Bill of Rights

Section 1: No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property

without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal
protection of the laws.
 Republic v. Sandiganbayan
Facts
• PCGG created an AFP Anti-Graft Board
tasked to scrutinize the reports of
unexplained wealth of AFP personnel
• The “ill-gotten” wealth of respondent
Maj. Gen. Ramas is investigated.
Constabulary raiding team served a
search and seizure warrant on the
premises of Elizabeth Dimaano.
• Sandiganbayan dismissed the case on
several grounds one of which is that
there was an illegal search and seizure
of the items confiscated.
Issue WON the properties and other
belongings confiscated in Dimaano’s
house were illegally seized which will
consequently make it inadmissible
Ratio Even in the absence of a
Constitution, the right against unlawful
seizure can be found in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and the
International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights. Nevertheless, even
during the interregnum, the Filipino
people under the Covenant and
Declaration continued to enjoy almost
the same rights found in the Bill of
Rights of the 1973 Constitution
 Mijares v. Ranada
Facts
• Petitioners are victims of human
rights violations during the
Marcos era. By invoking the
Alien Tort Act, they obtained a
Final Judgment in their favor
against the estate of Marcos
from the US District Court of
Hawaii.
• Petitioners filed a complaint
before the RTC for the
enforcement of the Final
Judgment and paid P410 as
filing fee.
Issue WON the foreign judgment
obtained can be enforced in the
Philippines
Ratio The Philippine legal system
has long ago accepted into its
jurisprudence and procedural rules
the viability of an action for
enforcement of foreign judgment ,
as well as the requisites for such
valid enforcement, as derived from
internationally accepted doctrines.
Philippine Blooming Mills Employment Organization
v. Philippine Blooming Mills Co., Inc.
Facts Issue WON the petitioners’
• PBMEO, a labor union, planned a constitutional rights of freedom and
mass demonstration to express their speech were violated (YES)
grievance against the Pasig Ratio The rights of free expression, free
policemen assembly and petition, are not only civil
rights but also political rights essential to
• Respondent firm asked that not all man's enjoyment of his life, to his happiness
members of the union join the mass and to his full and complete fulfillment. Thru
demonstration so as not to interrupt these freedoms the citizens can participate
the company's normal operations. not merely in the periodic establishment of
Otherwise, they will be dismissed. the government through their suffrage but
also in the administration of public affairs as
• Petitioners proceeded with their well as in the discipline of abusive public
planned activity and was later on officers.
dismissed by the respondent firm
 Tupas v. CA

Facts Issue
• Petition to review the decision of WON petitioners were denied the
the Court of Appeals which denied due process of law (NO)
their motion for reconsideration
because it was tardily made
Ratio
• Petitioners said that they have
been denied due process and that Observance of both substantive and
they should not be prejudiced by procedural rights is equally
the mistakes of their counsel guaranteed by due process,
because they are laymen and are whatever the source of such rights,
not familiar with the intricacies of be it the Constitution itself or only a
the law statute or a rule of court.
 Asilo v. People
Facts
• Private respondent’s mother
entered into a lease contract that
lets her use a property in Laguna
for a period of 20 years.
• Later on, she received a letter from
the Municipal Mayor ordering her
to vacate the premises and
directing its demolition. It also said
that non-compliance will result to
filing a detainer case against her.
• The property was demolished and
private respondent claimed that it
was done without observing due
process.
Issue WON due process was
observed prior to the demolition of
the property. (NO)
Ratio The Court is in one with the
prosecution that there was a
violation of the right to private
property of the Spouses Bombasi.
The accused public officials should
have accorded the spouses the due
process of law guaranteed by the
Constitution and New Civil Code.
 United States v. Toribio
Facts
• Appellant was convicted
because of slaughtering his
carabao for consumption,
without first obtaining a permit
from the municipal treasurer.
• Act No. 1147 prohibits and
penalizes the slaughter of large
cattle for human consumption,
not unfit for agricultural work
and draft purposes
Issue WON Act. No. 1147 is
unconstitutional as it violates Sec. 5 of
the Philippine Bill (Due Process clause)
(NO)
Ratio These provisions held not to
constitute an appropriation of private
property interests to a "public use" so as
to bring them within the principles of the
exercise by the State of the right of
eminent domain and to entitle the
owners to compensation, being no more
than a just restraint of an injurious
private use of property.
 Churchill v. Rafferty
Facts
• Plaintiffs, being involved in the
advertising business, put up billboard in
the Province of Rizal
• Such billboards were ordered removed
by the Collector of Internal Revenue by
virtue of subsection (b) of section 100
of Act. No. 2339 (remove any sign,
signboard, or billboard for it being
offensive to the sight or is otherwise a
nuisance)
• Plaintiffs said that such provision is
unconstitutional because it deprives
them of their property without due
process of law
Issue WON said provision is unconstitutional
(NO)
Ratio There can be no doubt that the exercise of
the police power of the Philippine Government
belongs to the Legislature and that this power is
limited only by the Acts of Congress and those
fundamental principles which lie at the foundation
of all republican forms of government. An Act of
the Legislature which is obviously and
undoubtedly foreign to any of the purposes of the
police power and interferes with the ordinary
enjoyment of property would, without doubt, be
held to be invalid. But where the Act is
reasonably within a proper consideration of and
care for the public health, safety, or comfort, it
should not be disturbed by the courts.
 People v. Fajardo
Facts
• Ordinance No. 7 prohibits the
construction and repair of any building
without obtaining a permit from the
municipal mayor (Fajardo passed it)
• (After his term) Fajardo and his son-in-
law filed an application to obtain a
permit which was then denied for it will
destroy the view of the public plaza
• They constructed the building and was
charged and convicted for violation of
Ordinance No. 7
Issue WON Ordinance No. 7 is unconstitutional
(YES)
Ratio The ordinance fails to state any policy, or
to set up any standard to guide or limit the
mayor's action. No purpose to be attained by
requiring the permit is expressed; no conditions
for its grant or refusal are enumerated. It is not
merely a case of deficient standards; standards
are entirely lacking. The ordinance thus confers
upon the mayor arbitrary and unrestricted
power to grant or deny the issuance of building
permits, and it is a settled rule that such an
undefined and unlimited delegation of power to
allow or prevent an activity, per se lawful, is
invalid.
 Ermita Malate Hotel and Motel
Association v. City Mayor or Manila
Facts
• Petitioner assails the
constitutionality of Ordinance No.
4760 for being violative of due
process because it imposes an
annual license fee of P6,000 and
P4,500 for hotels and motels
respectively (requiring guests to fill
up certain information, no leasing
of any room more than twice every
24 hours, among others)
• It was also questioned for being
arbitrary, unreasonable and
oppressive.
Issue WON Ordinance No. 4760 is
unconstitutional for violating the due
process clause (NO)
Ratio
Such a limitation cannot be viewed
as a transgression against the
command of due process. It is
neither unreasonable nor arbitrary.
Precisely it was intended to curb the
opportunity for the immoral or
illegitimate use to which such
premises could be devoted.
 Ynot v. IAC
Facts
• E.O. No. 626-A was implemented
which prohibits the interprovincial
transport of carabao and carabeef.
Violation will result to confiscation and
forfeiture of the government to be
distributed to charitable institutions
• Petitioner transported 6 carabaos in a
pump boat and they were confiscated
• Petitioner assails the validity of the
EO by saying that it is violative of the
due process of law
Issue WON E.O. 626-A violates the due
process (YES)
Ratio We find 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, worse, is unduly
oppressive. 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.
 Balacuit v. CFI
Facts
• Ordinance 640 was passed penalizing
any person, group or entity engaged in
the selling of movie tickets who will
require children from 7 to 12 years old
to pay for the full price
• Petitioners, as managers of several
movie theaters, assails the validity of
the ordinance saying that it violates the
due process clause for being
oppressive, unfair, unjust, confiscatory,
and an undue restraint of trade and
violative of the right of persons to enter
into contracts
Issue WON Ordinance 640 violates
the due process clause (YES)
Ratio The right of the owner to fix a
price at which his property shall be
sold or used is an inherent attribute
of the property itself and, as such,
within the protection of the due
process clause. Hence, the
proprietors of a theater have a right
to manage their property in their own
way, to fix what prices of admission
they think most for their own
advantage, and that any person who
did not approve could stay away.
 National Development Company v.
Philippine Veterans Bank
Facts
• P.D. No. 1717 was enacted which
ordered the rehabilitation of the Agrix
Group of Companies to be
administered by the NDC. It also
ordered that all mortgages and other
liens of the dissolved corporations be
extinguished.
• Prior to that, Agrix Marketing, Inc. had
executed a real estate mortgage in
favor of the respondent. Afterwards,
the company went bankrupt.
• Respondent claimed the payment for
the mortgage but petitioner said that it
had already extinguished by virtue of
P.D. No. 1717
Issue WON the decree violated the
due process of law (YES)
Ratio The extinction of the mortgage
and other liens and of the interest and
other charges pertaining to the
legitimate creditors of AGRIX
constitutes taking without due process
of law, and this is compounded by the
reduction of the secured creditors to
the category of unsecured creditors in
violation of the equal protection clause.
 ACCFA v. CUGCO
Facts
• Agricultural Credit and Cooperative Financing
Administration (ACCFA) was a government
agency went into a collective bargaining
agreement with its unions, which will be
effective for 1 year.
