or surrendered through the medium of a treaty. a law may supersede a treaty or a generally accepted principle. In US jurisprudence. and reasonable grounds exist for making a distinction between those who fall within such class and those who do not." For the sake of argument. does not enhance the public welfare or was exercised arbitrarily or unreasonably. The logic behind is that there is no need to constitutionally provide such because it is inherent in the president’s position. particularly. April 12. JMM intervened to bolster the cause of FETMOP. the new scheme at the very least rationalizes the method of screening performing artists by requiring reasonable educational and artistic skills from them and limits deployment to only those individuals adequately prepared for the unpredictable demands of employment as artists abroad. Until in June 1954 when Congress passed the RA 1180 or the Retail Trade Nationalization Act the purpose of which is to reserve to Filipinos the right to engage in the retail business. Short of a total and absolute ban against the deployment of performing artists to "high risk" destinations. abridge existing contracts and rights and deprives artists of their individual rights. Ichong then petitioned for the nullification of the said Act on the ground that it contravened several treaties concluded by the RP which. The equal protection of the law clause "does not demand absolute equality amongst residents. It cannot be gainsaid that this scheme at least lessens the room for exploitation by unscrupulous individuals and agencies.R. JR. The Ordinance is unconstitutional. . (CITY OF MANILA. In this case. Art 7 thereof provides: The President shall be immune from suit during his tenure. the means employed is constitutionally infirm and not a valid exercise of police power. according to him. and MALATE TOURIST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. Cory banned the deployment of performing artists to Japan and other destinations. even if it would be assumed that a treaty would be in conflict with a statute then the statute must be upheld because it represented an exercise of the police power which. ISSUE: Whether or not the regulation by EIAC is valid. particularly the women was paramount in the issuance of Department Order No. under like circumstances and conditions both as to privileges conferred and liabilities enforced".R. and. The regulation is a valid exercise of police power.A. G. Thereafter. 3. a measure which would only drive recruitment further underground. represented by Mayor Alfredo Lim VS. No. Hence. G. Sec 17. ISSUE: Whether or not a law may invalidate or supersede treaties or generally accepted principles. L-7995: Lao Hernandez Ichong vs Jaime HELD: Yes. For some time he and his fellow Chinese businessmen enjoyed a “monopoly” in the local market in Pasay. the president is immune from suit only in so far as the involved case is civil in nature which is done under the performance of his official functions. This was relaxed however with the introduction of the Entertainment Industry Advisory Council which later proposed a plan to POEA to screen and train performing artists seeking to go abroad. 118127. the SC ruled that Estrada cannot cloak himself with Treaties May Be Superseded by Municipal Laws in the Exercise of Police Power Lao Ichong is a Chinese businessman who entered the country to take advantage of business opportunities herein abound (then) – particularly in the retail business. The Federation of Talent Managers of the Philippines assailed the validity of the said regulation as it violated the right to travel. no suit shall lie for official acts done by him or by others pursuant to his specific orders during his tenure. In pursuant to the proposal POEA and the secretary of DOLE sought a 4 step plan to realize the plan which included an Artist’s Record Book which a performing artist must acquire prior to being deployed abroad. it merely requires that all persons shall be treated alike. The lower court ruled in favor of EIAC. JUDGE PERFECTO LAGUIO. It likewise violates the equal protection clause. Police power concerns government enactments which precisely interfere with personal liberty or property in order to promote the general welfare or the common good. its ARB requirement. No. Presidential Immunity From Suit In the 1973 Constitution. that the equal protection clause "is not infringed by legislation which applies only to those persons falling within a specified class. In the case of Estrada vs Desierto.R. 2008) G. violates the equal protection clause (pacta sund servanda). if it applies alike to all persons within such class. There is no logic in allowing said establishments in other parts of the City of Manila but not in the Ermita-Malate area. As the assailed Department Order enjoys a and presumed validity.
rather than decrease. Such. Salaveria. The SC explained that it "is not a taking of the property for public use. As far back as U. or in any room or rooms within the same building where the barber shop is located as long as the operator of the barber shop and the rooms where massaging is conducted is the same person. HELD: The SC ruled against Toribio. a motorist who sees any of the aforementioned other built-in warning devices or the petroleum lamps will not immediately get adequate advance warning because he will still think what that blinking light is all about. Is it an emergency vehicle? Is it a law enforcement car? Is it an ambulance? Such confusion or uncertainty in the mind of the motorist will thus increase. All property is acquired and held under the tacit condition that it shall not be so used as to injure the equal rights of others or greatly impair the public rights and interests of the community. highway. And that the mandate to compel motorists to buy a set of reflectorized early warning devices is redundant and would only make manufacturers and dealers instant millionaires. The assailed ordinance is Velasco vs worded thus: "It shall be prohibited for any operator of any barber shop to conduct the business of massaging customers or other persons in any adjacent room or rooms of said barber shop. As above stated. a 1918 decision. . He nevertheless slaughtered his carabao without the necessary license. No.R. Agustin is arguing that this order is unconstitutional. any motorist from this country or from any part of the world. G. and visible even under adverse conditions at a distance of at least 400 meters. ISSUE: Whether or not the said is EO is valid. cruel and unconscionable to the motoring public." As it was then. harsh.' 3) 'built-in reflectorized tapes on front and rear bumpers of motor vehicles. of the unconstitutionality of such ordinance. L-42608: Agustin vs Edu Generally Accepted Principles of International Law Agustin is the owner of a Volkswagen Beetle Car. held that a petition for declaratory relief did not lie. is the progressive view of Philippine jurisprudence. it is a police power measure. it is well to recall. the attack against the validity cannot succeed. His request was denied because his carabao is found not to be unfit for work. there is a motor vehicle which is stationary. There is no showing. No. this clause has been given wide application by municipal authorities and has in its relation to the particular circumstances of the case been liberally construed by the courts. Even if such were not the case.' 2) 'batterypowered blinking lights inside motor vehicles. The lower court. that somewhere along the travelled portion of that road. highways or expressways.' or 4) 'well-lighted two (2) petroleum lamps (the Kinke) . the danger of collision. this Court through Justice Malcolm made clear the significance and scope of such a clause. so it has continued to be. He was eventually sued and was sentenced by the trial court. nor oppressive." As noted in the appealed order. As pointed out in the brief of respondents-appellees. . petitioners-appellants admitted that criminal cases for the violation of this ordinance had been previously filed and decided. an entirely different measure than the ordinance regulating the business of barbershops and. which "delegates in statutory form the police power to a municipality. v. the contention being that it amounts to a deprivation of property of petitionersappellants of their means of livelihood without due process of law. because: Being universal among the signatory countries to the said 1968 Vienna Conventions.presidential immunity to protect himself from criminal liability after his tenure especially so when the acts he committed include the heinous crime of plunder. HELD: Such early warning device requirement is not an expensive redundancy. stalled or disabled which obstructs or endangers passing traffic. His counsel in one way or the other argued that the law mandating that one should acquire a permit to slaughter his carabao is not a valid exercise of police power. 3659 as amended by Ordinance 4767. will conclude. within the meaning of the constitution.S. He is assailing the validity of Letter of Instruction No 229 which requires all motor vehicles to have early warning devices particularly to equip them with a pair of “reflectorized triangular early warning devices”." G. . therefore. for car owners whose cars are already equipped with 1) 'blinking-lights in the fore and aft of said motor vehicles. its availability being dependent on there being as yet no case involving such issue having been filed. G. but is a just and legitimate exercise of the power of the legislature to regulate and restrain such particular use of the property as would be inconsistent with or injurious to the rights of the publics.R. The objectives behind its enactment are: "(1) To be able to impose payment of the license fee for engaging in the business of massage clinic under Ordinance No. Toribio applied for a license to have his carabao slaughtered. therefore. without thinking. L-5060: United States vs Luis Toribio Police Power Sometime in the 1900s. ISSUE: Whether or not the said law is valid. 4964 of the City of Manila.R. On the other hand. No. (2) in order to forestall possible immorality which might grow out of the construction of separate rooms for massage of customers. The SC will not allow such to be used as a license by a president to commit unlawful acts and unlawful omissions." This Court has been most liberal in sustaining ordinances based on the general welfare clause. who sees a reflectorized rectangular early warning device installed on the roads. Cars are already equipped with blinking lights which is already enough to provide warning to other motorists. L-24153: Tomas Antonio Villegas Police Power This is an appeal from an order of the lower court dismissing a suit for declaratory relief challenging the constitutionality based on Ordinance No. or expressway.
