BoR: DUE PROCESS

Cases:
ATTY. HOWARD M. CALLEJA, ET AL. v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, ET AL. [G.R.
NO. 252578, ET AL., DECEMBER 7, 2021]
[Link]
4bBZbG0R_6EimgmSPkKMrz8sltK1MsxsU/edit?usp=sharing

ICHONG v. HERNANDEZ [G.R. NO. L-7995, MAY 31, 1957]

Facts:
 Retail Trade Nationalization Law was passed. This prohibits foreigners as well as
corporations owned by them from engaging in retail trade in our country.
 Petitioner filed a suit to invalidate this law saying that it violated several treaties
which under the rule of pacta sunt servanda, a principle of international law,
should be observed by the Court in good faith.
 Petitioner Lao H. Inchong, on his behalf and on behalf of other alien resident
corporations and partnerships adversely affected by the RA, brought this action
to declare the Act as unconstitutional, and to enjoin the Secretary of Finance and
city treasurers from enforcing its provisions.
 Inchong attacks the constitutionality of the Act, contending that:
(1) it denies to alien residents the equal protection and due process of the law
(2) the provisions of the Act violate or is contrary to the constitution, specifically
the spirit of Sections 1 and 5, Article XIII and Section 8 of Article XIV of the
Constitution.

Issue: WON the enactment of RA 1180 is constitutional

Ruling: YES
 Petition is denied
 The law was enacted to remedy a real actual threat and danger to national
economy through alien dominance and control of the retail business
 Clearly falls within the scope of the police power of the State - it protects and
ensures its security and the future
 DOES NOT VIOLATE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE
o Sufficient grounds of law clause
o Law is prospective in operation and recognizes the privilege of aliens
already engaged in the occupation and reasonably protected their
privilege
 Police power and equal protection
 Police power and due process
 Legislation discretion not subject to judicial review
 Law enacted in interest of national economic survival and security

PHILIPPINE PHOSPHATE FERTILIZER CORP. v. TORRES [G.R. NO. 98050,

MARCH 17, 1994]
 - Essence of due process
FACTS:
 Petitioner: PhilPhos Movement for Progress (PMPI) - labor organization
composed of supervisory employees of the Philippine Phospate Fertilizer
Corporation
 Respondent: Torres
 Petitioner filed a certification election with DOLE which was contested by
Philippine Phospate Fertilizer Corporation management
 The management hailed the creation of a supervisor’s union provided that they
meet all the necessary legal requirements
 Mediator-Arbiter Milado issued an order for the holding of the elections excluding
the technical, professional, and confidential employees
 After both parties submitted their position papers, Milado granted the petition of
PMPI which allowed the membership of other employees that were excluded or
previously mentioned
 Petitioner moved to have the technical, professional, and confidential employees
removed from the membership of PMPI to the Secretary of Labor and
Employment
 Decision was made. The appeal was dismissed as well as the subsequent
motion for reconsideration
 The court issued a TRO against the holding of the certification election scheduled
pending judicial review

ISSUE: WON PHILPHOS was denied due process

RULING: NO
 Essence of due process - opportunity to be heard or, in the case of administrative
proceedings, an opportunity to explain one’s side or an opportunity to seek
reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.
 In this case, PHILPOS agreed to file its position paper and to consider the case
submitted for decision on the basis of the position papers filed by the parties
 There was sufficient compliance with the requirement of due process since
petitioner was afforded reasonable opportunity to present its case
 Petitioner could have, if they desired to, insisted on a hearing to confront and
examine the witness of the other party, but did not.
 Instead they chose to submit a position paper with the mediator-arbiter
 Petitioner also had all the opportunity to ventilate its arguments in its appeal to
the Sec of Labor

YNOT VS. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT [G.R. NO. 74457, MARCH 20,
1987]
- Minimum requirements of due process
Facts:
 Petitioner Restituto Ynot had transported six carabaos in a pump boat from
Masbate to Iloilo when they were confiscated by the police station commander of
 Barotac Nuevo, Iloilo, for violation of EO 626, which prohibits interprovincial
movement of carabaos and carabeef.
 The petitioner sued for recovery and averred EO 626-A as unconstitutional for it
violated his right to be heard or his right to due process.
 He said that the authority provided by EO 626-A to outrightly confiscate carabaos
even without being heard is unconstitutional.
 Petitioner claims that the penalty is invalid because it is imposed without
according the owner a right to be heard before a competent and impartial court
as guaranteed by due process. He complains that the measure should not have
been presumed, and so sustained, as constitutional.
 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. The court sustained the confiscation of the carabaos.
 The petitioner appealed the decision to the Intermediate Appellate Court, which
upheld the trial court, and now Ynot comes before the SC through a petition for
review on certiorari
 626 - transportation only, 626-A - transportation and slaughter