• The Unions, together with its mother union,
the Confederation of Unions in Government
Corporations and Offices (CUGCO) filed a
case against ACCFA for violation of the CBA
and non-payment of the fringe benefits.
• AWA (one of the unions) filed for a petition for
a certification election so as to be exclusive
bargaining agents of ACCFA.
Issue WON the fringe benefits based on the CBA
entered into, should be enforced (YES)
Ratio The payment of the fringe benefits agreed
upon, to our mind, shows that the same were
within the financial capability of the ACCFA then,
and hence justifies the conclusion that this
particular condition imposed by the Office of the
President in its approval of the bargaining
contract was satisfied. Insofar as the fringe
benefits already paid are concerned, there is no
reason to set aside the decision of the respondent
Court. but that since the respondent Unions have
no right to the certification election sought by
them nor, consequently, to bargain collectively
with the petitioner, no further fringe benefits may
be demanded on the basis of any collective
bargaining agreement.
 Agustin v. Edu
Facts
• Letter of Instruction No. 229
was implemented directing all
street-parked vehicles to install
an early-warning device to
avoid accidents.
• Petitioner assails the validity of
the LOI for being oppressive,
unreasonable, arbitrary,
confiscatory and
unconstitutional
Issue WON Letter of Instruction No. 229 is
unconstitutional (NO)
Ratio Letter of Instruction No. 229
requiring the installation of early warning
devices to vehicles is not repugnant to the
due process clause. It was not a violation
of due process or equal protection
because it promotes general welfare.
There is nothing in the LOI which
prescribed the vehicle owners to purchase
an EWD. He can obtain it from any source,
even making it himself. Thus, the LOI is
not oppressive, onerous, immoral, nor
confiscatory.
 Maranaw Hotel v. NLRC
Facts:
• Gina Castro filed a complaint with the
NLRC for illegal dismissal, which was
resolved in her favour
• Castro filed a motion for the execution
of the decision
• NLRC reversed the decision for lack of
merit
Issue:
WON NLRC acted with grave abuse of
discretion in ordering the payroll
reinstatement of and ordering to pay an
employee despite its resolution reversing
the decision of the Labor Arbiter
Ratio:
The Court sustained the constitutionality of
Art. 223 as an exercise of the police power
of the state and further ruled that since
appeal is a privilege of statutory origin, the
law may validly prescribe limitations or
qualifications thereto or provide relief to
the prevailing party in the event an appeal
is interposed by the losing party.
It is clear from Art. 223 that if execution
pending appeal is granted, the employee
concerned shall be admitted back to work
under the terms and conditions prevailing
prior to his dismissal or separation.
 Magtajas v. Pryce
Facts:
• PAGCOR decided to expand in Cagayan
De Oro and leased a property owned
by Pryce
• The City Council then enacted
Ordinance No. 3353 which cancels and
prohibits the issuance of permits for
establishments in the operation of
casinos and Ordinance No. 3375-93
which prohibits the operation of
casinos.
Issue:
WON the ordinances are valid.
Ratio:
A long line of decisions has held that to
be valid, an ordinance must conform to
the following substantive requirements:
1) It must not contravene the
constitution or any statute;
2) It must not be unfair or oppressive;
3) It must not be partial or
discriminatory;
4) It must not prohibit but may regulate
trade; 5) It must be general and
consistent with public policy; 6) It must
not be unreasonable.
 Bennis v. Michigan
Facts:
• John Bennis was charged with
indecency for engaging in a sexual
activity with a prostitute in a car he
jointly owns with his wife.
• The court ordered the car be declared
as a public nuisance and abated under
Michigan Compiled Laws.
• Petitioner Tina claimed that she
cannot be held liable because she had
no knowledge of her husband’s
indecent activities
Issue:
WON Michigan’s abatement scheme
deprived petitioner of her interest in the
car without due process
Ratio:
Michigan does not need to prove that the
owner knew or agreed that her vehicle
would be used in a prohibited manner in
order to abate the vehicle.
The government may not be required to
compensate an owner for property which
it has already lawfully acquired under the
exercise of governmental authority other
than the power of eminent domain.
 Cruzan. V. Dir. Missouri
Facts:
• Nancy Beth Cruzan is being kept alive
by an artificial feeding and hydration
equipment after a car accident led her
to a vegetative state
• Her parents decided to take off her life
support but hospital employees
refused to do so without a court order
• The state trial court granted her
parents’ petition
Issue:
WON the Court should grant the petition
to stop the life support of Cruzan which
would result in killing her
Ratio:
The testimony adduced at trial did not
amount to clear and convincing proof of
the patient's desire to have hydration and
nutrition withdrawn.
The testimony adduced at trial consisted
primarily of Nancy Cruzan's statements,
made to a housemate about a year
before her accident, that she would not
want to live should she face life as a
"vegetable," and other observations to
the same effect. The observations did not
deal in terms with withdrawal of medical
treatment or of hydration and nutrition.
 JMM Promotions v. CA
Facts:
• President Aquino ordered a total ban
against the deployment of performing
artists to Japan and other high risk
countries
• The ban was rescinded but DOLE formed
the Entertainment Industry Advisory
Council (EIAC), which was tasked with
issuing guidelines on the training, testing
certifcation and deployment of performing
artists abroad
• Petitioner claims that there is an invalid
exercise of police powerand that having a
license is tantamount to their right to
property and such right is deprived to
them.
Issue: WON the issuance of Department
Orders is tantamount to an invalid exercise of
police power
Ratio: A profession, trade or calling is a
property right within the meaning of our
constitutional guarantees. However, no right
is absolute and the proper regulation of such
profession has always been held as a
legitimate subject of a valid exercise of the
police power of the state.
The equal protection clause of the
Constitution does not forbid classification for
so long as such classification is based on real
and substantial differences having a
reasonable relation to the subject of the
particular legislation
 Dans v. People
Facts:
• Marcos and Dans were charged with Issue:
violation of RA 3019 because of the WON Marcos was deprived of her
deeds involving LRTA and PGFI constitutional rights to be heard by
• Dans filed for a motion to dismiss which
herself or counsel
was denied and motion for
Ratio:
reconsideration which was also denied
However, during the absence, she was
while Marcos filed motion for inhibition
of the Sandiganbayan judges and did
still represented by other lawyers. Also,
not submit evidence at the time Coronel withdrew his
• Marcos claimed that she was not appearance, all evidence by the
adequately represented by counsel at prosecution was already presented
the trial
 Ople v. Torres
Facts:
AO No. 308 was enacted with the goal of
easing government processes and
hastening internal procedures by putting
all citizens’ information in an online
database.
Issue:
WON AO No. 308 violates the right to
privacy
Ratio:
A.O. No. 308 falls short of assuring that
personal information which will be
gathered about our people will only be
processed for unequivocally specified
purposes
The right is not intended to stifle
scientific and technological
advancements that enhance public
service and the common good. It
merely requires that the law be
narrowly focused and a compelling
interest justify such intrusions.
Intrusions into the right must be
accompanied by proper safeguards
and well-defined standards to
prevent unconstitutional invasions.
 Montecarlos v. COMELEC
Facts:
• The Commission on Elections issued
Resolution Nos. 4713 and 4714 to govern
the SK elections on May 6, 2002.
• Petitioner sent a letter to the COMELEC,
demanding that the SK elections be held
as scheduled but instead of a response
letter, a copy of the resolution
recommending the postponement of the
SK elections was received.
• Montescarlos filed the petition for
certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with
prayer for a temporary restraining order
or preliminary injunction, seeking to
prevent the postponement of the SK
election
Issue:
WON there is a justiciable controversy
involving the constitutionality of the
proposed bill
Ratio:
A proposed bill is not subject to judicial
review because it is not a law. A
proposed bill creates no right and
imposes no duty legally enforceable by
the Court. A proposed bill, having no
legal effect, violates no constitutional
right or duty. The Court can exercise its
power of judicial review only after a law
is enacted, not before.
 Cruz v. Flavier
Facts:
• Petitioners brought suit for prohibition
and mandamus assailing the
constitutionality of RA 8371 and its IRR
• They question the provisions of the
IPRA defining the powers and
jurisdiction of the NCIP and making
customary law applicable to the
settlement of disputes involving
ancestral domains and ancestral lands
on the ground that these provisions
violate the due process clause of the
Constitution
Issue:
WON RA 8371 is unconstitutional
Ratio:
Ancestral lands and ancestral domains are
not part of the lands of the public domain.
They are private and belong to the ICCs/IPs.
The right to negotiate the terms and
conditions over the natural resources covers
only their exploration which must be for the
purpose of ensuring ecological and
environmental protection of, and
conservation measures in the ancestral
domain—it does not extend to the
exploitation and development of natural
resources
 Smith Kline v. CA
Facts:
• Smith Kline is the assignee of Letters
Patent No. 12207 covering the
pharmaceutical product Cimetidine
• Private respondent petitioned for
compulsory license to manufacture and
produce its own brand of medicines using
Cimetidine
• The BPTTT granted the application of
Danlex Research together with a provision
that Danlex Research should be paying
2.5% of the net wholesale price as royalty
payment to Smith Kline
Issue:
WON the rate of royalties payable to
petitioner as fixed by the BPTTT was
rendered without factual basis and amounts
to an expropriation of private property
without just compensation
Ratio:
The Court agrees with the appellate court’s
ruling that the rate of royalty payments fixed
by the Director of the BPTTT is reasonable.