the first law sought to be nullified after the effectivity of the 1935 Constitution. docketed as Case No. at the time of registration. Ericta thus: "Justice Laurel. 1977. and general welfare of the people. 77-42 which reads: SUBJECT: Phasing out and Replacement of Old and Dilapidated Taxis On January 27. and avoid obstruction on roads and streets designated as national roads . G. 101. Calalang v. 101. (2) Substantive due process. as "nothing more or less than the powers of government inherent in every sovereignty" was stressed in the aforementioned case of Edu v. safety. safety and general welfare of the people. seeking to nullify MC No. and at least illimitable powers.' In that sense it could be hardly distinguishable as noted by this Court in Morfe v. in the exercise of its police power. That is conceded by petitioner and is the main reliance of respondents." 2. can prescribe regulations to promote the health.' The police power is thus a dynamic agency.' extending as Justice Holmes aptly pointed out 'to all the great public needs. however. rooted in the conception that men in organizing the state and imposing upon its government limitations to safeguard constitutional rights did not intend thereby to enable an individual citizen or a group of citizens to obstruct unreasonably the enactment of such salutary measures calculated to insure communal peace. The latest decision in point. It is in the above sense the greatest and most powerful attribute of government. safety and welfare of society. The State. 77-42 or to stop its implementation. respondent Board of Transportation (BOT) issued Memorandum Circular No.' Shortly after independence in 1948. Williams found nothing objectionable in a statute. identified police power with state authority to enact legislation that may interfere with personal liberty or property in order to promote the general welfare. that while embraced in such a category. the overriding consideration is the safety and comfort of the riding public from the dangers posed by old and dilapidated taxis. was likewise prompted by the imperative demands of public safety. to quote Justice Malcolm anew. it has offended against the due process and equal protection safeguards of the Constitution. It can prohibit all things hurtful to comfort.' Its scope. the purpose of which was: "To promote safe transit upon. morals. 1981. ever expanding to meet the exigencies of the times. It was thus a heavy burden to be shouldered by petitioner. provided that. even to anticipate the future where it could be done. peace. as well as those of earlier models which were phased-out. that respondents did comply with the procedural requirements imposed by Presidential Decree No. good order. morals. (TOMMI) is a domestic corporation composed of taxicab operators. the National Defense Act. Fugoso reiterated the doctrine. Did BOT and BLT promulgate the questioned memorandum circulars in accord with the manner required by Presidential Decree No. ISSUE A. None has been called to our attention. suitably vague and far from precisely defined. safety and welfare of society. . would the implementation and enforcement of the assailed memorandum circulars violate the petitioners' constitutional rights to (1) Equal protection of the law. peace. compounded by the fact that the particular police power measure challenged was clearly intended to promote public safety. petitioners filed a Petition with the BOT. and (3) Protection against arbitrary and unreasonable classification and standard? HELD As enunciated in the preambular clauses of the challenged BOT Circular.The Letter of Instruction in question was issued in the exercise of the police power. What is critical or urgent changes with the time. In the language of Justice Cardozo: 'Needs that were narrow or parochial in the past may be interwoven in the present with the well-being of the nation. It would be a rare occurrence indeed for this Court to invalidate a legislative or executive act of that character. Williams. 'the most essential. Persons and property could thus 'be subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens in order to secure the general comfort. education. It is. Granting arguendo. good order. to allow the registration and operation in 1981 and subsequent years of taxicabs of model 1974. Calalang v. Edu v. who are grantees of Certificates of Public Convenience to operate taxicabs within the City of Manila and to any other place in Luzon accessible to vehicular traffic. On October 10. in the first leading decision after the Constitution came into force. sustained the validity of the Reflector Law. Fernando "the necessities imposed by public welfare may justify the exercise of governmental authority to regulate . Ericta. Inc.' The concept was set forth in negative terms by Justice Malcolm in a pre-Commonwealth decision as 'that inherent and plenary power in the State which enables it to prohibit all things hurtful to the comfort. It is the submission of the former. with petitioner failing in his quest. although the latter point was mentioned only in passing. health and prosperity of the state. L-59234: Taxicab Operators vs Board of Transportation Police Power Petitioner Taxicab Operators of Metro Manila. good order or safety. 80-7553.  In the language of Chief Justice Enrique M. provides enough room for an efficient and flexible response to conditions and circumstances thus assuring the greatest benefits. an enactment conceived with the same end in view. insistent. they are roadworthy and fit for operation. No. Primicias v. Mutuc with the totality of legislative power.  It may also regulate property rights. an indication of its being non-existent. and welfare. such a competence being referred to as 'the power to prescribe regulations to promote the health.R. thereby safeguarding the petitioners' constitutional right to procedural due process? B. ." As a matter of fact. The broad and expansive scope of the police power which was originally identified by Chief Justice Taney of the American Supreme Court in an 1847 decision.
Monday morning. Section 25(4) and the other requisites of a valid appropriation.R. Thus: "[Whereas]. the latter is accorded much leeway." 2 Motor vehicles of the following classifications are exempted: (a) S (Service). No. public morals. which is the epitome of reasonableness and fair play.' G. A recital of the whereas clauses of the Letter of Instruction makes it clear. Section 4. and welfare of society. may. Due process. Nos. there is no need to expropriate where the owner is willing to sell under terms also acceptable to the purchaser. G.m. it is good law. or 1:00 a. for failure to provide for retention limits for small landowners. No. or cannot accept the price or other conditions offered by the vendee. (c) DPL (Diplomatic). to destroy the very purpose of the state if it could be deprived or allowed itself to be deprived of its competence to promote public health. of course. rather than 1:00 a. Saturday morning to 5:00 a. therefore. .m. What is more. spouses Mary Concepcion Bautista and Enrique D. 27 and E.D.even if thereby certain groups may plausibly assert that their interests are disregarded". 1979 — the response to the protracted oil crisis that dates back to 1974 — is put in issue in this prohibition proceeding filed by petitioners. when challenged in an appropriate legal proceeding. L-50908: Bautista vs Juinio Police Power The validity of an energy conservation measure. That is settled law. namely. the uncertainty of fuel supply availability underscores a compelling need for the adoption of positive measures designed to insure the viability of the country's economy and sustain its developmental growth. 869.' It would be. that what is sought amounts at most to an advisory opinion rather than an adjudication of a case or controversy. [Whereas]. it is imperative to adopt a program directed towards the judicious use of our energy resources complemented with intensified conservation efforts and efficient utilization thereof.R. to cushion the effect of increasing oil prices and avoid fuel supply disruptions. of the holiday to 5:00 a. 3. The said measure is invalid also for violation of Article XIII. it does not conform to Article VI. 228 and 229 on grounds inter alia of separation of powers. Moreover. Private rights must then yield to the irresistible demands of the public interest on the time- . Negatively put. No. that the power of eminent domain will come into play to assert the paramount authority of the State over the interests of the property owner. No. police power is 'that inherent and plenary power in the State which enables it to prohibit all that is hurtful to the comfort. This is not one of them. The tenants were declared full owners of these lands by E. The use of private motor vehicles with H and EH plates on week-ends and holidays was banned from "[12:00] a. of the Constitution.O. . (b) T (Truck). as previously noted. in which case an ordinary deed of sale may be agreed upon by the parties. especially so where the assailed governmental action deals with the use of one's property. They contend that President Aquino usurped legislative power when she promulgated E. of a Saturday or of a holiday and as to the mention of a Willy's Kaiser jeep being registered in the name of a certain Teresita Urbina.m. therefore.m. that there may be instances where a police power measure may.D. that the ban starts at 12:00 a. [Whereas]. much less infringed. It is only where the owner is unwilling to sell.O. to paraphrase another leading decision. As stressed in the cited Ermita-Malate Hotel decision: "To hold otherwise would be to unduly restrict and narrow the scope of police power which has been properly characterized as the most essential. of the day after the holiday. about which respondents had no knowledge. Obviously. 8 There was also a procedural objection raised. be held offensive to the due process clause and. because of its arbitrary." 22 What is undeniable is that the action taken is an appropriate response to a problem that presses urgently for solution.O. developments in the international petroleum supply situation continue to follow a trend of limited production and spiralling prices thereby precluding the possibility of immediate relief in supplies within the foreseeable future. 78742: Association of Small Landowners vs Secretary of Agrarian Reform The subjects of this petition are a 9-hectare riceland worked by four tenants and owned by petitioner Nicolas Manaay and his wife and a 5hectare riceland worked by four tenants and owned by petitioner Augustin Hermano.m. safety. (d) CC (Consular Corps). cannot be validly invoked. (e) TC (Tourist Cars This Court gave due course to the petition requiring respondent to answer.. substantive due process.m. 27. The petitioners are questioning P. extending as it does 'to all the great public needs. due process. 4. There was admission of the facts as substantially alleged except. issued on May 31. It is true. be declared void on its face. . No. public safety and the general welfare. oppressive or unjust character. reference being made to the Land Transportation and Traffic Code. There was a denial of the allegations that the classification of vehicles into heavy (H) and extra heavy (EH) on the other hand and light and bantam on the other hand was violative of equal protection and the regulation as to the use of the former cars on the dates specified a transgression of due process. Jr. is not ignored. The answer likewise denied that there was an undue delegation of legislative power. to repeat. insistent and the least limitable of powers. 228 as qualified farmers under P. Thus. for being allegedly violative of the due process and equal protection guarantees 1 of the Constitution. but its reasonableness is immediately apparent. 228. In the interplay between such a fundamental right and police power. equal protection and the constitutional limitation that no private property shall be taken for public use without just compensation. Bautista. It may not be the only alternative. Eminent domain is an inherent power of the State that enables it to forcibly acquire private lands intended for public use upon payment of just compensation to the owner. Letter of Instruction No. No.
No. a strip of land measuring 12 by 77 meters on which stands a conglomeration of vendors stalls together forming what is commonly known as a talipapa. G. as in the case of the police power.R. under its rule that A student shall be allowed only three (3) chances to take the NMAT. No.R. After three (3) successive failures. the Board observed that the grades of the seventy-nine successful examinees from Fatima College in the two most difficult subjects in the medical licensure exam. the municipal council of San Fernando adopted Resolution No. while this case was pending. as distinguished from those of a particular class. which is subject to and limited by the paramount police power. when the municipal council of San Fernando adopted Resolution No. This power can be activated at any time to change the provisions of the contract. The action was protested on November 10. 1961. They passed the Physician Licensure Examination conducted in February 1993 by the Board of Medicine (Board). The petitioners claim they have a right to remain in and conduct business in this area by virtue of a previous authorization granted to them by the municipal government. It is the right and indeed the responsibility of the State to insure that the medical profession is not infiltrated by incompetents to whom patients may unwarily entrust their lives and health. No. Shortly thereafter. he acted correctly in sustaining the right and responsibility of the mayor to evict the petitioners from the disputed area and clear it of all the structures illegally constructed therein. declaring the challenged order invalid and granting the petition. We cannot sustain the respondent judge. or even abrogate it entirely. that the welfare of the people is the supreme law. The question is whether a person who has thrice failed the National Medical Admission Test (NMAT) is entitled to take it again. series of 1961. Branch 2. for the promotion or protection of the general welfare. along Mercado Street. 1968. Aguilar decided the aforesaid case and held that the land occupied by the petitioners. on November 2. We hold that the respondent judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the petition for prohibition. This dispute goes back to November 7. On January 18. We believe that the government is entitled to prescribe an admission test like the NMAT as a means of achieving its stated objective of "upgrading the selection of applicants into [our] medical schools" and of "improv[ing] the quality of medical education in the country. were unusually and exceptionally high.honored justification. 2040. The petitioner contends he may not. in Civil Case No. Valenzuela City. Eleven Fatima examinees scored 100% in Bio-Chem and ten got 100% in OB-Gyne. G. where the Court of First Instance of Pampanga. Castaňeda L-61311: Villanueva vs man and therefore could not be the subject of private occupancy. HELD Even assuming a valid lease of the property in dispute. require the interference of the State. Her decision must be reversed." There is no need to redefine here the police power of the State. Four years later. The private respondent insists he can. issued a writ of preliminary injunction that prevented the defendants from constructing the said stalls until final resolution of the controversy. every contract affecting the public interest suffers a congenital infirmity in that it contains an implied reservation of the police power as a postulate of the existing legal order. The subject of the challenged regulation is certainly within the ambit of the police power. a student shall not be allowed to take the NMAT for the fourth time. Petitioner Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) then released their names as successful examinees in the medical licensure examination. At the petitioners' behest. After hearing. another eleven got 99% There is in the vicinity of the public market of San Fernando. 218. 144681: PRC vs De Guzman The respondents are all graduates of the Fatima College of Medicine. Judge Teresita Dizon-Capulong held that the petitioner had been deprived of his right to pursue a medical education through an arbitrary exercise of the police power. 1961. the proper exercise of the police power requires the concurrence of a lawful subject and a lawful method. The respondents deny this and justify the demolition of their stalls as illegal constructions on public property. 89572: DECS vs San Diego The issue before us is mediocrity. Such an act will not militate against the impairment clause. 29. 218 authorizing some 24 members of the Fernandino United Merchants and Traders Association to construct permanent stalls and sell in the abovementioned place. we have issued a temporary restraining order to preserve the status quo between the parties pending our decision. was beyond the commerce of . This is the subject of the herein petition. which declared the subject area as "the parking place and as the public plaza of the municipality. Suffice it to repeat that the power is validly exercised if (a) the interests of the public generally.R." thereby impliedly revoking Resolution No. In fact. Metro Manila. On the contrary. Judge Andres C. Pampanga. on constitutional grounds. 5 In other words. G. 1989. Biochemistry (Bio-Chem) and Obstetrics and Gynecology (OB-Gyne). The writ of preliminary injunction was made permanent. being public in nature. 1964. the resolution could have effectively terminated the agreement for it is settled that the police power cannot be surrendered or bargained away through the medium of a contract. the respondent judge rendered a decision on July 4. and (b) the means employed are reasonably necessary to the attainment of the object sought to be accomplished and not unduly oppressive upon individuals.
