DOCTRINE: Article III, Section 1: Violation
of the right to property
Corona v. UHPAP
FACTS:
On July 1974, by virtue of P.D. 505,
The Philippine Ports Authority was
created. Its charter was revised
through P.D. 857
PPA promulgated PPA-AO-03-08
embodying the Rules and
Regulations Governing Pilotage
Services, the Conduct of Pilots and
Pilotage Fees in Philippine Ports.
These rules mandate that aspiring
pilots must be holders of pilot
licenses and must train as
probationary pilots for seven
months. It is only after they have
achieved satisfactory performance
that they may be given permanent
and regular appointments by PPA
itself to exercise harbor pilotage
until they reach the age of 70.
PPA-AO No. 04-92, the provision
assailed, to instill effective discipline
and afford better protection for port
users and improve pilotage services.
It provided that ...all existing
regular appointments which have
been previously issued by either
Bureau of Customs or the PPA
shall remain valid up to 31
December 1992 only...all
appointments to harbor pilot
positions in all pilotage districts
shall...be only for a term of one (1)
year from date of effectivity
subject to yearly renewal or
cancellation by the Authority after
conduct of a rigid evaluation of
performance.
Respondent's request to cancel the
assailed PPA-AO No. 04-92 was
dismissed because it was merely
implementing Section 6 of P.D. 857.
Petitioner stated that despite the
exercise of ones profession being
part of the constitutional guarantees
against wrongful deprivation of
property rights without due process,
the assailed AO does not
constitute a wrongful interference
or wrongful deprivation of
property rights. It merely regulates
the exercise of such profession.
Respondents then filed a petition for
certiorari and preliminary injunction;
granted by the court, finding herein
petitioners in excess of their
jurisdiction and the assailed PPA-AO
null and void.
ISSUE: Whether or not PPA-AO No. 04-92
presents a constitutional violation of the
right to property and due process.
HELD: UNCONSTITUTIONAL in violating
Section 1 of Article III of the Constitution.
RULING: Under procedural law, petitioners
were not remiss in allowing respondents the
opportunity to be heard. The PPA-AO was
presented to its Board of Directors, whilst
the arguments of respondents questioned
the assailed law at least four times. As a
general rule, notice and hearing, are
essential only when an administrative body
exercises its quasi-judicial function. In the
performance of executive or legislative
function, such as the case at bar, there is no
need of notice and hearing.
It is well settled that pilotage as a
profession has taken on the nature of a
property right. Their license is granted
through various procedures, allowing them
to exercise the profession until they retire at
the age of 70. It is a vested right. It is clear
that PPA-AO No. 04-96 violates such right
by giving additional requirements when
clearly PPA-AO-03-08 covers all the
requisites to assure performance quality
from pilots. It is the pre-evaluation that
makes the assailed provision
constitutionally infirm. With the existence
of an appropriate law, PPA-AO No. 04-96
should be struck down as unconstitutional.