The rule is that factual findings of
administrative bodies, which are considered
as experts in their respective fields, are
accorded not only respect but even finality if
the same are supported by substantial
evidence
 People v. Dela Piedra
Facts:
• Carol Dela Piedra was charged and
convicted by trial court of illegal
recruitment
• Respondent submits that Article 13 (b)
of the Labor Code defining
“recruitment and placement” is void
for vagueness and, thus, violates the
due process clause and invoke the
equal protection clause in her defense
Issue:
WON Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code is
void for vagueness and violates due
process clause
Ratio:
An act will be declared void and inoperative
on the ground of vagueness and uncertainty,
only upon a showing that the defect is such
that the courts are unable to determine, with
any reasonable degree of certainty, what the
legislature intended.
The prosecution of one guilty person while
others equally guilty are not prosecuted,
however, is not, by itself, a denial of the
equal protection of the laws.
Appellant has failed to show that, in charging
appellant in court, that there was a “clear
and intentional discrimination” on the part of
the prosecuting officials
 Estrada v. Sandiganyan
Facts:
• Sandiganbayan issued a resolution finding
probable cause that Joseph Ejercito
Estrada has committed the offense of
plunder and that he be prosecuted under
RA 7080
• Petitioner contended that RA 7080 was
unconstitutional for being vague because
it does not define certain terms thus
denying him the right to be informed of
the nature and cause of the accusation
against him
Issue:
WON RA 7080 is unconstitutional and void
for vagueness
Ratio:
A statute is not rendered uncertain and
void merely because general terms are
used therein, or because of the
employment of terms without defining
them; much less do we have to define
every word we use.
It is a well-settled principle of legal
hermeneutics that words of a statute will
be interpreted in their natural, plain and
ordinary acceptation and signification,
unless it is evident that the legislature
intended a technical or special legal
meaning to those words.
 Chavez v. Romulo
Facts:
• President Arroyo delivered a speech
before the PNP directing PNP chief to
suspend the issuance of Permits to
Carry Firearms Outside of Residence
(PTCFOR) to avert the rising crime
incidents
• In line with the directive of Arroyo,
Ebdane issued the Guidelines in the
Implementation of the ban
• Petitioner questioned the validity of
said guidelines
Issue:
WON the right to bear arms is
constitutional right
Ratio:
“The right of the people to keep and
bear arms is not a right granted by the
Constitution. Neither is it in any way
dependent upon that instrument.” (US v.
Cruikshank)
The right to bear arms cannot be
classified as fundamental under the 1987
Philippine Constitution—the right to bear
arms is a mere statutory privilege, not a
constitutional right. Evidently, possession
of firearms by the citizens in the
a Philippines is the exception, not the rule.
 GSIS v. Montescarlos
Facts
• GSIS approved Nicolas Montescarlos’
(SB Member) application for
retirement, thus receives annuity
• Nicolas died, and his wife Milagros
claimed for survivorship pension for
she is the designated sole beneficiary
• GSIS prohibits the pension: PD1146 a
surviving spouse has no right to
survivorship pension if he/she
contracted marriage with the
pensioner within 3 years before the
pensioner qualified for the pension
Issue WON the denial of a dependent
spouse’s claim for survivorship pension
is a denial of due process and a
violation of equal protection clause
Ratio
Yes. Where the employee retires and
meets the eligibility requirements, he
acquires a vested right to benefits that
is protected by the due process clause.
A statute based on reasonable
classification does not violate the
constitutional guaranty of the equal
protection of the law - not applicable.
 Romualdez v. Sandiganbayan
Facts - The People of the Philippines,
through the PCGG filed an information
before the anti-graft court charging
Romualdez with violation of RA 3019
• He intervened in a contract between
NASSCO, a government-owned and
controlled corporation - BASECO a
private corporation
• Romualdez filed "Motion to dismiss and
defer arraignment“ for No valid
preliminary investigation was conducted,
or was undertaken by a biased and
partial investigative body
Issue WON right to due process of law
was violated during the preliminary
investigation
Ratio
No. SC nullified the preliminary
investigation conducted by PCGG for it
could not do so with the “cold neutrality
of an impartial judge”, as it is the one
which filed the complaint.
However, he was accorded his rights
when the Sandiganbayan suspended
the trial and afforded him a
reinvestigation by the Ombudsman.
 ABAKADA v. Ermita
Facts
• RA 9337 is a consolidation of 3
legislative bills , which for one provides
wider coverage for full value-added tax
• The President is “stand-by authority
“to raise the Value Added Tax from
10% to 12%, based on conditions
• Petitioner assails RA 9337 for dthat it is
the smaller businesses with higher
input tax to output tax ratio that will
suffer the consequences thereof for it
wipes out whatever meager margins
the petitioners make.
Issue WON RA 9337 violates the
constitutional guarantee of equal
protection of the law
Ratio No. The equal protection clause
does not require the universal
application of the laws on all persons or
things without distinction. This might in
fact sometimes result in unequal
protection. What is required is equality
among equals as determined according
to a valid classification. By classification
is meant the grouping of persons or
things similar to each other in certain
particulars and different from all others.
 Beltran v. Secretary of Health
Facts
• DOH promulgated AO No. 9, the IRR
of National Blood Services Act (RA
7719)
• IRR provides for the “phasing out”*
of all commercial blood banks which
will take effect after 2 years
• Petitioners filed a petition for
Certiorari with TRO assailing the
constitutionality of the Act and its
IRR
Issue WON the phase out will cause
deprivation of personal liberty and
property without due process.
Ratio
No. “In order to promote the general
welfare, the State may interfere with
personal liberty, with property, and with
business and occupations. Thus, persons
may be subjected to certain kinds of
restraints and burdens in order to secure
the general welfare of the State and to
this fundamental aim of government,
the rights of the individual may be
subordinated.”
 Ong v. Sandiganbayan
Facts
• Petition for forfeiture for unlawfully
acquired property was filed before
the Sandiganbayan against BIR
Commissioner Jose Ong and his wife
Nelly Ong
• One of Ong’s defense is deprivation
of their right to “due process”
considering that no “preliminary
investigation”* was conducted as
regards to his wife Nelly Ong
Issue WON Nelly Ong has been deprived
of due process for not being subjected to
preliminary investigation.
Ratio
No. “Although the right to a preliminary
investigation is a mere statutory
privilege, it is nonetheless considered a
component part of “due process” in
criminal justice. Even if considered as a
criminal case, Nelly Ong is still not
entitled because the law itself withholds
such right from a respondent who is not
himself or herself a public officer or
employee.
 Lucena Grand Terminal v. JAC Liner
Facts
• City Ordinance No. 1778,
construction of a single terminal in
the City to ease traffic*
• Ordinance provides that no other
terminals shall be situated inside or
within the City of Lucena and that all
existing terminals are hereby
declared inoperable
• JAC Liner is thus compelled to close
down their existing terminals and use
the facilities of petitioner
Issue WON Lucena City properly
exercised its police power when it
enacted the subject ordinance.
Ratio
No. There is a lawful subject (traffic) but
no lawful method (overbreadth).
Although the Court is aware of the
resolutions of various barangays in
Lucena City supporting the
establishment of a common terminal,
the weight of popular opinion,
however, must be balanced with that
of an individual’s rights.
 City of Manila v. Laguio
Facts
• City Ordinance prohibiting
establishment or operation or
amusement, entertainment, services,
facilities in Ermita-Malate Area
• Malate Tourist Development
Corporation (MTDC) is a corporation
engaged in the business of operating
hotels, motels, hostels and lodging
houses filed a petition in the lower
court, praying the ordinance be
declared invalid and unconstitutional
Issue WON the Ordinance is
unconstitutional for there was a denial
of equal protection under the law
Ratio
It violates equal protection clause as no
reasonable basis exists for prohibiting
the operation of motels and inns, but
not pension houses, hotels, lodging
houses or other similar establishments,
and for prohibiting said business in the
Ermita-Malate area but not outside of
this area. The Local Government Code
merely empowers local government
units to regulate, and not prohibit.
 Bayan v. Ermita
Facts
• Petitioners allege that their rights as
organizations and individuals were
violated when the rally they
participated in on October 6, 2005 was
violently dispersed by policemen
implementing B.P. No. 880.
• Malacañang, through the Exec. Sec.
Ermita , issued "no permit, no rally"
policy, disperse groups that run afoul
of this standard and arrest all persons
violating the laws of the land as well as
ordinances on the proper conduct of
mass actions and demonstrations.
Issue WON BP880 is unconstitutional
and deprived the petitioner of their
rights to speech and peaceful assembly
Ratio No. Right to freedom of speech, to
peacefully assemble, petition for redress
of grievances, are fundamental personal
rights of the people guaranteed by the
constitution. But it is a settled principle
that the exercise of those rights is not
absolute for it may be so regulated that
it shall not be injurious to the equal
enjoyment of others having equal rights,
nor injurious to the rights of the
community or society.