and no one got a mark lower than 90%. It is given imperative meaning. it must appear that he has fully complied with all the conditions and requirements imposed by the law and the licensing authority. to conduct a statistical analysis of the results in Bio-Chem and ObGyne of the said examination. the applicant must show that he possesses all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications. Prior to the NBI investigation. and equitable admission and academic requirements. However. 1993. the guidelines are provided for in RA 2382." The operative word here is "satisfactorily. Thus. and raised grave doubts about the integrity. safety. as required by Section 927 of RA 2382. A comparison of the performances of the candidates from other schools was made. Bienvenido F. like all rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Charter. al. to be granted the privilege to practice medicine. peace. Herein. S.J. require giving up ones constitutional rights as a condition to acquiring the license." In statutory construction the term "shall" is a word of command. Nebres. an expert mathematician and authority in statistics. to protect the public from the potentially deadly effects of incompetence and ignorance among those who would practice medicine. The PRC asked the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to investigate whether any anomaly or irregularity marred the February 1993 Physician Licensure Examination. the consultant of PRC on the matter." Gleaned from Board Resolution 26. or activity without prescribing definite rules and conditions for the guidance of said officials in the exercise of their power. the qualifications of candidates for the board examinations. nevertheless. et. No. the Board filed before the PRC. 157882: Didipio Earth Savers Multipurpose Association et al vs DENR Sec Elisea Gozun et al Police Power – Eminent Domain . despotic. or revoking a license that has been issued. et. The Board observed that strangely." pursuant to the objectives of RA 2382 as outlined in Section 126 thereof..in Bio-Chem. or oppressive manner. their exercise may be so regulated pursuant to the police power of the State to safeguard health. On June 7. after the investigation." defined as "sufficient to meet a condition or obligation" or "capable of dispelling doubt or ignorance. It must be stressed. that the power to regulate the exercise of a profession or pursuit of an occupation cannot be exercised by the State or its agents in an arbitrary. Thus. The unusually high scores in the two most difficult subjects was phenomenal. the Board requested Fr. Section 830 of RA 2382 prescribes. morals. persons who desire to engage in the learned professions requiring scientific or technical knowledge may be required to take an examination as a prerequisite to engaging in their chosen careers. then the privilege will not issue. Adminstrative Case 1687 against De Guzman. It was a record-breaking phenomenon in the history of the Physician Licensure Examination. al. For said privilege is distinguishable from a matter of right. profession. Furthermore. according to Fr. HELD On the Right Of The Respondents To Be Registered As Physicians A careful reading of Section 20 of the Medical Act of 1959 discloses that the law uses the word "shall" with respect to the issuance of certificates of registration. without a definite showing that the requirements and conditions have been satisfactorily met. however. must have "satisfactorily passed the corresponding Board Examination. the Board is vested with the power to conduct administrative investigations and "disapprove applications for examination or registration. order. Herein. the licensing authority apparently did not find that De Guzman. reasonable. which prescribes the requirements for admission to the practice of medicine. Thus. al. as amended. courts will generally strike down license legislation that vests in public officials discretion to grant or refuse a license to carry on some ordinarily lawful business. withholding the registration as physicians of all the examinees from the Fatima College of Medicine. Should doubt taint or mar the compliance as being less than satisfactory. which may be demanded if denied. the scope and conduct of the examinations. to ascertain their moral and mental fitness to practice medicine. Such conditions may not. the courts may not grant the writ of mandamus to secure said privilege without thwarting the legislative will. Under the view that the legislature cannot validly bestow an arbitrary power to grant or refuse a license on a public agency or officer. 19. PRC. if not validity. A political body that regulates the exercise of a particular privilege has the authority to both forbid and grant such privilege in accordance with certain conditions. the surrounding circumstances in the present case call for serious inquiry concerning the satisfactory compliance with the Board requirements by De Guzman." Section 22. among others. Further. Thus. of the tests. and general welfare of the people. when an examinee satisfies the requirements for the grant of his physician’s license.R. the Board issued Resolution No. the unusually high ratings were true only for Fatima College examinees. (1) of Section 2225 of the Medical Act of 1959. pursuant to Section 20 and par. while it is true that this Court has upheld the constitutional right of every citizen to select a profession or course of study subject to a fair. Thus. etc. "satisfactorily passed" the licensure examinations. the grounds for denying the issuance of a physician’s license. "shall sign and issue certificates of registration to those who have satisfactorily complied with the requirements of the Board. G. Nebres. et. and twenty-one scored 99% in OB-Gyne. the Board is obliged to administer to him his oath and register him as a physician. Verily. provides that the oath may only be administered "to physicians who qualified in the examinations. education. The Board also observed that many of those who passed from Fatima got marks of 95% or better in both subjects. and later president of the Ateneo de Manila University. Under the second paragraph of Section 22. in turn. This regulation takes particular pertinence in the field of medicine. that a person who aspires to practice medicine in the Philippines. The Board instead sought to nullify the examination results obtained by the latter.
According to noted constitutionalist. Traversing petitioners’ assertion. Police Power vs Eminent Domain The power of eminent domain is the inherent right of the state (and of those entities to which the power has been lawfully delegated) to condemn private property to public use upon payment of just compensation.Any damage done to the property of the surface owners. In seeking to nullify Rep. The deprivation of use can in fact be total and it will not constitute compensable . Compensation of the Surface Owner and Occupant. the state may prescribe regulations to promote the health. HELD: The SC ruled against Didipio. In the case at bar. that any damage to the property of the surface owner. education. (5) the utilization of the property for public use must be in such a way as to oust the owner and deprive him of beneficial enjoyment of the property. Vizcaya including Brgy Didipio. Ramos already signed an FTAA with Arimco Mining Co. To wit. police power is the power of the state to promote public welfare by restraining and regulating the use of liberty and property. Although both police power and the power of eminent domain have the general welfare for their object. Cory rolled out EO 279 w/c empowered DENR to stipulate with foreign companies when it comes to either technical or financial large scale exploration or mining. public respondents argue that Section 76 is not a taking provision but a valid exercise of the police power and by virtue of which. Indeed there is taking involved but it is not w/o just compensation. Fr. convenience and safety of the customers A thorough scrutiny of the extant jurisprudence leads to a cogent deduction that where a property interest is merely restricted because the continued use thereof would be injurious to public welfare. Didipio petitioned to have the law and the RR to be annulled as it is unconstitutional and it constitutes unlawful taking of property. safety and general welfare of the people. 7942 and Section 107 of DAO 96-40 which they claim allow the unlawful and unjust “taking” of private property for private purpose in contradiction with Section 9. 7942 and its implementing rules DAO 9640 as unconstitutional. peace. Public respondents concluded that “to require compensation in all such circumstances would compel the government to regulate by purchase. good order. an ordinance prohibiting theaters from selling tickets in excess of their seating capacity (which would result in the diminution of profits of the theater-owners) was upheld valid as this would promote the comfort. but no aspect of the property is used by or for the public. Further.In 1987. Use of the property by the owner was limited. but none of the property interests in the bundle of rights which constitute ownership is appropriated for use by or for the benefit of the public. property rights of private individuals are subjected to restraints and burdens in order to secure the general comfort. Likewise. In 1994. or concessionaire as a consequence of such operations shall be properly compensated as may be provided for in the implementing rules and regulations. Section 107. Sec 76 of RA 7942 provides for just compensation as well as section 107 of the DENR RR. when a property interest is appropriated and applied to some public purpose. Act No. occupant. permit entry into a private property and allow taking of land without payment of just compensation. the state restricts the use of private property. mining is a public policy and the government can invoke eminent domain to exercise entry. The SC noted the requisites of eminent domain. On the other hand. The FTAA authorized AMC (later CAMC) to explore 37. or where property is destroyed because its continued existence would be injurious to public interest. (1) the expropriator must enter a private property. They are. (2) the entry must momentary period. This government regulation involves the adjustment of rights for the public good and that this adjustment curtails some potential for the use or economic exploitation of private property. there is compensable taking. occupant. through the Mining Act and its Implementing Rules and Regulations. or concessionaire thereof as a consequence of the mining operations or as a result of the construction or installation of the infrastructure mentioned in 104 above shall be properly and justly compensated. Ramos signed into law RA 7942 or the Philippine Mining Act. Article III of the 1987 Constitution mandating that private property shall not be taken except for public use and the corresponding payment of just compensation. Didipio failed to show that the law is invalid. no compensation shall be paid. and recent trends show a mingling of the two with the latter being used as an implement of the former. In 1995. there is no compensable taking. in the exercise of police power. Property condemned under police power is usually noxious or intended for a noxious purpose. xxx Provided. and prosperity of the state. in the exercise of its police power regulation. Joaquin Bernas. (4) the property must be devoted to public use or otherwise informally appropriated or injuriously affected. Act No. After the passage of the law. health. petitioners set their sight on Section 76 of Rep. an Australian company. They assert that public respondent DENR. DENR rolled out its implementing RRs. cannot. be for more than a (3) the entry must be under warrant or color of legal authority.” ISSUE: Whether or not RA 7942 and the DENR RRs are valid. on its own. However. there are still traditional distinctions between the two. morals. Section 76. acquisition and use of private lands. hence. Thus.000 ha of land in Quirino and N.