Issue: WON EO 626-A is a violation of Procedural Due Process

Ruling: YES
 The EO is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes outright confiscation of the
carabao or carabeef being transported across provincial bounderies
 His claim is that the penalty is invalid since it imposed without giving the owner a
right to be heard before the court as guaranteed by due process
 It is a part of the sporting idea of fair play to hear the “other side” before forming
an opinion or making a decision by those who sit in judgement
 One side is only ½ of the question; other half must also be considered if an
impartial verdict is to be reached
 It is indispensable that both sides complement each other, like a bow and arrow,
in leading to the right ruling
 A judgement based on less than its full appraisal is tainted with a vice of bias or
intolerance or ignorance or insolence of power
 The minimum requirements of due process are notice and hearing which,
generally speaking, may not be dispensed with because they are intended as a
safeguard against official arbitrariness.
 Daniel Webster: “the law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon
inquiry and renders judgement only after trial.”
 It has already been remarked that there are occasions when notice and hearing
may be validly dispensed with notwithstanding the usual requirement for these
minimum guarantees of due process.
 It is also conceded that summary action may be validly taken in administrative
proceedings as procedural due process is not necessarily judicial only.
 In the exceptional cases accepted, however, there is a justification for the
omission of the right to a previous hearing, to wit, the immediacy of the problem
sought to be corrected and the urgency of the need to correct it.
ALONTE VS. SAVELLANO
(G.R. No. 131652 [1998)]
 Elements of criminal due process
Facts:
 An information for rape was filed by Juvie-lyn Punongbayan against petitioners,
Bayani Alonte (incumbent Mayor of Binan, Laguna) and Buenaventura
Concepcion,
 Punongbayan through her counsel filed a petition or a change of venue and to
have the case transferred and tried by any of the RTCs in Metro Manila
 During the pendency of the said petition, Punongbayan executed an affidavit of
assistance
 Atty. Ramon Casano, on behalf of the petitioners, moved to have the petition for
change of venue dismissed on the ground that it had moot in view of the
complainant’s affidavit of desistance
 ACSP Guiab filed a comment to dismiss asserting that he was not are of the
affidavit mentioned and said that the desistance would not produce any legal
effect since it was a public prosecutor who had direction and control of the
prosecution of the criminal action
 The court granted the motion to change venue
 After the case was assigned by raffle, it ended up being presided by Judge
Savellano of RTC Manila
 Punongbayan submitted to the court a compliance where she stated her decision
to abide by her AoD
 Judge Savellano found probable cause for the issuance of warrants for the arrest
of Alonte and Concepcion
 Alonte voluntarily surrendered himself to Director Santiago Toledo of the NBI
 Concepcion posted the recommended bail of 150,000 pesos
 Both petitioners were arraigned and pleaded not guilty to the charge and they
manifested that they were waiving pre-trial
 Both parties then agreed to proceed with the trial of the case on the merits
 However, according to Alonte, Judge Savellano allowed the prosecution to
present evidence relative only to the question of he voluntariness and validity of
the affidavit of desistance
 During the hearing, Punongbayan affirmed the validity and voluntariness of her
AoD
 She stated that she had no intention of giving positive testimony in support of the
charges against Alonte and had not interest in further prosecuting the action
 Punongbayan confirmed: (i) That she was compelled to desist because of the
harassment she was experiencing from the media, (ii) that no pressures nor
influence were exerted upon her to sign the affidavit of desistance, and (iii) that
neither she nor her parents received a single centavo from anybody to secure the
affidavit of desistance.
 Assistant state prosecutor then presented: (i)Punongbayans parents, who
affirmed their signatures on the affidavit of desistance and their consent to their
 daughters decision to desist from the case, and (ii) Assistant Provincial
Prosecutor Alberto Nofuente, who attested that the affidavit of desistance was
signed by Punongbayan and her parents in his presence and that he was
satisfied that the same was executed freely and voluntarily.
 Campomanes manifested that in light of the decision of private complainant and
her parents not to pursue the case, the State had no further evidence against the
accused to prove the guilt of the accused. She, then, moved for the "dismissal of
the case" against both Alonte and Concepcion.
 Petitioner Alonte filed a “urgent motion to admit to bail”
 The counsel of Alonte received a notice, while the counsel of Concepcion denied
having received such notice
 After the case was called, Alonte could not attend the promulgation of the
decision due to mild hypertension, while Concepcion’s counsel was not notified
of the proceedings
 Nevertheless, the decision was concluded finding Alonte and Concepcion guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of rape