 KMU v. Dir. Gen. (NEDA)
Facts
• EO 420 by President Gloria Arroyo:
Adoption of a unified multi-purpose
identification (ID)
• Directs all government agencies and
government-owned and controlled
corporations to adopt a uniform data
collection and format for their
existing identification (ID) systems
• Reduce costs, ensure greater
convenience in transacting business,
delivery of effective government
service…
Issue WON EO 420 infringes the
citizen’s right to privacy
Ratio
No. Prior to EO 420, GSIS, SSS, LTO,
Philhealth et al have been issuing ID
cards there were no complaints from
the citizens that their rights to privacy.
It further provides a strict set of
safeguards to protect the
confidentiality and the right to privacy.
It will be limited to only 14 specific
“routine” data, and the ID card itself
will show only 8 specific data.
 Mirasol v. DPWH
Facts
• DPWH AO No.1 “’Limited Access
Highway Act” - total ban on
motorcycles along the entire breadth
of NLEX, SLEC, and the Manila-Cavite
Costal Road Express Way
• xxxx it is unlawful for any person or
group of persons to drive any
bicycle,tricycle,
pedicab, motorcycle or any vehicle
(not motorized) xxxx
Issue WON AO 1 is unconstitutional for
violating due process and equal
protection of the law as it is alleged to
single out mortorcycle among others
Ratio
No. The right to travel did not mean
the right to choose any vehicle in
traversing a tollway. Petitioners were
free to access the tollway however, the
mode in which they wished to travel,
pertaining to their manner of using the
tollway, was a subject that could validly
be limited by regulation.
 Parreno v. COA
Facts
• Parreño served in the AFP for 32
years before his retirement, after
which he received pension payments.
• He migrated to Hawaii and became a
naturalized American citizen. The AFP
subsequently stopped his pension, in
accordance with Section 27 of PD
1638
• PD 1638 provides that a retiree who
loses his Filipino citizenship shall
have his retirement benefits
terminated.
Issue WON the termination of the
petitioner’s monthly pension is a
deprivation of his property
Ratio
No. Petitioner’s loss of Filipino
citizenship constitutes a substantial
distinction from other retirees who
retain their Filipino citizenship.
Petitioner already renounced his
allegiance to the state, thus, he may no
longer be compelled by to render
compulsory military service when the
need arises, which covers not only its
private citizens, but also those retired
from military service.
 Esponcilla v. Bagong Tanyag
Facts
• Bagong Tanyag Homeowners
Association enable occupants of the
land located in Bagong Tanyag,
Taguig to purchase their respective
lot, however some houses will be
relocated to make way for the
construction of roads
• Petitioners opposed the plan despite
written notice, personal visit,
extension of deadline, did not
comply with the requirements, thus
they are delisted as beneficiaries
Issue WON petitioners were deprived
of property without due process when
their names are delisted from the list
of beneficiaries
Ratio
No. The essence of due process is the
opportunity to be heard. What the law
prohibits is not the absence of
previous notice but the absolute
absence thereof.
The due process guarantee cannot be
invoked when no vested right has been
acquired.
 BF Homes v City Mayor
FACTS:
BF Homes Parañaque Subdivision, the
largest subdivision in the country, spans
from Parañaque, Las Piñas, and
MUntinlupa. On November 11, 1997
the municipal Coucil of Parañaque
enacted Municipal ordinance
reclassifying certain portions of BF
homes from residential to commercial
areas. Petitioners allege that the
Municipal order is unconstitutional.
ISSUE:
WON the Municipal ordinance is
unconstitutional for impairment of
contractual obligations.
HELD: NO.
Although non-impairment of
contracts is constitutionally
guaranteed, it cannot be held as a
deterrent to the valid exercise of
police power. As the exercise of such
power is primarily geared towards
the promotion health, safety, peace,
and enhancing the common good, it
cannot be held at the expense of
contractual rights.
 St Luke’s Center Employees Association v.
NLRC
FACTS:
Maribel Santos was hired as an X-ray
technician by St. Luke’s Medical
Center. On April 22, 1992 Congress
enacted RA 7431 or the "Radiologic
Technology Act of 1992 which
requires X-ray technicians to obtain a
certificate of registration to practice.
Santos does not possess the
qualifications required by law but
was given the chance to take the
board exams but she failed. Due to
this, she was separated from service.
ISSUE:
WON Santos was illegally dismissed on the
ground of her inability to secure a
certificate of registration in accordance
with RA 7431.
HELD: NO.
While the right of workers to security of
tenure is guaranteed by the Constitution,
its exercise may be reasonably regulated
pursuant to the police power of the State to
safeguard health, morals, peace, education,
order, safety, and the general welfare of the
people. Consequently, 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.
 Carlos v. DSWD
FACTS:
This a petition challenging the
constitutionality of RA 9257 or the
Expanded Senior Citizens Act of
2003. RA 9257 grants a 20%
discount to senior citizens for
various services including the
purchase of medicines by tax
deductions.
ISSUE:
WON RA 9257, to the extent that it
imposes upon private establishments
the burden of partly subsidizing a
government program, constitutional.
HELD: YES.
The law is a valid exercise of police
power and has for its object the general
welfare. For this reason, when the
conditions so demand as determined by
the legislature, property rights must
bow to the primacy of police power
because property rights, though
sheltered by due process, must yield to
general welfare.
 Perez v. LPG
FACTS: ISSUE:
BP 33 penalizes illegal trading,
hoarding, overpricing, adulteration, WON the Circular is valid.
under delivery, and under filling of HELD: The circular is valid.
petroleum products, as well as
possession for trade of adulterated To nullify the Circular in this case
petroleum products and of under
filled liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) would be to render inutile
cylinders. The law sets monetary government efforts to protect the
penalty for violators to P20,000 as general consuming public against
minimum and P 50,00 as maximum.
Subsequently, DOE issued a circular the nefarious practices of some
order implementing BP 33. unscrupulous LPG traders.
Petitioners questioned the validity of
the circular.
 MMDA v. Viron
FACTS: ISSUE:
EO 179 was issued by President Arroyo WON the EO constitutional to the
on 2003 to ease the worsening traffic extent that it would deprive
condition in Metro Manila. The EO respondents of their real property.
points to the numerous busses plying HELD: NO.
the street and the inefficient EO 179 does not satisfy the valid
connectivity of the different transport exercise of police power. The police
mode as the main causes of traffic thus, power legislation must be firmly
the MMDA recommended the grounded on public interest and
elimination of bus terminals located welfare and a reasonable relation must
along major Metro Manila exist between the purposes and the
means. In this case, the second test has
thoroughfares and providing more and not been satisfied. The closing of bus
convenient access to the mass transport terminals cannot be considered as a
system. Respondents are bus reasonable necessity to decongest
companies with bus terminals located in traffic in the Metro.
Metro Manila.
 Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo
FACTS:
Brothers Raymond and Reynaldo
Manalo were held captive by
members of the CAFGU for suspicion
of being involved with the NPA. Ten
days after their escape, they initially
filed a Petition for Prohibition,
Injunction, and Temporary
Restraining Order. However, during
the pendency of the petition, the
Rule on the Writ of Amparo was
enacted and respondents opted for
that remedy instead. The CA
subsequently granted their petition.
ISSUE: WON the grant of Writ of Amparo
proper.
HELD: Yes.
There is a continuing threat to the life,
liberty, as well as to the right of security of
the Manalo brothers. This threat vitiates
their free will because they are forced to
limit their movements and activities.
Threats to liberty, security, and life are
actionable through a petition for a writ of
Amparo.
NOTE: Sec. 1 of the Rule of the Writ of
Amparo: is a remedy available to any
person whose right to life, liberty and
security is violated or threatened with
violation by an unlawful act or omission of
a public official or employee, or of a private
individual or entity.
 SJS v. Dangerous Drugs Board
FACTS:
The three consolidated cases challenged
the constitutionality of the pertinent
paragraphs under Section 36 of RA 9165
insofar that it requires the mandatory
drug testing of students of secondary
and tertiary schools, officers and
employees of public and private offices,
and persons charged before the
prosecutor’s office with certain
offenses, among other personalities.
ISSUE: WON the alleged paragraphs
under section 36 is unconstitutional on
the ground that it infringes on the
constitutional right to privacy, the right
against unreasonable search and
seizure, and the equal protection clause.
HELD: The petition was partly granted.
• Students- The constitutional viability of the
mandatory, random, and suspicionless drug
testing for students emanates primarily from
the waiver by the students of their right to
privacy when they seek entry to the school,
and from their voluntarily submitting their
persons to the parental authority of school
authorities
• Employees- the constitutional soundness of
the mandatory, random, and suspicionless
drug testing proceeds from the
reasonableness of the drug test policy and
requirement.
• Persons charged before the public
prosecutor- unconstitutional as to impose
mandatory drug testing on the accused is a
blatant attempt to harness a medical test as a
tool for criminal prosecution, contrary to the
stated objectives of RA 9165.
 SJS v. Atienza
FACTS:
SJS sought to compel the respondent to
enforce City Ordinance 8027 enacted by the
sangguniang panglungsod. Ordinance No.
8027 reclassified the area described therein
from industrial to commercial and directed
the owners and operators of businesses
disallowed under the reclassification to cease
and desist from operating their businesses
within six months from the date of effectivity
of the ordinance. Chevron, Petron and Shell,
questioned the validity of the said ordinance
arguing that they are fighting for their right to
property alleging that they stand to lose
billions of pesos if forced to relocate.