and. somebody else acquires the use or interest thereof. 3. The lower court ruled against Ynot ruling that the EO is a valid exercise of police power in order to promote general welfare so as to curb down the indiscriminate slaughter of carabaos. 485 SCRA 586) G. morals. also an Ynot vs a. 4. The conferment on the administrative authorities of the power to adjudge the guilt of the supposed offender is a clear encroachment on judicial functions and militates against the doctrine of separation of powers. The ordinance is actually a taking without compensation of a certain area from a private cemetery to benefit paupers who are charges of the municipal corporation. in the exercise of police power. Ynot was caught transporting 6 carabaos from Masbate to Iloilo. “taking” under the concept of eminent domain is entering upon private property for more than a momentary period. No. the city passes the burden to private cemeteries. Likewise. If. In such case. the interests of the public. 74457: Restituto Intermediate Appellate Court Police Power – Not Validly Exercised There had been an existing law which prohibited the slaughtering of carabaos (EO 626). the means employed is reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive to individuals. the end does not justify the means. The distinctions are: 1. HELD: The SC ruled that the EO is not valid as it indeed violates due process. Distinguish police power with power of eminent domain. not mere particular class. require the exercise of police power. or the general welfare of the people. HELD: The SC held the law as an invalid exercise of police power. In short. (LAWFUL SUBJECT) b. EO 626-A created a presumption based on the judgment of the executive. The movement of carabaos from one area to the other does not mean a subsequent slaughter of the same would ensue. The SC found that the challenged measure is an invalid exercise of the police power because the method employed to conserve the carabaos is not reasonably necessary to the purpose of the law and. (LAWFUL . He said that the authority provided by EO 626-A to outrightly confiscate carabaos even without being heard is unconstitutional.R. safety. Ynot should be given to defend himself and explain why the carabaos are being transferred before they can be confiscated. Instead of building or maintaining a public cemetery for this purpose. The power of eminent domain is the inherent right of the State to condemn or to take private property for public use upon payment of just compensation while police power is the power of the state to promote public welfare by restraining and regulating the use of liberty and property without compensation. No. in the regulation of the use of the property. There is.R. (DIDIPIO EARTH SAVERS MULTI PURPOSE ASSOCIATION VS. enjoyment of a property is restricted because the continued use thereof would be injurious to public welfare. there is no compensable taking provided none of the property interests is appropriated for the use or for the benefit of the public. hence . There is no reasonable relation between the setting aside of at least six (6) percent of the total area of all private cemeteries for charity burial grounds of deceased paupers and the promotion of health. Due process is violated because the owner of the property confiscated is denied the right to be heard in his defense and is immediately condemned and punished. devoting it to a public use. ELISEA GOZU. G. worse. such restriction constitutes compensable taking. Marcos issued EO 626-A which not only banned the movement of carabaos from interprovinces but as well as the movement of carabeef. ISSUE: Whether or not the ordinance is valid. MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF PRIVATE MEMORIAL TYPE CEMETERY OR BURIAL GROUND WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF QUEZON CITY AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR THE VIOLATION THEREOF" The law basically provides that at least six (6) percent of the total area of the memorial park cemetery shall be set aside for charity burial of deceased persons who are paupers and have been residents of Quezon City for at least 5 years prior to their death. 3. Otherwise. L-34915: City Government of QC vs Judge Ericta & Himlayang Pilipino Police Power – Not Validly Exercised Quezon City enacted an ordinance entitled "ORDINANCE REGULATING THE ESTABLISHMENT. under the warrant or color of legal authority. is unduly oppressive. or otherwise informally appropriating or injuriously affecting it in such a way as to substantially oust the owner and deprive him of all beneficial enjoyment thereof. To strengthen the law. On 13 Jan 1984. He was then charged in violation of EO 626-A. health and prosperity of the state. 2. Properties condemned under police power are usually noxious or intended for noxious purpose. no compensation shall be paid. ISSUE: Whether or not the law is valid. finally. property rights of private individuals are subjected to restraints and burdens in order to secure the general comfort. good order. Ynot averred EO 626-A as unconstitutional for it violated his right to be heard or his right to due process. DENR SEC.taking if nobody else acquires use of the property or any interest therein. however. In the exercise of police power.. What are the tests for a valid exercise of police power MEANS). ET AL. QC justified the law by invoking police power. to be determined by competent City Authorities. there should be compensable taking if it would result to public use.
That the hospitality girls they employed are healthy and are not allowed to go out with customers. liberty or property. SC had stressed reasonableness. b. The case was raffled to the 1st Division of the Sandiganbayan.R. Vicente surfaced on behalf of Engracio as his administrator to petition for the annulment of the ruling. MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF CERTAIN PLACES OF AMUSEMENT WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTIONS”. and the pursuit of a lawful occupation. G. De la Cruz averred that the said Ordinance violates their right to engage in a lawful business for the said ordinance would close out their business. ISSUE: Whether or not a municipal corporation. No decision was reached by the division by reason of Atienza’s dissent in favor of Imelda’s innocence.R. 4. Vicente averred that there had been no due process as Engracio never received the summons. such clubs employing hostesses pursuant to Ord 84 which is further in pursuant to RA 938. What are the Kinds of Due Process? a. Bulacan can. In short.10. certainly the assailed ordinance would pass the test of validity. Engracio however left for China and he never returned til he died. or the procedure as pointed out by Daniel Webster. His property is worth 75k more than what he owe. Bulacan. The court eventually granted El Banco petition to execute Engracio’s property. The purpose sought to be achieved could have been attained by reasonable restrictions rather than by an absolute prohibition. Espaňol- 2. There must be an impartial court or tribunal clothed with judicial power to hear and decide the matter before it. Due process is a law which hears before it condemns. it is to determine whether it has a valid governmental objective like for the interest of the public as against mere particular class. L-47136-39: Vicente De La Cruz vs Edgardo Paras Subject Shall Be Expressed in the Title – Police Power Not Validly Exercise De La Cruz et al were club & cabaret operators. The SC ruled that the requisites for judicial due process had been met. Garchitorena then summoned a special division of the SB to include JJ Amores and Cipriano as additional members.R. 1. The lower court further orderdd the clerk of court to furnish Engracio a copy and that it’d be sent to Amoy. 3. Paras ruled that the prohibition is a valid exercise of police power to promote general welfare. El Banco executed an instrument to mortgage Engracio’s property.294. Bocaue. is constitutional for it is pursuant to RA 938 which reads “AN ACT GRANTING MUNICIPAL OR CITY BOARDS AND COUNCILS THE POWER TO REGULATE THE ESTABLISHMENT. Certainly the ordinance on its face is characterized by overbreadth. the operation of night clubs. 5. Ser. If night clubs were merely then regulated and not prohibited. No. Amores then asked Garchitorena to be given 15 days to send in his . No. 84. a worthy and desirable end can be attained by a measure that does not encompass too wide a field. 84 after due hearing declaring that Ord 84. The requisites are. The division was headed by Justice Garchitorena with J Balajadia and J Atienza as associate justices. which proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment only after trial (Per Daniel Webster in the DARTMOUTH COLLEGE CASE) 6. CHAPTER II: DUE PROCESS G. They assail the constitutionality of Ord. L-11390: El Banco Filipino vs Vicente Palanca Judicial Due Process Requisites Engracio Palanca was indebted to El Banco and he had his parcel of land as security to his debt. Define due process. as well as consistency with the laws or policy of the State. No. substantive due process---requires the intrinsic validity of the law in interfering with the rights of the person to life. It cannot be said that such a sweeping exercise of a lawmaking power by Bocaue could qualify under the term reasonable. The defendant must be given the opportunity to be heard. G. HELD: The SC ruled against Palanca. ISSUE: Whether or not due process was not observed. His debt amounted to P218. Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person of the defendant or over the property subject of the proceedings. Procedural due process---one which hears before it condemns. 7 years thereafter. Judge Paras however lifted the TRO he earlier issued against Ord. China. prohibit the exercise of a lawful trade. De la Cruz then appealed citing that they were deprived of due process. consonant with the general powers and purposes of municipal corporations. No. Due to the failure of Engracio to make his payments. Since Engracio is a non resident El Banco has to notify Engracio about their intent to sue him by means of publication using a newspaper. Bocaue should and can only regulate not prohibit the business of cabarets. of 1975 or the Prohibition and Closure Ordinance of Bocaue. Judgment must be rendered only after lawful hearing. The objective of fostering public morals.invalid delegation of legislative powers to the officers mentioned therein who are granted unlimited discretion in the distribution of the properties arbitrarily taken. 124680-81: Imelda Marcos vs Sandiganbayan Due Process Imelda was charged together with Jose Dans for Graft & Corruption for a dubious transaction done in 1984 while they were officers transacting business with the Light Railway Transit. HELD: The SC ruled against Paras. Pursuant to the title of the Ordinance.