ISSUE: WON City Ordinance 8027, to the
extent that the oil companies would be
deprived of their property, valid.
HELD:YES.
Ordinance No. 8027 is a valid police
power measure because there is a concurrence
of lawful subject and lawful method. In the
exercise of police power, property rights of
individuals may be subjected to restraints and
burdens in order to fulfill the objectives of the
government. Otherwise stated, the government
may enact legislation that may interfere with
personal liberty, property, lawful businesses and
occupations to promote the general welfare.
However, the interference must be reasonable
and not arbitrary. And to forestall arbitrariness,
the methods or means used to protect public
health, morals, safety or welfare must have a
reasonable relation to the end in view.
 People v. Siton
FACTS:
Respondents Evangeline Siton and
Krystel Kate Sagarano were charged
with vagrancy pursuant to Article
202 (2) of the Revised Penal Code in
two separate information. The
accused were found wandering and
loitering around San Pedro and
Legaspi Streets of Davao City,
without any visible means to support
herself nor lawful and justifiable
purpose. Respondents filed separate
Motions to Quash on the ground
that Article 202 of the RPC is
unconstitutional. MTC denied but
RTC reversed the decision.
ISSUE:
WON Art. 202 of the RPC or the Anti-
Vagrancy Law violates of the equal
protection clause.
HELD: NO.
Article 202 is a public order crime in which
the acts punished are made illegal by their
offensiveness to society’s basic sensibilities
and their adverse effect on the quality of
life of the people of society. Thus, public
nuisances must be abated because they
have the effect of interfering with the
comfortable enjoyment of life or property
by members of a community. As an obvious
police power measure, Article 202 (2)
must therefore be viewed in a
constitutional light.
 White Light v. City of Manila
FACTS:
Mayor Alfredo Lim passed an Ordinance
which penalized hotels, motels, lodging
houses, pension houses and similar
establishments that offer short time
admission (stay for less than 12-hours)
and “wash-up” rates (stay for only 3
hours). Petitioners allege that that the
Ordinance is unconstitutional because it
violates right to privacy and the
freedom of movement. Furthermore, it
is an invalid exercise of police power
because it was unreasonable and
oppressive interference in their
business. Respondent allege that it is a
valid exercise of police power.
ISSUE: WON the ordinance is
unconstitutional.
HELD: Yes.
Although the goal of regulating public
morals falls under the purview of police
power, it does not automatically justify any
and all means of achieving this goal. The
means must still align with the
Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and
specifically due process. If the restriction
involves one restricting liberty, the
Government must satisfy the strict scrutiny
test: the burden is on them to show that a)
there is compelling State interest for the
restriction; b) that the means is necessary
to address that compelling state interest,
and c) that there is no other alternative for
the accomplishment of the purpose that is
less intrusive.
 CREBA v. Romulo
FACTS:
Petitioner is an association of real
estate developers and builders in
the Philippines. It assails the
validity of the imposition of
minimum corporate income tax
(MCIT) on corporations and
creditable withholding tax (CWT)
on sales of real properties
classified as ordinary assets.
ISSUE: WON the imposition of the
MCIT is violates the due process
clause
HELD: No!
• MCIT- Certainly, an income tax is
arbitrary and confiscatory if it taxes
capital because capital is not
income. In other words, it is
income, not capital, which is
subject to income tax. However,
the MCIT is not a tax on capital.
• CWT- Nothing is taken that is not
due so there is no confiscation of
property repugnant to the
constitutional guarantee of due
process.
 Southern Hemisphere v.
ANTI-TERRORISM COUNCIL
FACTS:
This case involves six petitions for
certiorari challenging the
constitutionality of Republic Act No.
9372 otherwise known as
the Human Security Act of 2007,
signed into law on March 6, 2007.
Petitioners claim that RA 9372 is
vague and broad, in that terms like
“widespread and extraordinary fear
and panic among the populace” and
“coerce the government to give in to
an unlawful demand” are nebulous,
leaving law enforcement agencies
with no standard to measure the
prohibited acts.
ISSUE: WON RA 9372 can be facially
challenged on the grounds of
vagueness and overbreadth doctrines?
HELD: Yes.
RA 9372 is a penal statue and may not
be assailed on the basis of facial
challenge and overbreadth doctrine.
Since a penal statute may only be
assailed for being vague as applied to
petitioners, a limited vagueness analysis
of the definition of "terrorism" in RA
9372 is legally impermissible absent an
actual or imminent charge against
them.
 Roxas v. Arroyo
FACTS:
Melissa Roxas, an American citizen of
Filipino descent, during a immersionheavily
armed men in civilian clothes forcibly
abducted her. She was informed that she
was being detained for being a member of
Communist Party of the Philippines-New
People’s Army (CPP-NPA). When she was
freed, she applied for writ of Amparo and
Habeas Data which was granted by the CA.
ISSUES:
a. WON the doctrine of command
responsibility applicable in a Writ of
Amparo petition.
b. WON the substantial evidence Is needed
in a Habeas Data application
HELD:
Writ of Amparo- YES. The doctrine of
command responsibility is a rule of substantive
law that establishes liability and, by this account,
cannot be a proper legal basis to implead a party-
respondent in an Amparo petition. it is more aptly
invoked in a full-blown criminal or administrative
case rather than in a summary amparo
proceeding. The obvious reason lies in the nature
of the writ itself.
Habeas Data-YES. Needless to state, an
indispensable requirement before the
privilege of the writ may be extended is the
showing, at least by substantial evidence, of
an actual or threatened violation of the
right to privacy in life, liberty or security of
the victim. This, in the case at bench, the
petitioner failed to do. The CA merely
inferred evidence.
 MERALCO v. Lim
FACTS:
Rosario Lim, also known as
Cherry Lim, is an administrative
clerk of MERALCO. On June 4,
2008 , an anonymous letter
containing a threatening message
towards Lim was posted. Due to
this, the head of HR of MERALCO
directed her transfer to the
Alabang Office. She appealed her
transfer but receive no response
so she filed for a petition for Writ
of Habeas Data.
ISSUE: WON the Writ of Habeas Data is the
proper remedy?
HELD: No.
MERALCO’s Memorandum directing her
reassignment to the Alabang Sector, under
the guise of a quest for information or data
allegedly in possession of petitioners, does
not fall within the province of a writ of
habeas data. The writs of Amparo and
habeas data will NOT issue to protect
purely property or commercial concerns
nor when the grounds invoked in support of
the petitions therefor are vague or
doubtful. Employment constitutes a
property right under the context of the
due process clause of the Constitution.
Jurisdiction over such concerns is
inarguably lodged by law with the NLRC
and the Labor Arbiters.
 Pollo v. Karina
FACTS:
An unsigned letter-complaint was
addressed to respondent alleging that
the Chief of the “Mamamayan muna
hindi mamaya na” division of the CSC
has been lawyering for accused gov’t
employees having a pending cases in
the CSC. Upon conclusion of the
investigation, petitioner’s personal files
of draft legal pleadings or documents
for parties with pending charges with
the CSC giving rise to the suspicion that
he was aiding and advancing the
interests of adverse parties. The CSC
formally charged Pollo and eventually
found him guilty and dismissed him
from service.
ISSUE: W/N the search conducted on
petitioner’s office computer and the
copying of his personal files without his
knowledge and consent constituted a
violation of his constitutional right to
privacy
HELD: No.
The Constitutional guarantee to right of
privacy under Art. 3, Sec. 2 of the
Constitution is not a prohibition of all
searches and seizures but only of
"unreasonable" searches and seizures. A
search by a government employer of an
employee’s office is justified at inception
when there are reasonable grounds for
suspecting that it will turn up evidence that
the employee is guilty of work-related
misconduct.
 Administrative;
Quasi-Judicial Proceedings; Arbitration
 ANG TIBAY v. CIR (Court of Industrial
Relations)
FACTS:
Teodoro Toribio is the owner of Ang
Tibay which is a leather company that supplies
the Philippine Army. Toribio caused the lay off
of a number of employees due to the alleged
leather shortage. However, only members of
the National Labor Union (NLU) were laid off
and none of the members of the other union
National Workers Brotherhood were laid off.
NLU alleged that the leather shortage was just
a scheme to terminate their members and the
such was unsupported. They further claim that
Teodoro is guilty of unjust labor practices for
discriminating against NLU. The CIR ruled in
favor of NWB. A motion for new trial was raised
by NLU on the basis of new evidence to the SC.
The SC granted the motion. The Solicitor
General, for the CIR, opposed the decision.
Issue:
WON NLU is entitled to a new trial?
Held: Yes!
The Supreme Court emphasized the CIR is more
an administrative body than a part of the
judicial system. As it was held in Goseco vs.
Court of Industrial Relations et al., the CIR is
not narrowly constrained by technical rules of
procedur xxx… but may inform its mind in such
manner as it may deem just and equitable.
However, it cannot ignore or disregard the
fundamental and essential requirements of
due process in trials and investigations of an
administrative character. The following are:
[cont.]
1) the right to a hearing, which includes the right to present one's cause and submit evidence in
support thereof;
(2) The tribunal must consider the evidence presented;
(3) The decision must have something to support itself;
(4) The evidence must be substantial;
(5) The decision must be based on the evidence presented at the hearing; or at least contained in
the record and disclosed to the parties affected;
(6) The tribunal or body or any of its judges must act on its own independent consideration of the
law and facts of the controversy, and not simply accept the views of a subordinate;
(7) The Board or body should, in all controversial questions, render its decision in such manner that
the parties to the proceeding can know the various Issue involved, and the reason for the decision
rendered.
The SC finally noted that there was a failure to grasp the fundamental issue of the case due to the
failure to receive all the necessary and relevant evidence. Thus, the SC found it more appropriate
to let NLU present the new evidence received. The case was therefore remanded to the CIR.
 Sto. Tomas v. Paneda 685 SCRA 245 (illegal recruitment)
Facts:
Philippine Association of Service
Exporters, Inc. seek to annul R.A.
8042 (the Migrant Workers and
Overseas Act of 1995 ) for being
unconstitutional.
The RTC Manila declared some
provisions unconstitutional including
Section 9, it said, “Venue, is
jurisdictional in penal laws and,
allowing the filing of criminal
actions at the place of residence of
the offended parties violates their
right to due process.”
Issue: Whether or not filing the criminal
case of the offended parties in their place
of residence violates their right to due
process
Ratio:
No. There is nothing arbitrary or
unconstitutional in Congress fixing an
alternative venue for violations of Section
6 of R.A. 8042
Section 9 of R.A. 8042, as an exception to
the rule on venue of criminal actions is,
consistent with that law’s declared policy
of providing a criminal justice system that
protects and serves the best interests of
the victims of illegal recruitment.
 De Lima v. Gatdula (writ of amparo)
Facts:
Gatdula filed a writ of amparo against
De Lima for the latter “to cease and
desist from framing him up for the
fake ambush incident.”
However, the RTC judge committed
procedural irregularities regarding the
issuance of Writ of Amparo . The
“Decision” which is only an
interlocutory order, interim reliefs to
be granted by the court upon filing of
the petition was confused to be the
final judgment rendered.
The mode of appeal against the Writ
of Amparo was affected.
Issue: Whether or not an appeal against
the writ of Amparo should be granted via
Rule 45
Ruling:
GR: No, A judgment which simply grants
“the privilege of the writ” cannot be
executed.
The judgment should contain measures
which the judge views as essential for the
continued protection of the petitioner in
the Amparo case. These measures must
be detailed enough so that the judge may
be able to verify and monitor the actions
taken by the respondents. It is this
judgment that could be subject to appeal
to the Supreme Court via Rule 45
However, simply dismissing the present petition, will cause grave
injustice to the parties involved. It undermines the salutary purposes
for which the Rule on the Writ of Amparo were promulgated.
EXN: The rules can be suspended on the following grounds:
(1) matters of life, liberty, honor or property,
(2) the existence of special or compelling circumstances,
(3) the merits of the case,
(4) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the
party favored by the suspension of the rules,
(5) a lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and
dilatory, and
(6) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby.
In the end, the appeal was granted.
 Ligot v. Republic (freezing order)
Facts:
CA found that probable cause exists
on the assets of Lt. Ligot and his
family, that these funds have been
illegally acquired. It issued further a
resolution extending such freezing
order “until after all the appropriate
proceedings and/or investigations
being conducted are terminated.”
The Ligots argued that the extension
not only deprived them of their
property without due process; it also
punished them before their guilt
could be proven.
Issue: Whether or not CA’s extended
freeze order on the assets of Ligot and his
family is a violation of due process
Ruling:
Yes, as a rule, a freeze order was intended
mainly as an interim preemptive remedy,
and its effectivity may be extended by the
CA for a period not exceeding six months.
However, the assets were freeze for six
years because the Republic took six years
from the time it secured a freeze order
before a civil forfeiture case was filed in
court, thus, violating Ligots’ right to due
process.
 Republic v. Roque (void for vagueness)
Facts:
Respondents filed a Petition for
declaratory relief before the RTC,
assailing the constitutionality of the
section of 3 RA 9372, which defines
acts of terrorism for being void for
vagueness; and others for various
reasons.
However, petitioners argued that
private respondents failed to satisfy
the requirements for declaratory
relief and that the Court had already
sustained with finality the
constitutionality of RA 9372 and
moved to dismiss the petition.
Issue: whether or not the RTC gravely
abused its discretion when it denied the
motion to dismiss.
Ruling:
Yes, while no grave abuse of discretion on
the part of the RTC when it ruled upon
the constitutionality of RA 9372 in the
Southern Hemisphere cases, it, however,
exceeded its jurisdiction when it ruled
that private respondents’ petition had
met all the requisites for an action for
declaratory relief.
There are six (6) requisites for an action
for declaratory relief. However, the Court
the fourth, fifth, and sixth requirements,
have yet to be complied with
Requisites for declaratory relief:

first, the subject matter of the controversy must be a deed, will,

contract or other written instrument, statute, executive order or
regulation, or ordinance;
second, the terms of said documents and the validity thereof are
doubtful and require judicial construction;
third, there must have been no breach of the documents in question;

fourth, there must be an actual justiciable controversy or the

“ripening seeds” of one between persons whose interests are adverse;
fifth, the issue must be ripe for judicial determination; and
sixth, adequate relief is not available through other means or other
forms of action or proceeding.
Declaratory relief is defined as an action by any person interested in a
deed, will, contract or other written instrument, executive order or
resolution, to determine any question of construction or validity arising
from the instrument, executive order or regulation, or statute, and for a
declaration of his rights and duties thereunder. (Ferrer, Jr. vs. Roco, Jr.,
623 SCRA 313 [2010])
 Remman Enterprises v. Professional Regulatory Board
(real estate developer’s right to dispose property)
Facts: Issue: Whether or not professionalizing
R.A. No. 9646 ,“Real Estate Service Act the real estate service violates real estate
of the Philippines”, aims to developer’s right to dispose property
professionalize the real estate service Ruling:
sector under a regulatory scheme of No. There is no deprivation of property as
licensing, registration and supervision no restriction on their use and enjoyment
of real estate service practitioners in of property is prejudiced. The burden on
the country. the petitioners on the new requirement
Petitioners challenged the of the said law imposed is an unavoidable
constitutionality of the law asserting consequence of a reasonable regulatory
that the prohibition violates their measure.
rights as property owners to dispose No right is absolute, and the proper
of their properties, which the regulation of a profession, calling,
respondents defended as a valid business or trade has always been upheld
legislation pursuant to the State’s as a legitimate subject of a valid exercise
police power. of the police power of the State.
 Disini v. Secretary of Justice (Cybercrime Law)
Facts:
Section 6 of the cybercrime law
imposes penalties that are one degree
higher when the crimes defined in the
Revised Penal Code and certain
special laws are committed with the
use of information and
communication technologies (ICT).
According to the petitioners, the
increase in the penalty for online libel
creates greater and unusual chilling
effect that violates the protection
afforded to such freedom.
They also argue that Section 4(c)(4), a
provision defining libel is both vague
and overbroad.
Issue: (1) W/NSection 6 violate the
guaranteed right of free speech
(2) W/N Section 4(c)(4), a provision defining
libel is both vague and overbroad.
Ruling:
(1) No. Section 6 of the cybercrime law
merely makes the commission of existing
crimes through the internet a qualifying
circumstance. The law does not remotely
and could not have any chilling effect on
the right of the people to disagree, a
most protected right
(2) No. Online libel is not a new crime. Any
apprehended vagueness in its provisions
has long been settled by precedents.
 Imbong v. Ochoa (RH Law void for vagueness)
Facts:
Petitioners have shown that medical
practitioners or medical providers are
in danger of being criminally
prosecuted under the RH Law for
vague violations thereof, particularly
public health officers who are
threatened to be dismissed from the
service with forfeiture of retirement
and other benefits
Thus, it must be “void-for-vagueness”
in violation of the due process clause
of the Constitution since it punishes
“any violation” of the law yet does not
define the type of conduct to be
treated as violation.
Issue: W/N The RH Law violate the due
process clause of the Constitution due to
vagueness
Ruling:
No. The definitions of several terms as
observed by the petitioners are not vague. In
determining whether the words used in a
statute are vague, words must not only be
taken in accordance with their plain meaning
alone, but also in relation to other parts of
the statute.
Public health and safety demand that health
care service providers give their honest and
correct medical information in accordance
with what is acceptable in medical practice.
SEC. 23. Prohibited Acts.—The following acts are
prohibited:
(a) Any health care service provider, whether public or
private, who shall:
(1) Knowingly withhold information or restrict the
dissemination thereof, and/or intentionally provide
incorrect information regarding programs and services
on reproductive health including the right to informed
choice and access to a full range of legal, medically-
safe, non-abortifacient and effective family planning
methods;
 U.E. v. Pepanio (post-graduate degree)
Facts:
DECS required that a college faculty
must have a master degree as the
minimum educational qualification for
acquiring regularization.
Then Bueno and Pepanio demanded
regularization but U.E. refused and
enjoined Pepanio from attending her
classes and did not give Bueno any
teaching load because of lack of post-
graduate degree.
Labor Arbiter’s (LA) ruled that Bueno
and Pepanio was regular employee
based on the first CBA between U.E.
and DECS, and they were dismissed
without just cause.