R. petitioner was denied the opinion of Justice Amores for before it could be given. CA. 2009) HELD: The SC ruled in favor of Delgado. there is no violation of his right to due process or right to counsel. Garchitorena received manifestation from J Balajadia stating that he agrees with J Rosario who further agrees with J Atienza. He was convicted by the lower court. particularly when theprosecution presented its evidence. 179642. 179907: Pedro People of the Philippines Due Process Consulta is charged for stealing a gold necklace worth 3. It may be true that Justice del Rosario had already expressed his opinion during an informal. he was Consulta vs G. The court of appeals raised before the CA the issue that he was not properly arraigned and that he was represented by a non lawyer. No. G. At that stage.R. No medical certificate was furnished. Unless she is represented by a lawyer. The DOJ sec refused to provide him copy thereof advising that it is still premature to give him so and that it is not a preliminary investigation hence he is not entitled to receive such copies. 139465: Sec of Justice vs Judge Ralph Lantion Due Process Mark Jimenez was charged of multiple crimes ranging from tax evasion to wire tapping to conspiracy to defraud the USA. At that point. No. ISSUE: Whether or not Jimenez is deprived of due process. Yco. But what is more. unscheduled meeting in the unnamed restaurant but as aforestated. The SC further emphasized that Imelda was deprived of due process by reason of Garchitorena not waiting for Amores’ manifestation. what right of the said accused was violated? Is he entitled to a new trial? If an accused was represented by a non-lawyer during the entire trial (though she thought that he was a lawyer).R. Presiding Justice Garchitorena dissolved the Special Division. or not due process was assisted by one Atty. The case against Jimenez refer to an . HELD: The SC affirmed the ruling of the lower court.5k owned by a certain Silvestre. However. G. even if he was not represented by a non-lawyer at the start of the criminal trial. The said lawyer has filed for multiple postponement of trial and one time he failed to appear in court by reason of him being allegedly sick. ISSUE: Whether observed. The lower court convicted her and the others. Delgado later found out that Yco is not a member of the IBP. February 12. This would certainly be a denial of due process. Jimenez sued the DOJ Sec and the lower court ruled in favor of Jimenez. Presiding Justice Garchitorena and Justice Balajadia may change their mind and agree with the original opinion of Justice Atienza but the turnaround cannot deprive petitioner of her vested right to the opinion of Justices Amores and del Rosario. No. PEOPLE. that opinion is not the opinion contemplated by law. Granting that she indeed is not a lawyer. On the date of Amores’ request. If an accused was represented by a non-lawyer during the trial of his criminal case. Such procedural flaws committed by respondent Sandiganbayan are fatal to the validity of its ”decision” convicting petitioner. She appealed before the CA and the CA sustained the lower court’s rule. pursuant to the RP-US extradition treaty requested to have Jimenez be extradited there. HELD: The SC ruled that the ruling of the SB is bereft of merit as there was no strong showing of Imelda’s guilt. Jimenez requested for a copy of the complaint against him as well as the extradition request by the USA. An accused person is entitled to be represented by a member of the bar in a criminal case filed against her before the Regional Trial Court. (CONSULTA VS. The US government. her withdrawal from the case in the earlier part of the case has cured the defect as he was subsequently assisted by a lawyer coming from the PAO.manifestation. Jocelyn Reyes who seemed not to be a lawyer. (DELGADO VS. L-47276: Emma Delgado vs Court of Appeals Due Process Delgado together with 3 others were charged for estafa causing the frustration of one medical student. there is great danger that any defense presented in her behalf will be inadequate considering the legal perquisites and skills needed in the court proceedings. Garchitorena then issued a special order to immediately dissolve the special division and have the issue be raised to the SB en banc for it would already be pointless to wait for Amores’ manifestation granted that a majority has already decided on Imelda’s favor. He was assisted by two lawyers during the proceeding.R. HELD: The SC ruled that Consulta’s claim of being misrepresented cannot be given due course. his right to due process was violated and therefore. 1986). Garchitorena had already created the Special Division of five (5) justices in view of the lack of unanimity of the three (3) justices in the First Division. November 10. 9. Jimenez was then wanted in the US. ISSUE: Whether or not Consulta was denied of due process. In the earlier part. ISSUE: Whether or not due process has been observed. The SB en banc ruled against Imelda. he entitled to a new trial. Delgado was assisted by one Atty. petitioner had a vested right to be heard by the five (5) justices. but was represented by a lawyer when he presented his evidence. OPIDA MORTERA G. especially the new justices in the persons of Justices Amores and del Rosario who may have a different view of the cases against her. The court was not impressed with such actuation and had considered the same as Delgado’s waiver of her right to trial. No.
nay an obligation. the Commissioner’s computation is at P61. However. based on the hierarchy of constitutionally protected rights.6M.impending threat of deprivation of one’s property or property right. Pursuant to the finding. he’s also a witness. 98310: Matuguina Integrated Wood Products Inc. In December 1985. Pending approval of MLE’s petition. ISSUE: Whether or not APT was denied of due process. they were deemed to have waived their right. Contained in their position papers were their respective comments and objections to the said report. Both parties. 1992 but counsel for APT failed to appear due to Dengue.R. The due process requirement is satisfied where the parties are given the opportunity to submit position papers. entered into a loan contract with DBP. One of those transferred was CCCs account. Later. the RTC ordered that due to the foregoing the case is deemed submitted for decision. on the part of the new counsel to prepare himself for the next scheduled hearing.6M while DBP/APT’s calculation is at P2. No less is this true. but even more so in the case before us. for DBP was likewise absent. The parties then filed their reactions to the report and during the trial they were given a chance to cross examine each other’s witnesses. G. No. the parties were also given the chance to cross-examine the Commissioner and his representative. In 1979. APT”s counsel was not able to do so raising the issue that he just took over the case and needs time to prepare. They were likewise granted opportunity to crossexamine the witnesses of the other party. The other counsel. rather than pass the blame on the previous counsel.6B. The essence of due process is that a party be afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard and to support any evidence he may have in support of his defense. which. vs Court of Appeals Due Process – Not Being Party to a Case In 1973. On Aug 25 th. After several months. CCC entered into a MOA with DBP restructuring its loans. Milagros Matuguina became the majority stockholder later on. such reason necessitates a duty. MLE appealed the case to the Ministry of Natural Resources.R. Mere demands are not sufficient. license was issued to Milagros Matuguina to operate logging businesses under her group Matuguina Logging Enterprises. 109937: Development of the Bank of the Philippines vs Court of Appeals Due Process – Opportunity to be Heard In 1968 and 1969. 3 of CCC’s witnesses were scheduled to be cross examined by APT’s counsel as DBP’s counsel had already done so. The Investigating Committee found MLE guilty as charged and had recommended the Director to declare that MLE has done so. APT filed for a motion for reconsideration. During pendency. G. however. he was able to come up with the report. CCC’s computation is at P43. Milagrosa withdrew her shares from MIWPI. involving as it does the possible deprivation of liberty. Counsel should have taken adequate steps to fully protect the interest of his client. To determine CCCs indebtedness to DBP/APT. CCC and DBP/APT. The withdrawal of APT’s previous counsel in the thick of the proceedings would be a reasonable ground to seek postponement of the hearing. It was denied and the RTC ruled that the indebtedness to be paid by CCC is the calculation came up with by the Commissioner. as previously discussed. Milagros later petitioned to have MLE be transferred to MIWPI. MIWPI was established in 1974 with 7 stockholders. DBP filed for a foreclosure against the assets of CCC. PP 502 was issued transferring nonperforming assets of the gov’t to Asset Privatization Trust. CCC petitioned before RTC Bulacan to enjoin DBP and the Sheriff of Bulacan from foreclosing its assets and praying further that its loan terms with DBP be restructured and that the interest rate terms in the promissory note be declared null and void. as in this case. is placed second only to life itself and enjoys precedence over property. The CA sustained the RTC’s decision. a party cannot feign denial of due process when he had been afforded the opportunity to present his side. Furthermore. Continental Cement Corp. HELD: The SC sustained the CA’s ruling. for while forfeited property can be returned or replaced. DAVENCOR and Philip Co requested Maceda to order MLE and/or MIWPI to comply with the ruling to pay the value in pesos of 2352. APT appealed before the CA averring that it was denied due process when it was not allowed to cross examine the witnesses of CCC nor was it allowed to present further witnesses. they were ordered to submit their position papers as to their calculation of the amount of indebtedness. like in APT’s case. A TRO was issued in favor of CCC. DBP filed a petition to dismiss the pending case as it CCC could no longer deal with DBP but rather with APT. The trial court denied the petition and has instead allowed APT to join the proceeding pursuant to PP 502 as amended. MNR Minister Ernesto Maceda found MLE guilty as charged. Long ingrained in jurisprudence is the principle that there can be no denial of due process where a party had the opportunity to participate in the proceedings but did not do so. He was given 60 days to come up with a report and he was given a lot of extensions thereafter. Jaime Cruz. Davao Enterprises Corporation filed a complaint against MLE before the District Forester (Davao) alleging that MLE has encroached upon the area allotted for DAVENCOR’s timber concession. In December 1986. After cross examination. CCC averred that by the failure of APT’s counsel to appear APT has waived such right. In June 1992. The excuse that it was due to the former counsel’s failure to turn over the records of the case to APT. The cross examination was reset to August 24-26. shows the negligence of the new counsel to actively recover the records of the case.04 m3worth of timbers. were given opportunity to submit their respective position papers after the Commissioner rendered his report. the RTC designated JC Laya (former BSP Gov and DepEd Sec) as chair of a fact finding commission. What the law prohibits is absolute absence of the opportunity to be heard. In November 1985. No. The . the time spent in incarceration is irretrievable and beyond recompense. hence.
The liberal atmosphere which pervades the procedure in administrative proceedings does not empower the presiding officer to make conclusions of fact before hearing all the parties concerned. Thus. the principal accused in the killing of her husband Dominador Go. MIWPI was not included or mentioned in the proceedings as having any participation in the encroachment in DAVENCOR's timber concession. the same 2nd Division ordered the board to immediately convene and to proclaim the winner without prejudice to the outcome of the case before the Commission. and another separate case against a certain Jane Go for killing her husand. Javier pointed out that the irregularities of the election must first be resolved before proclaiming a winner. Until the issuance of the Order of execution. Judge Espina's decision in favor of respondent Jane Go serves as sufficient and reasonable basis for the prosecution to seriously doubt his impartiality in handling the criminal cases. (1996 Oct 24) People of the Philippines vs Court of Appeals Due Process – Even the State is Entitled to It Petitioner filed a criminal case against Cristita Reyes. one of the Commissioners should inhibit himself as he was a former law partner of Pacificador. On June 7. during pendency. In the same manner an execution can be issued only against a party and not against one who did not have his day in court. tampering and falsification of election returns under duress. In the case at bar. a gross violation of MIWPI's constitutional rights under the due process clause. and Antonio Alegro. The Solicitor General then moved to have the petition close it being moot and academic by virtue of Javier’s death. as correctly pointed out by the Solicitor General. before the Tacloban RTC. it does not appear that MIWPI was at all furnished with a copy of DAVENCOR's letter requesting for the Execution of the Minister’s decision against it. including the State. Rogen Doctora. vote-buying. HELD: The SC ruled in favor of MIWPI. the proclamation made by the board of canvassers was set aside as premature. Evelio Javier Pacificador vs COMELEC & Arturo Due Process – impartial and competent court Javier and Pacificador. Johny Santos. That the issuance of the order of execution by the Minister has been made not only without or in excess of his authority but that the same was issued patently without any factual or legal basis. cannot be considered to adequately possess such cold neutrality of an impartial judge as to fairly assess both the evidence to be adduced by the prosecution and the defense in view of his previous decision in Special Civil Action No." COMELEC just referred the complaints to the AFP. On certiorari before the SC. and without hearing or impleading MIWPI. hence. MIWPI was suddenly made liable upon the order of execution by the respondent Secretary's expedient conclusions that MLE and MIWPI are one and the same. The accused in those criminal cases had failed to file their complaints. the proclamation was made by only the 2nd Division but the Constitute requires that it be proclaimed by the COMELEC en banc. MIWPI filed a petition for prohibition before the Davao RTC. having been made before the lapse of the 5-day period of appeal. There is no basis for the issuance of the Order of Execution against the MIWPI. fraud. On of the essential requirements of procedural due process in a judicial proceeding is that there must be an impartial court or tribunal clothed with judicial power to hear and determine the matter before it. which the Javier had seasonably made. duress. DAVENCOR appealed and the CA reversed the ruling of the RTC. threat and intimidation. Dominador. Javier complained of "massive terrorism.Minister then issued a writ of execution against MIWPI. Further. In Feb 1986. ISSUE: Whether or not the right to due process of the state has been violated. every litigant. As for Santos and Alegro they were already in prison when they were served notices. snatching of ballot boxes perpetrated by the armed men of Pacificador. MIWPI averred that it is not a party to the original case (as it was MLE that was sued – a separate entity). 92-11-219 wherein he enjoined the preliminary investigation at the Regional State Prosecutor's Office level against herein respondent Jane Go. ISSUE: Whether or not MIWPI’s right to due process has been violated. Also. Judge Pedro Espina. the 2nd Division of the Commission on Elections directed the provincial board of canvassers of Antique to proceed with the canvass but to suspend the proclamation of the winning candidate until further orders. apparently on the basis merely of DAVENCOR's letter requesting for the Order. Javier was gunned down. During election. On the same complaint. Opinion. ISSUE: Whether or not there had been due process in the proclamation of Pacificador. HELD: The SC saw it deem to decide over the case without a reply from the accused for waiting for replies would just cause further delay to the case. Verily. Generally accepted is the principle that no man shall be affected by any proceeding to which he is a stranger. were rivals to be members of the Batasan in May 1984 in Antique. and strangers to a case not bound by judgment rendered by the court. This action of the Minister disregards the most basic tenets of due process and elementary fairness. it would have been more prudent for Judge Espina to have voluntarily inhibited himself from hearing the criminal cases. . The RTC ruled in favor of MIWPI and has ordered to enjoin the Minister from pursuing the execution of the writ. The same was issued without giving MIWPI an opportunity to defend itself and oppose the request of DAVENCOR for the issuance of a writ of execution against it. Petitioner complained that Judge Pedro Espina who handled these cases is not impartial as he enjoined the preliminary investigation sought to be conducted by the prosecutor against Jane Go. In fact. 1984. intimidation. a member of the KBL under Marcos. is entitled to the cold neutrality of an impartial judge.