Issue: Whether or not UE illegally dismissed
Bueno and Pepanio, thus, violating due
process of law
Ruling:
No. It is clear that the parties intended to
subject respondents’ permanent status
appointments to the standards set by the law
and the university when they were given a
chance to teach while finishing their
respective post-graduate studies. But they
did not take advantage of such opportunities.
Justice, fairness, and due process demand
that an employer should not be penalized
for situations where it had little or no
participation or control.
 Garcia v. Drilon (VAWC)
Facts:
Wife had been physical and
emotionally abused by her husband.
Finding reasonable ground to believe
that an imminent danger of violence
against her and her children exists or
the RTC issued a TPO for successively.
Husband assailed the validity of the
TPO constitutionality of R.A. 9262 for
being violative of the due process.
Both were dismissed by CA.
He, thus, alleged that the CA’s
dismissal runs counter to the due
process clause of the constitution.
Issue: Whether or not the grant of
Temporary Protection Order to the victim of
VAWC is a violation to a right to due process
Ruling:
NO. The grant of a TPO ex parte cannot,
therefore, be challenged as violative of the
right to due process. The victim of VAWC may
already have suffered harrowing experiences
in the hands of her tormentor, and possibly
even death, if notice and hearing were
required before such acts could be
prevented.
The ordinary requirements of procedural due
process must yield to the necessities of
protecting vital public interests, among which
is protection of women and children.
 Caram v. Segui (adoption not subject to amparo)
Facts:
The RTC held that Christina availed of
the wrong remedy to regain custody
of her child Baby Julian instead of
petitioninig for Writ of Amparo it
should be Rule on Custody of Minors
and Writ of Habeas Corpus in Relation
to Custody of Minors.
Christina’s motion for reconsideration
was denied, thus, this petition for
review on certiorari under Rule 45
arguing that the “enforced
separation” between her and Baby
Julian is violative of her rights to life,
liberty and security.
Issue: Whether or not the petition for Writ
of Amparo is the proper remedy to re-
acquire custody of the child.
Ruling:
No. the writ of amparo is confined only to
cases of extrajudicial killings and enforced
disappearances, or to threats thereof.
Christina’s enforced separation from the
child cannot constitute enforced
disappearance because the respondent
DSWD officers never concealed Baby Julian’s
whereabouts. Clearly this indicates that she
is not searching for a lost child but asserting
her parental authority over the child and
contesting custody over him. Thus, Amparo
rule cannot be properly applied.
 Mison v. Gallegos – 760 SCRA 363 (writ of amparo)
Facts:
Judge Gallegos was accused of
committing grave abuse of discretion in
issuing a privilege of writ of amparo to
Ku, a Korean National, given that the
latter was validly arrested and placed
under the jurisdiction and custody of
the BI.
However, according to Ku, what he
seeks to obtain in filing an amparo
petition his person against the actions
of some government officials.. Ku adds
that the longer he stays in confinement
the more he is exposed to life-
threatening situations and the further
the violation of his guaranteed rights
Issue: Whether or not the privilege of Writ of
Amparo was properly granted
Ruling:
No. the writ of amparo is confined only to
cases of extrajudicial killings and enforced
disappearances, or to threats thereof. Though
he allegations of Ku plausible, he was not able
to present evidence that he was exposed to
“life-threatening situations” while confined at
the BI Detention Center. The Amparo Rule
requires the parties to establish their claims
by substantial evidence. The fundamental
function of the writ of amparo is to cause the
disclosure of details concerning the
extrajudicial killing or the enforced
disappearance of an aggrieved party.
 Zarate v. Aquino III (writ of amparo)
Facts:
Zarate et. al argue that their inclusion
in the list introduced by the military to
the complainant in a case involving an
illegal detention and killing of one
Manobo are threats to their life, liberty,
and security warranting the protection
of the writ of amparo.
They also assert that the military and
the police should be compelled via the
writ of habeas data to disclose and to
provide petitioners with copies of all
information and evidence pertaining to
them which respondents have in their
files or records, and for such
information to be destroyed.
Issue: (1) W/N the inclusion in the list of the
petitioners entitled them to the protection of
writ of amparo
(2) W/N the respondents should be compelled
via writ of habeas data to disclose and provide
the petitioners their information about said
list
Ruling:
(1) No. Not all threats are protected by the
Amparo Rule. As a substantial due process,
"only actual threats”. Mere membership in
organizations or sectors identified by the
Government as terrorist which are claimed to
be victim of extrajudicial killings cannot
equate to an actual threat that would
warrant the issuance of a writ of amparo.
 Zarate v. Aquino III (writ of amparo)
Issue: (1) W/N the inclusion in the list of the
petitioners entitled them to the protection of
writ of amparo
(2) W/N the respondents should be compelled
via writ of habeas data to disclose and provide
the petitioners their information about said
list
Ruling:
(1) No. Not all threats are protected by the
Amparo Rule. As a substantial due process,
"only actual threats”. Mere membership in
organizations or sectors identified by the
Government as terrorist which are claimed to
be victim of extrajudicial killings cannot
equate to an actual threat that would
warrant the issuance of a writ of amparo.
(2) No.
Petitioners fail to show how their right
to privacy is violated given that the
information contained in the "lists"
are only their names, their positions in
their respective organizations, and
their photographs. All these data are of
public knowledge and are readily
accessible even to civilians, especially
since petitioners are known
personalities who are often featured in
news reports.
 Banco Espanol v. Palanca (jurisdiction over person)
Facts:
Defendant who lives in Amoy, China lost to a
case by default because of non-appearance.
About 7 years later, Palanca, the defendant’s
estate administrator, requested to set aside the
order of default and the judgment rendered,
and to vacate all the proceedings subsequent
thereto on the basis of lack of court’s
jurisdiction over the defendant.
Involved in this decision is the principle that the
proceedings in rem or quasi in rem against a
nonresident who is not served personally within
the state, and who does not appear, the relief
must be confined to the res, and the court
cannot lawfully render a personal judgment
against him.
Issue: Whether or not the court is void
for lack of jurisdiction over the person of
the defendant
Ruling:
No. Jurisdiction over the person is
acquired by the voluntary appearance of
a party in court and his submission to its
authority. Otherwise, the court never
acquires jurisdiction over the person at
all.
But here the property itself is in fact the
sole thing which is impleaded and is the
responsible object which is the subject of
the exercise of judicial power. Thereby,
jurisdiction over person, even if
acquiredin this case is non-essential.
Requirement of Due Process
1) There must be a court or tribunal with judicial power to hear and
determine the matter before it;
2) Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person of the
defendant or over the property which the subject of the
proceedings
3) The defendant must be given an opportunity to be heard
4) Judgment must be rendered upon lawful hearing

Procedural due process as applied to judicial proceedings, Banco Espanol Filipino v. Palanca
 Galvez v. CA (aspect of the proceedings)
Facts: Ruling:
It is petitioners’ submission that the Yes. Whichever set of informations
prevails, the evidence of the prosecution
prosecution’s failure to serve them a copy of the
motion to withdraw the original informations and defense will more or less be the
and to set said motion for hearing constitutes asame and can be utilized for the charges
violation of their right to be informed of the therein. Hence, no cogent reason exists
proceedings against them… for the suspension of the proceedings
The real grievance of herein accused is not the before the court below.
dismissal of the original three informations butBrushing aside procedural technicalities,
the filing of four new informations, three of therefore, it becomes exigent to now
which charge graver offenses and the fourth, an consider and declare the four
informations for murder, frustrated
additional offense. Thus, this special civil action
to suspend the proceedings. murder and illegal possession of firearms
as having amended and superseded the
Issue: whether or not the court acted correctly original three informations for homicide
in dismissing the original informations rather and frustrated homicide, there being no
than ordering the amendment thereof substantial rights of herein petitioners
which may be affected thereby.
 Martinez v CA (Padilla)
Facts: Manuel Martinez seeks for the
dismissal (Motion for Reinvestigation of
libel complaint against him by Salvador
Laurel for writing a newspaper article
entitled 'The Sorrow of Laurel'. Thereafter,
the complainant filed a motion to set up
the case for arraignment and pre trial.
However, a decision was made before the
arraignment and hence, petition in this
Court.
Issue: Whether or not trial judge deprived
the complainant of due process in relation to
the motion to dismiss complaint?
Ruling: Yes. The fault or error tainting the
order of dismissal of the lower court consist
of its failure to observe procedural due
process. The complainant was deprived of his
day on this Court, without the prosecution
having furnished him legal copy of the motion
 Espeleta v Avelino
Facts: Shells Co. forwarded an oral motion
for revocation of appearance Espeleta's
witness, Montano, for cross examination
and conclusion of her testimony due to an
auditing job she had to comply with DILG.
The judge granted the request. However,
such request prejudices by not considering
Espeleta's counsel letter for postponement
and had stricken -off from the list of
records.
Issue: W/N the concept of fairness that is
basic to procedural due process would be
satisfied if the right to be heard by the
petitioner was revoked by the respondent
judge
Ruling: No. The trial court fails to follow the
procedural due process where it orders the
testimony of vital witness stricken off the
records when it appears that the failure of
said witness due to justified circumstance.
 Rabino v Cruz
Facts: The respondents filed a Civil Case
against a certain David Palmenco for the
recovery of portions of parcels of land on
MTC of Taytay, Rizal . The MTC rendered its
decision in favor of Cruz et al and issued a
writ on demolition. In result, Palmenco
was appealed but was denied
Issue: W/N the petitioner's denied due
process of law by including them in writ of
demolition.
Rulling: Yes. The petitioners right to due
process was violated because they were not
impleaded as parties in the ejectment case.
Judgment cannot bind persons who are not
parties to the action. In this case, The notice
of the institution of proceedings to subjected
parties are lacking.
 Ysmael v CA
Facts: 2 parcels of land was sold to
respondent and failed to deliver the titles
upon demand. Thereafter, respondent
sought relief from HLURB, and upon
notice, the petitioner failed to answer
within the reglementary period as well as
to attend hearings. Thereafter, sought for
an action for the petitioner in default.
Issue: Whether the petitioner denied of the
due process
Rulling: No. Trial and execution proceedings
constitute one whole action. One cannot
conveniently escape the two so that he
conveniently escape the effect of being
declared in default. The essence of due
process is the opportunity to be heard.
Petitioner was given the opportunity but
failed to chose it. Thus no denial of due
process was happened
 Carvajal v CA
Facts: The subject lot was the og owned by
a spouse and was succeeded by their 5
children after death. 1/5 of land was sold
and put into question because of the date
as to when it has been sold to the
petitioner. Thus, prompted the private
respondents to file a case of ejectment and
recovery of possession. Both the lower and
appellate court ruled in favor of the
respondents. Hence, petition in this court.
Issue: Whether or not the petitioner was given the
chance and the opportunity to be heard or allowed to
fully introduce his evidence in the proceeding for Land
Registration and to rest his case
Rulling: No. Petitioner was afforded an opportunity to
present witnesses, and he did present three. However,
petitioner did not invoke his right to take the witness
stand even when the trial court ordered the
submission of the parties memoranda which signified
the termination of the proceedings. Because he
acquiesced to the termination of the case, he forfeited
his right to take the witness stand
 People v Castillo (1998)
Facts: Appellant was charged with murder
by stabbing a certain Antonio Dometita in
QC. In the recourse of trial, he questioned
the credibility of the of the prosecution
witnesses and the partiality of the trial
judge by asking questions that are leading
in manner and interrupted the cross
examination to help witness give answer.
Issue: Whether the judge showed
partiality by asking questions during the
trial
Ruling: No. The trial judge is not an idle
arbiter during the trial. The impartiality of
the judge cannot be assailed on the mere
ground that he asked such questions
during the trial. It is judge’s prerogative to
ask clarificatory questions to ferret out
the truth
 Cosep v People
Facts: Petitioner, Tomas Cosep was the
Municipal Planning and Development
Coordination Officer in Zamboanga Del Sur. . In
1987, the municipality of Olutanga decided to
construct an artesian and secured the service
of Angelino Alegre for the amount of 5000 Php.
However, the private complainant received
only 4500 Php after the construction was
made. Sandiganbayan ruled against the
petitioner finding him guilty beyond
reasonable doubt
Issue: Whether the petitioner was
accorded an impartial trial by the
Sandiganbayan
Ruling: Yes. The petitioner like any other
accused individuals entitled to a fair trial
before an impartial and neutral judge; an
indispensible due process. However, this
does not mean that judges must be passive
and silent during the proceedings .
Question are raised in order to ferret out
the truth
People v Galleno
Facts: A 19 year old man raped 5 year old
girl in latter’s house while parents are out
to work in the plantation of sugar cane.
Because of intense pain and bleeding
skirts, parents of the complainant brought
her to specialist and have her examined. As
a result, Evelyn sustained a 3-inch
laceration in her vagina which result in
profuse, life-threatening bleeding due to
her tender age.
Issue: W/N the Trial Court erred in giving full
weight and credence to the testimonies of the
medical doctors.
Ruling: No. Conclusions and opinions of witnesses
are not confined to expert testimony, of for other
reasons. The testimony will aid the court in
reaching a judgment.
In the case at bar, In other words, the trial court
did not rely solely on the testimony of the expert
witnesses. Such expert testimony merely aided
the trial court in the exercise of its judgment on
the facts.
Oil v Court of Appeals
Facts: The respondent failed to deliver
43,000 metric tons of oil well cement to
the petitioner. The petitioner filed a
complaint in RTC and CA for the
enforcement of the aforementioned
judgment of the foreign court. However,
denied. It was ruled that arbitrator did not
have jurisdiction over the dispute between
the parties, thus, the foreign court could
not validly adopt the arbitrator's award
Issue: W/N due process was denied in part of
the respondent
Ruling: No. Time and again, this court has
held that the essence of due process is to be
found in reasonable opportunity to be heard
and submit any evidence one may have in
support of defense. And that there no
violation of due process even if no hearing
was conducted where a party was given a
chance to explain his side. Respondent was
notified to file its objections in foreign court
but failed to do so.
Rodrigo v Sandiganbayan
Facts: Conrado Rodrigo was a
Mayor of Pangasinan. He
contracted with Philwood
Construction for the electrification
of San Nicholas amounting 486,
358.13. However, development
plan was submitted indicating 97%
completion of the project where in
fact 63% only were done. The city
treasurer issued a Notice of
Disallowance. Hence, a graft and
corruption case was file before
Sandiganbayan
Issue: Whether petitioners right to due process was violated
by the filing of the complaint against them by the Provincial
Auditor
Ruling: No. Section 44.6.4 of the State Audit Manual
stipulates that the purpose of lifting the suspension or
extending the time to answer beyond the ninety (90) day
period prior to its conversion into a disallowance.
A disallowance is the disapproval of a credit or credits due
to non-compliance with law or regulations. A suspension is
the deferment of action officers accountability pending
compliance with certain requirements
People v Hui
Facts:This is a petition for certiorari which
seeks to annul the decision of respondent
judge acquitting the accused in a direct
assault case filed against him by the
petitioner on the ground that respondent
was biased for hearing the crime of Illegal
Use of Drugs (Carlos Tan Ty and Nelson
Hong Ty) sentenced by the Caloocan City
RTC to suffer the death penalty. Their case
is now before this Court on automatic
review.
Issue: Whether the judge showed
partiality by asking questions during the
trial
Ruling: No. The questioning of the
witnesses by the judge is not a sufficient
sign of bias . The trial judge is not an idle
arbiter during the trial. It is judge’s
prerogative to ask clarificatory questions
to ferret out the truth.
People v Cabiles
Facts: The respondent kill with treachery, Issue: Whether the accused-appellant was
taking advantage of superior strength and with deprived of his right to procedural due process
evident premeditation armed with stones, by the trial court judge
spear (garod) and bolos did then and there
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously assault,
attack and strike with said stones, spear and Ruling: No. He was not deprived of his right to
bolos for several times one Constancio procedural due process for he was given ample
Demesa, Jr. inflicting upon the latter several opportunity to be heard and to present evidence
fatal injuries and as a result thereof sustained for his defense. Moreover, the putative testimony
mortal wounds on the different parts of his of Dr. Sy is completely irrelevant as accused-
body which caused his instantaneous death. appellant did not claim that he acted in defense
of his son; he invoked self-defense
Gozun v Liangco
Facts: Gozun moved to file disbarment
case against Judge Liangco for issuing an
order to PNP to assist the Municipal Mayor
in implementing the demolition the house
of the former and built Health Care center.
IBP had its investigation and found that
there is a conspiracy between the
respondent and the mayor, resulting into
the demolition of the former’s house.
Case moved as Office of the Court
Administrator v Liangco case
Issue: Whether the judge and the
complainant was denied of due process of
law
Ruling: No. Judge Liangco was not denied of
due process, resulting to disbarment. He has
13 administrative pending cases, and the IBP
has its investigation carefully. Sui Generis.
Yes. There was issuance of executive order
and yet, was not served with summons or
given notice of the petition for declaratory
relief before Liangco
Soriano v Angeles
Facts: This is a petition for certiorari to
annul the decision of RTC which acquitted
private respondent Garcia, of direct
assault, on the basis that on trial, the
petitioner did not respond nor reacted to
the different claim ‘story ‘ of the
respondent; that is not so grave as to
constitute to file a case and made believed
that own version of story was fabricated.
Issue: Whether the judge denied justice for
lack of objectivity that due process requires.
Ruling: Yes. It has been proved that Judge
Angeles settled the case on mere suspicion.
The court held that there should be bias and
evidence to prove the charged. And that bias
and prejudice cannot be presumed, especially
weighted against judges oath of office to
administer justice without respect to person-
rich or poor.
State Prosecutor v Muros
Facts: Respondent Judge was
charged by State Prosecutors with
ignorance of the law, grave abuse
of discretion in dismissing 11 cases
solely on the basis of the report
published from the 2 newspapers
of general circulation regarding
Imelda Marcos’ violation of the
Central Bank Foreign Exchange
Restriction in the Central Bank
Circular 960.
Issue: Whether or not the respondent judge committed grave
abuse of discretion in taking judicial notice on the statement of
the president lifting the foreign exchange restriction published in
the newspaper as basis for dismissing the case?
Yes. The very act of respondent judge relying into a inexistent law
and in altogether dismissing sua sponte criminal cases without
even a motion to quash and without at least giving the
prosecution the basic opportunity to be heard on the matter by
way of a written comment or on oral argument, is not only a
blatant denial of elementary due process to the Government but
is palpably indicative of bad faith and partiality.