Due process is intended to insure that confidence by requiring compliance with what Justice Frankfurter calls the rudiments of fair play. who had not permanently taken over the sala vacated by the retired judge. No. Without such confidence. It was acted upon on April 18. J Castro denied the appeal on the 7th of September. “All the foregoing notwithstanding. It is likewise inexplicable why J Añover. Finally. he had the requested fifteen (15) days to file his responsive pleading. HELD: The SC agreed with the Azul that he was denied due process. J Castro ruled in favor Tecson.HELD: The SC ruled in favor of Javier and has overruled the Sol-Gen’s tenor. On 10 Apr ’79. On 27 Mar ’79.R. the very first day in office of J Castro in Quezon City. She filed a petition for collection of sum of money before the Rizal RTC and the case was given to J Sarmiento. Tecson already filed a motion to dismiss averring that Azul’s 5 day extension has already lapsed. They must believe in his sense of fairness. 1979. that J Azura is bias. Azul was unaware that J Sarmiento retired and was temporarily substituted by J Aňover who granted the extension but only for 5 days starting the next day. ISSUE: Whether or not Azul has been denied due process. 1979 to file his answer. ISSUE: Whether or not J Azura should inhibit himself from the trial. Tecson was only able to collect P141k thus leaving about P250k as a balance. To finance it he entered a loan agreement with Tecson in the amount of P391k. HELD: The SC ruled that Azura must. The constitutional provision on due process commands all who wield public authority. L-69640-45: Mayor Paderanga vs Judge Cesar Azura Miguel Due Process – Hostility Between the Judge and the Parties . There is no writer to foreordain the ending. The SC has repeatedly and consistently demanded "the cold neutrality of an impartial judge" as the indispensable imperative of due process. Camaya personally went to the session hall of the court with his motion for postponement only to be informed that J Sarmiento had just retired but that his motion would be considered "submitted for resolution. a court should have known that court orders requiring acts to be done in a matter of days should not be sent by mail. there would be no point in invoking his action for the justice they expect. should suddenly rule that only a five-day extension would be allowed." Since the sala was vacant and pairing judges in Quezon City are literally swamped with their own heavy loads of cases. Azul filed a notice of appeal it was denied on the 3rd but was reconsidered on the 7th hence Azul filed his record on appeal on the 21st and J Castro approved it on the 27 th but surprisingly upon motion of Tecson on the 30th. Judicial (and also extrajudicial) proceedings are not orchestrated plays in which the parties are supposed to make the motions and reach the denouement according to a prepared script.R. this should . He petitioned that J Azura inhibits himself from deciding on pending cases brought before him on the grounds that they have lost confidence in him. Meanwhile. Azul filed a motion for new trial on June 6th. They should be sure that when their rights are violated they can go to a judge who shall give them justice. L-52241: Pedro Azul vs Judge Jose Castro & Rosalinda Tecson Due Process – Impartial and Competent Court Azul owns and operates a construction shop. The motion to declare defendant in default is dated April 17. the permanent judge to replace J Sarmiento took office and he ordered Azul to be in default due to the lapse of the 5 day extension. the records show that Atty. The lower court denied the same on the 20th of the same month. 1979. To bolster that requirement. The litigants are entitled to no less than that. They must trust the judge. Nos. Azul received the copy of the complaint. otherwise they will not go to him at all. we have held that the judge must not only be impartial but must also appear to be impartial as an added assurance to the parties that his decision will be just. it was imprudent and neglectful for him to assume that said first extension would be granted. on the basis of the established facts and the pertinent law. The judge will reach his conclusions only after all the evidence is in and all the arguments are filed. However. oppressive and is abusive in his power. Before the much publicized Project Mercury of the Bureau of Posts. And to compound the Azul's problems. but most peremptorily courts of justice. It may be argued that when the Azul's counsel asked for a fifteen (15) day extension from April 11. J Castro proceeded with the reception of evidence the next day and of course without Azul’s evidence as he was still unaware of him being in default. On April 27th. J Castro set aside its earlier decisaion on the 27th. No copy was furnished the petitioner. On May 2nd Azul. As decided in the Pimentel Case (21 SCRA 160). There cannot be equal justice where a suitor approaches a court already committed to the other party and with a judgment already made and waiting only to be formalized after the litigants shall have undergone the charade of a formal hearing. But Azul only received the notice granting such on the 23rd of the same month way passed the 5 day period. On the 18th of the same month. On Aug 1st. that he entertained tax suits against the city and had issued TROs on the sales of properties when it is clearly provided for by law (Sec 74 PD 464) that the remedy to stop auction is to pay tax. at the very least. the petitioner was declared in default. Fair play calls for equal justice. On the 17th of April.Inhibition Paderanga was the mayor of Gingoog City. the order was sent by mail and received only twelve (12) days later or after the five-day period. G. unaware that J Castro already decided the case appealed to remove his default status. Azul filed a motion for a 15 day extension to file for responsive pleading. otherwise they will not seek his judgment. G. J Castro. On May 7th Azul received the decision rendered by the court on Apr 27th (but on record the date of receipt was May 5th). to strictly maintain standards of fundamental fairness and to insure that procedural safeguards essential to a fair trial are observed at all stages of a proceeding. counsel may be excused for assuming that. Misamis Oriental.
David denied that the borthers were his tenants. in all controversial questions. The land is estimated to be yielding 60-70 cavans of corn cobs an dthe share agreed upon is 50-50. In legal contemplation. he should conduct a careful self-examination. David averred he was denied due process. Zambales. The lower court granted Lorenzana’s ejectment cases. Gozon decided in favor of Martinez et al. HELD: The SC ruled in favor of Cayetano and has affirmed the CA. The right to a hearing. In 1973. . He let Felomeno Jugar and Ricardo Jugar tend and caretake separate portions of his land in 1971. 5. which does not bind her. She had the property be rented to tenants occupying stalls. 3. Lorenzana averred that Cayetano is now a party to the ejectment cases as she already brought herself to the Court’s jurisdiction by virtue of her appeal. J Aquilizan admitted that there was indeed no hearing conducted but he said the decision has already become final and executory as the period for appeal has already lapsed. It must be noted that respondent was not a party to any of the 12 ejectment cases wherein the writs of demolition had been issued. He should exercise his discretion in a way that the people's faith in the courts of justice is not impaired. and the reason for the decision rendered. . Cayetano only went to court to protect her property from demolition after the judgment in the ejectment cases had become final and executory. The tribunal must consider the evidence presented. They are asserting their claim against the group of Martinez and Pabiloňa. J Aquilizan handled the case filed by the brothers against David and after three months he rendered a decision in favor of the brothers without any hearing. He said that Ricardo was his tractor driver before but he resigned to take care of his dad and to work for DOLE. it is as if no judgment has been rendered at all. vs Judge Gregorio ISSUE: Whether or not David is entitled to an appeal. 4. 6. HELD: The SC ruled in favor of David. She later purchased the land (San Lazaro Estate). . favored Cayetano. And it has been held that a final and executory judgment may be set aside with a view to the renewal of the litigation when the judgment is void for lack of due process of law. Requisites of Administrative Due Process 1. A decision rendered without a hearing is null and void and may be attacked directly or collaterally. The brothers prayed for reinstatement but David refused to do so. Hence. Cayetano was renting the same from the Bureau of Lands. A judge may not be legally prohibited from sitting in a litigation But when suggestion is made of record that he might be induced to act in favor of one party or with bias or prejudice against a litigant arising out of circumstances reasonably capable of inciting such a state of mind. Cotabato. David withdrew the land from the brothers and has not allowed them to go back there. The CA. ZCM appealed the case before the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. He did not inhibit . On the other hand. Cayetano was not a party to the ejectment cases so she prayed for the lower court that her property be not touched. The decision must have something to support itself. The tribunal or body or any of its judges must act on its or his own independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy and not simply accept the views of a subordinate in arriving at a decision. ISSUE: Whether or not Cayetano’s right to due process has been violated. . which includes the right to present one’s case and submit evidence in support thereof. GR L 020202: Zambales Chromite Mining et al vs Court of Appeals Due Process – Administrative Due Process ZCM filed an administrative case before the Director of Mines Gozon to have them be declared the rightful and prior locators and possessors of 69 mining claims in Sta. During pendency. Anita Lorenzana vs Polly Cayetano Due Process – Hearing Lorenzana was renting a parcel of land from the Manila Railroad Company (later from the Bureau of Lands).” Filemon David Aquilizan et al Due Process . 2. The decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing. The lower court denied Cayetano’s petition. The evidence must be substantial. And Natural Resources.Hearing David has a large parcel of land in Polomolok." The reminder is also apropos that next in importance to the duty of rendering a righteous judgment is that of doing it in such a manner as will beget no suspicion of the fairness and integrity of the judge . . Lorenzana then secured a writ of execution to forcibly eject her tenants but she included to eject Cayetano’s property. Fewlomeno on the other hand surrendered the portion of the land he was tending to continue his faith healing. 7. she did not make her appearance in and during the pendency of these ejectment cases. The decision is null and void for want of due process. Gozon was assigned as the Sec of Agri. Cruz. . nor can its writ of execution be informed against her since she was not afforded her day in court in said ejectment cases.be a good occasion as any to draw attention of all judges to appropriate guidelines in a situation where their capacity to try and decide fairly and judiciously comes to the fore by way of challenge from any one of the parties. she filed 12 ejectment cases against her tenant. render its decision in such a manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the various issues involved. or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected. Cayetano was an occupant of a parcel of land adjacent to that of Lorenzana’s land. with respect to the judgment in said ejectment cases. Due to nonpayment of rents. upon appeal. The board or body should. Cayetano remains a third person to such judgment.
there could be no different view or there would be no real review of the case. Savellano later found probable cause and had ordered the arrest of Alonte and Concepcion. that there is no provision in the Mining Law. Clave referred the issue to the CSC.R. disqualifying the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources from deciding an appeal from a case which he had decided as Director of Mines. The standard of waiver requires that it "not only must be voluntary. ZCM wants the CA’s earlier decision to be reaffirmed while Martinez et al demanded that Gozon’s finding be reinstated. Clave was also holding the chairmanship of the CSC. 55. 131652: Mayor Bayani Alonte vs Judge Maximo Savellano. It held that the disqualification of a judge to review his own decision or ruling (Sec. The CA denied both petition. The position was previously held by Dr Kintanar who recommended Dr Venzon to his position. but must be knowing. The CA reconsidered after realizing that Gozon cannot affirm his own decision and the CA remanded the case to the Minister of Natural Resources. The prosecutor continued on with the case and the change of venue was done notwithstanding opposition from Alonte. The issue was elevated to the Office of the president by Venzon. he would not admit that he was mistaken in his first view of the case. The case was brought before RTC Biňan. In order that the review of the decision of a subordinate officer might not turn out to be a farce. the one who appointed Anzaldo. the reviewing officer must perforce be other than the officer whose decision is under review. NBI & People of the Philippines Due Process in Criminal Proceedings – Waiver of Right to Due Process Alonte was accused of raping JuvieLyn Punongbayan with accomplice Buenaventura Concepcion. Case was then submitted for decision and Savellano sentenced both accused to reclusion perpetua. G. Since Clave was holding the office of PEA he just affirmed his decision as the CSC chairman. ISSUE: Whether or not there is due process in the case at bar. It is evident that Anzaldo was denied due process of law when Presidential Executive Assistant Clave concurred with the recommendation of (himself) Chairman Clave of the Civil Service Commission. The SC affirmed the 2nd decision of the CA. The decision of the reviewing officer would be a biased view. Clave issued Res 1178 appointing Venzon to the contested position. The CA reversed Gozon’s finding and declared that ZCM had the rights earlier attributed to Martinez et al by Gozon. the prosecution presented Juvie and had attested the voluntariness of her desistance the same being due to media pressure and that they would rather establish new life elsewhere. that the ZCM did not seasonably seek to disqualify Gozon from deciding their appeal. Now both parties appealed urging their own contentions. While the change of venue was pending. Rules of Court) does not apply to administrative bodies. prejudice. and done with sufficient . as to who between Anzaldo and Venzon should be appointed Science Research Supervisor II. She was holding the position Scientist Research Associate IV when she was appointed as Science Research Supervisor II. HELD: The SC ruled that Savellano should inhibit himself from further deciding on the case due to animosity between him and the parties. Juvie executed an affidavit of desistance. Dr Afable. It was alleged that Concepcion befriended Juvie and had later lured her into Alonete’s house who was then the mayor of Biňan. Laguna. L-54597: Felicidad Anzaldo vs Jacobo Clave Due Process – Administrative Due Process Dr Anzaldo . Clave was then the Presidential Executive Assistant. Pursuant to PD 807 or the Civil Service Decree.himself from deciding on the appeal but he instead affirmed his earlier decision when he was still the director of mines. had been working in the National Institute of Science and Technology for 28 years. Gozon had acted with grave abuse of discretion. what he meant was that he was concurring with Chairman Clave's recommendation: he was concurring with himself. No. animosity or hostility to ZCM. Dr Venzon contested the position. HELD: The SC ruled in favor of Anzaldo. The case was raffled to the Manila RTC under J Savellano. Martinez et al appealed averring that the factual basis found by Gozon as Director of Mines be given due weight. Savellano commented that Alonte waived his right to due process when he did not cross examine Juvie when clarificatory questions were raised about the details of the rape and on the voluntariness of her desistance. or on January 5. inevitably. Due process of law means fundamental fairness. The counsel and the prosecutor later moved for a change of venue due to alleged intimidation. HELD: The SC annulled the decision of Gozon calling it as a mockery of justice. After the denial of her motion for the reconsideration of that resolution. It is not fair to Anzaldo that PEA Clave should decide whether his own recommendation as Chairman of the CSC. and that there was no evidence that Gozon acted arbitrarily and with bias. it would be the same view since being human. When PEA Clave said in his decision that he was "inclined to concur in the recommendation of the Civil Service Commission". Anzaldo appealed to the Office of the President of the Philippines. ZCM appealed the case to the CA. G. 1. Her appointment was approved by the CSC in 1978. intelligent. otherwise. There is no showing that Alonte waived his right. Rule 137. ISSUE: Whether or not Gozon can validly affirm his earlier decision w/o disturbing due process. that delicadeza is not a ground for disqualification. The CFI affirmed the decision of Gozon. averred that Anzaldo’s appointment was approved by the NIST evaluation Committee which gave 88 points to Anzalado and 66 points to Venzon. No. ISSUE: Whether or not Alonte has been denied criminal due process.R. ZCM then appealed before the CFI of Zambales. Thereafter. should be adopted by the President of the Philippines. 1980.
Nor is an actual hearing always essential. they shall have the right to adduce evidence in their own behalf. 5. the order of trial may be modified accordingly. . Savellano has not shown impartiality by repeatedly not acting on numerous petitions filed by Alonte. (b) The accused may present evidence to prove his defense. It is not essential that hearings be had before the making of a determination if thereafter. (b) that jurisdiction is lawfully acquired by it over the person of the accused. 168116: Atty. with the assistance of counsel. Although the order of presentation of evidence was not in conformity with the procedure. still Erece should not be deemed to have lost his right to cross-examine his accusers and their witnesses. 2. 3. 3. and (d) that judgment is rendered only upon lawful hearing. Romeo Erece vs Lyn Macalingay et al Due Process – Administrative Bodies Atty Erece was the Regional Director CHR Region 1. in furtherance of justice. the evidence must be duly considered by the investigating committee or official . if any. (d) Upon admission of the evidence. the right to a notice or hearing are not essential to due process of law. permits them to present additional evidence bearing upon the main issue. they shall have the right to answer the charges against them. Macalingay et al were complaining that Erece had continuously denied them from using the company vehicle. NU. it is otherwise in administrative proceedings since they rest upon different principles. HELD: The SC agrees with the CA that petitioner was not denied due process when he failed to cross-examine the complainants and their witnesses since he was given the opportunity to be heard and present his evidence. That Erece had been receiving his Representation and Transportation Allowance yet he prioritizes himself in the use of the vehicle. respondents did not present their evidence. Erece contends that he was denied due process as he was not afforded the right to cross-examine his accusers and their witnesses." Mere silence of the holder of the right should not be so construed as a waiver of right. of the Rules of Court "Sec. (c) that the accused is given an opportunity to be heard. One adequate hearing is all that due process requires. In administrative proceedings. (c) The parties may then respectively present rebutting evidence only.R. This may be allowed only if he expressly waived said right. when the accused admits the act or omission charged in the complaint or information but interposes a lawful defense. Thus. the essence of due process is simply the opportunity to explain one’s side. but moved to submit their position paper and formal offer of evidence. in certain proceedings of administrative character. Section 3. . He stated that at his instance. they shall be informed of the evidence against them. in order to prevent delay in the disposition of the case. . arising from the issuance of any provisional remedy in the case. The issue reached the CSc proper which found Erece guilty as charged. and the courts must indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver. Order of trial. in the proper case. Due process in criminal proceedings (a) that the court or tribunal trying the case is properly clothed with judicial power to hear and determine the matter before it. it should not be construed as a waiver of his right to crossexamine the complainants. 10. unless the court. Erece submits that although he was allowed to present evidence first. 4. which motion was granted by the CSC over his objection. ISSUE: Whether or not Erece had been denied due process. . . Judicial Due Process vs Administrative Due Process Due process of law in administrative cases is not identical with "judicial process" for a trial in court is not always essential to due process. the students must be informed in writing of the nature and cause of any accusation against them. What are the requisites of procedural due process in disciplinary actions against students? As held in GUZMAN VS. Rule 119. (e) However. and damages. he was allowed to present evidence first to support the allegations in his Counter-Affidavit. there is available trial and tribunal before which all objections and defenses to the making of such determination may be raised and considered.awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences. The trial shall proceed in the following order: (a) The prosecution shall present evidence to prove the charge and. No." G. the requisites are: 1. the civil liability. 142 SCRA 706. The case is remanded to the lower court for retrial and the decision earlier promulgated is nullified. . Macalingay et al then submitted their Position Paper and Formal Offer of Exhibits. After he rested his case. Macalingay et al were Erece’s subordinates. The right to cross-examine is not an indispensable aspect of due process. The due process clause guarantees no particular form of procedure and its requirements are not technical. The constitutional requirement of due process is met by a fair hearing before a regularly established administrative agency or tribunal. While a day in court is a matter of right in judicial proceedings. the case shall be deemed submitted for decision unless the court directs the parties to argue orally or to submit memoranda.
6. The right to due process is not violated even if a party to an administrative case was not allowed to cross-examine the other party or his witnesses. service may be effected (a) by leaving copies of the summons at the defendant’s residence with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein. and Hearing A. JUDGE WILFREDO REYES. petitioner herein was given the opportunity several times to engage the services of a lawyer to assist him but he confidently informed the investigators that he could protect himself. Due process is served if was given the chance to present his evidence. LYN MACALINGAY. Substituted service.. HRET then considered such inaction as a general denial to the protest. no 12. 7. Cuanan. for justifiable causes. Service in person on defendant. The Secretary of HRET the issued the summons to Datu Pax to his quite remote residence in Sultan Kudarat. ROMEO ERECE VS. HELD: The SC ruled in favor of Datu Pax. Cuanan requested to be reinstated which was indorsed by the Superintendent. by tendering it to him. No. 11. Datu Pax was required to file a reply within ten days from receipt. however. In April. – If. 282 SCRA 125) 12-a. Datu Pax won the elections. RTC 36. 43 days past and no answer was received from Datu Pax as he was unaware of the summons. The next month. The right to due process on the part of a student is not violated even if he was not allowed to cross-examine the other party or his witnesses. He alleged that he does not know of a Baldenas nor was she a part of the household. What he is entitled to is the right to be heard. What are the requisites of due process before an employee may be dismissed from his work? The requisites of Due Process before the NLRC are: 1. How about in investigations involving disciplinary actions against students. that. – Whenever practicable. Nueva Ecija. Indeed. 2008) 12-b.R. while being a school principal in San Antonio. The HRET should have mde use of its own servers to make sure that the summons is personally received by Datu Pax. 2007) G. Regional Director Labrador the forced resignation of Cuanan. 127980. or (b) by leaving copies at defendant’s office or regular place of business with some competent person in charge thereof. or. it seems that Dep Ed was not able to receive the copy as it requested a copy thereof again. HRET denied his motion and had proceeded to the recount as prayed for by Montilla. April 22. (ATTY.R. 2.R. The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure (which is in one way or the other adopted by the 2004 HRET rules on summons) provides that: SEC. No. G. then Sec Gonzales affirmed the decision of Labrador and had denied Cuanan’s Motion for Reconsideration. de Jesus filed a motion for reconsideration w/o furnishing a copy to Cuanan. if he refuses to receive and sign for it. ISSUE: Whether or not Datu Pax was denied due process by reason that he did not receive the summons personally. (LUMIQUED VS.designated by the school authorities to hear and decide the case. No. Department of Education vs Godofredo Cuanan Due Process – Certiorari – Service of Summons In 1996. with more reason should election cases (which involve public interest and the will of the electorate) strictly follow the hierarchy of modes of service of summons under the Rules of Court. In Mar 2003. the summons shall be served handling a copy thereof to the defendant in person. Is due process satisfied in administrative proceedings if the respondent is not assisted by counsel? There is no law. G. are the latter entitled to cross-examine the complainant and his witnesses? . Manila. No. which provides that a respondent in an administrative case should be assisted by counsel in order that the proceedings therein is considered valid. Datu Pax later learned about the protest against him and he coordinated with his lawyers to appear on behalf of him and to present the answer as well as to file counter protest. if in ordinary civil cases (which involve only private and proprietary interests) personal service of summons is preferred and service by registered mail is not allowed on jurisdictional and due process grounds. 166809. ET AL. SEC. Not only. In July 2003. (DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY VS. was charged for sexual harassment. de Jesus filed a supplemental motion for reconsideration. CUanan appealed to the CSC which reversed Gonzales’ decision in Jan 2003 and CSC issued a copy of the resolution to Cuanan and Dep Ed. now Dep Ed Sec de Jesus received a copy of the resolution. Montilla contested the results of the elections before the HRET. In 2000. Notice. EXENEA. The summons to Datu Pax should not have been delivered via registered mail as the same is susceptible to fraud. 179813: Datu Pax Pakung Mangudadatu vs HRET & Angelo Montilla Due Process – Administrative Bodies – HRET – Service of Summons Datu Pax and Montilla were rivals in the Congressional elections in 2007. whether the Civil Service Act or the Administrative Code of 1987. December 19. DECS Region III created an investigating committee and the latter found Cuanan guilty as charged. The summons was received by a certain Aileen Baldenas. the defendant cannot be served within a reasonable time as provided in the preceding section. Is there a violation of a person’s right to due process before an administrative body like the Civil Service Commission if a party was not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses against him despite his request? No.
These exceptions find application to Cuanan’s petition for certiorari in the CA. and there is no appeal. He had no opportunity to participate in the proceedings for the petition for review/ reconsideration filed by the DepEd. As will be shown forthwith. Coverage and Definition of Terms. board. or thirteen (13) days from receipt on November 9. nor any plain. a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition for certiorari in the proper court alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the (3) While the duty to deliberate does not impose the obligation to decide right. ISSUE: Whether or not there is due process in the case at bar. L-46496: Ang Tibay vs CIR Due Process – Admin Bodies -CIR TeodoroToribio owns and operates Ang Tibay a leather company which supplies the Philippine Army. G. Nonetheless. CERTIORARI defined When any tribunal. and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. (1) The right to a hearing which includes the right of the party interested or affected to present his own case and submit evidence in support thereof. Cuanan’s petition for certiorari before the CA could be treated as a petition for review. Cuanan filed a certiorari before the CA. where petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency for relief. to wit: (a) when public welfare and the advancement of public policy dictates. The SC ruled that all administrative bodies cannot ignore or disregard the fundamental and essential requirements of due process. board or officer. 041147. or with grave abuse of discretion. Toribio caused the lay off of members of National Labor Union Inc.R. It noted that DepEd has the power to file a motion for reconsideration in the case at bar. they may be treated as mere scraps of paper which should not have merited the attention or consideration of the CSC.copy was furnished to Cuanan again. Cuanan undoubtedly was denied procedural due process. That there are two labor unions in Ang Tibay. At any rate. NLU averred that Toribio’s act is not valid as itis not within the CBA. – x x x (l) PARTY ADVERSELY AFFECTED refers to the respondent against whom a decision in a disciplinary case has been rendered or to the disciplining authority in an appeal from a decision exonerating the said employee. (c) when the writs issued are null and void. Such move would be in accordance with the liberal spirit pervading the Rules of Court and in the interest of substantial justice. That NLU wishes for a new trial as they were able to come up with new evidence/documents that they were not able to obtain before as they were inaccessible and they were not able to present it before in the CIR. 2004 of CSC Resolution No. speedy. 2004. where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due process. The remedy of an aggrieved party from a resolution issued by the CSC is to file a petition for review thereof under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court within fifteen days from notice of the resolution. He averred that the CSC decision in Jan 2003 had already become final and executory. clearly within the 15-day reglementary period for the filing of a petition for review. ISSUE: Whether or not there has been a due process of law. or officer exercising judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction. DepEd averred that the proper remedy should have been a petition for review. as the law requires. since no copy of the pleadings filed by the DepEd were served upon him or his counsel. it does imply a necessity which cannot be disregarded. there are exceptions to this rule. HELD: The SC affirmed the ruling of the CA. of such tribunal. namely. Recourse to a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 renders the petition dismissible for being the wrong remedy. as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction. the petition having been filed on November 22. They are. HELD: The SC ruled that there should be a new trial in favor of NLU. The SC maintained that the disciplining authority qualifies as a party adversely affected by the judgment. A decision with absolutely nothing to . NLU andNational Worker’s Brotherhood. CSC Resolution 021600 provides: Section 2. The CA reversed the decision of the CSC. Due to alleged shortage of leather. or (d) when the questioned order amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority. exception (c) applies to the present case. proceedings. No. where the proceeding was ex parte or one in which the petitioner had no opportunity to object. (2) Not only must the party be given an opportunity to present his case and to adduce evidence tending to establish the rights which he asserts but the tribunal must consider the evidence presented. immediate recourse to the extraordinary remedy of certiorari is warranted where the order is a patent nullity. CSC reversed its decision and found Cuanan guilty of sexual harassment. who can file an appeal of a judgment of exoneration in an administrative case. that of having something to support its decision. In Oct 2004. That NWB is dominated by Toribio hence he favorsit over NLU. nor was he even required by the CSC to file his comments thereon. Considering that pleadings filed by the DepEd were not served upon Cuanan. while a motion for reconsideration is a condition precedent to the filing of a petition for certiorari. (b) when the broader interest of justice so requires. Furthermore.
must act on its or his own independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy. or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected. (5) The decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing. required that to "give the substance of a hearing. and not simply accept the views of a subordinate in arriving at a decision. which is for the purpose of making determinations upon evidence the officer who makes the determinations must consider and appraise the evidence which justifies them. there is no question that the requirements of due process and fair trial are fully met. render its decision in such a manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the various issues involved. (7) The Court of Industrial Relations should. Petitioners filed their objections to the authority of the hearing officers to hear their cases. It is sufficient that the judgment and discretion finally exercised are those of the officer authorized by law. therefore. hence. As long as a party is not deprived of his right to present his own case and submit evidence in support thereof. (4) Not only must there be some evidence to support a finding or conclusion but the evidence must be "substantial. the present petition for mandamus. ISSUE: Whether or not the hearing done by hearing officers are within due process." Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Neither does due process of law nor the requirements of fair hearing require that the actual taking of testimony be before the same officer who will make the decision in the case. The rule that requires an administrative officer to exercise his own judgment and discretion does not preclude him from utilizing. a place when directly attached. Said objections were overruled by the Director of Patents. in all controversial questions. The performance of this duty is inseparable from the authority conferred upon it. No. and the reasons for the decisions rendered. interference proceeding instituted for the purpose of determining the question of priority of adoption and use of a trade-mark. L-26803: American Tobacco Company et al vs Director of Patents ATC et al filed before the Philippine Patent Office concerning the use of trademark and trade name. HELD: The SC ruled that the power to decide resides solely in the administrative agency vested by law." These proceedings refer to the hearing of opposition to the registration of a mark or trade name. this does not preclude a delegation of the power to hold a hearing on the basis of which the decision of the administrative agency will be made. on the basis of which the officer makes his decisions. In short." . in lieu of the hearing officers. and the decision is supported by the evidence in the record. G. ATC et al challenged the validity of Rule 168 of the "Revised Rules of Practice before the Philippine Patent Office in Trademark Cases" as amended. authorizing the Director of Patents to designate any ranking official of said office to hear "inter partes" proceedings. alleging that the amendment of the Rule is illegal and void because under the law the Director must personally hear and decide inter partes case. there is no abnegation of responsibility on the part of the officer concerned as the actual decision remains with and is made by said officer. as a matter of practical administrative procedure. to compel the Director of Patents to personally hear the cases of petitioners. trade name or service-mark. and cancellation of registration of a trade-mark or trade name pending at the Patent Office. (6) The Court of Industrial Relations or any of its judges. Said Rule likewise provides that "all judgments determining the merits of the case shall be personally and directly prepared by the Director and signed by him. however.support it is a nullity.R. the aid of subordinates to investigate and report to him the facts. It is.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.