Issue: WON the petitioner was deprived of Procedural Due Process

Ruling: YES
 Respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction and rendered a decision with total disregard of the Revised
Rules on Evidence and existing doctrinal jurisprudence
 Respondent Judge rendered a decision based on the 2 affidavits which were
neither marked nor offered into evidence by the prosecution nor gave the
petitioner an opportunity to cross-examine the affiants
 He rendered a decision without conducting a trial on the facts which would
establish that complainant was raped by the petitioner
 This resulted to conviction without trial and a violation of petitioner’s right to due
process under Article 3, Section 1 of the Philippine Constitution
 The 2 accused did not present any evidence during trial ad did not take witness
stand to refute or deny under oath the truth of contents of the private
complainants
 They rested and submitted the case for decision merely on the basis of the
private complainant’s ‘desistance’
 Judge Savellano’s claim regarding lack of cross-examination: the rule of case law
is that the right to confront and cross-examine a witness ‘is a personal one and
may be waived’ but the waiver must be positively demonstrated
 The standard of waiver requires that it "not only must be voluntary, but must be
knowing, intelligent, and done with sufficient
 courts must indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver.
 Jurisprudence acknowledges that DUE PROCESS IN CRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS, in particular, require (a) that the court or tribunal trying the case
is properly clothed with judicial power to hear and determine the matter before it;
(b) that jurisdiction is lawfully acquired by it over the person of the accused; (c)
 that the accused is given an opportunity to be heard; and (d) that judgment is
rendered only upon lawful hearing.
 Court stated that this case must be remaned for further proceedings

CONGRESSMAN ANIAG v. COMELEC

(G.R. No. 104961 [1994])
 Right to preliminary investigation as an essential element of criminal due process

FACTS:
 The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) issued the "Gun Ban," promulgating
rules and regulations on bearing, carrying and transporting of firearms or other
deadly weapons, on security personnel or bodyguards, on bearing arms by
members of security agencies or police organizations, and organization or
maintenance of reaction forces during the election period.
 COMELEC issued a Resolution providing for the summary disqualification of
candidates engaged in gunrunning, using and transporting of firearms, organizing
special strike forces, and establishing spot checkpoints.
 Pursuant to the "Gun Ban," Mr. Serapio P. Taccad, Sergeant- at-Arms, House of
Representatives, wrote to the petitioner who was then Congressman of the 1st
District of Bulacan requesting the return of the two (2) firearms 3 issued to him by
the House of Representatives.
 Upon being advised of the request by his staff, petitioner immediately instructed
his driver, Ernesto Arellano, to pick up the firearms from petitioner's house at
Valle Verde and return them to Congress.
 After a while, the policemen manning the outpost or checkpoint flagged down the
car driven by Arellano as it approached the checkpoint.
 They searched the car and found the firearms neatly packed in their gun cases
and placed in a bag in the trunk of the car.
 Arellano was then apprehended and detained. He explained that he was ordered
by petitioner.
 City Prosecutor invited petitioner to shed light on the circumstances mentioned in
Arellano's sworn explanation.
 Petitioner not only appeared at the preliminary investigation to confirm Arellano's
statement but also wrote the City Prosecutor urging him to exonerate Arellano.
 COMELEC issued a Resolution directing the filing of information against
petitioner and Arellano for violation of the Omnibus Election Code.
 COMELEC denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. Hence, this recourse.

ISSUE: WON the petitioner was afforded with the due process of law

RULING: NO

the manner by which COMELEC proceeded against petitioner runs counter to the due
process clause of the Constitution. The facts show that petitioner was not charged by
the PNP with violation of the Omnibus Election Code. Nor was he subjected by the City
Prosecutor to a preliminary investigation for such offense. The non- disclosure by the
City Prosecutor to the petitioner that he was a respondent in the preliminary
investigation is violative of due process which requires that the procedure established
by law should be obeyed. COMELEC argues that petitioner was given the chance to be
heard because he was invited to enlighten the City Prosecutor regarding the
circumstances leading to the arrest of his driver, and that petitioner in fact submitted a
sworn letter of explanation regarding the incident. This does not satisfy the requirement
of due process the essence of which is the reasonable opportunity to be heard and to
submit any evidence one may have in support of his defense. Petitioner was merely
invited during the preliminary investigation of Arellano. Hence, it cannot be seriously
contended that petitioner was fully given the opportunity to meet the accusation against
him as he was not apprised that he was himself a respondent when he appeared before
the City Prosecutor.

PHILIPPINE COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE CORP. VS. ALCUAZ

[G.R. No. 84818 [1989])
 Procedural due process
Facts:
 By virtue of RA 5514, PHILCOMSAT was granted a franchise to establish and
operate in the Philippines station/s, equipments, and facilities for international
satellite communications
 Since it has been leasing its satellite circuits to telecommunication companies, it
was exempt from the jurisdiction of the National Telecom Commission (NTC)
 Pursuant to EO 196, it was placed under the jurisdiction, control and regulation of
NTC
 NTC required PHILCOMSAT to apply for the requisite certificate of public
convenience
 PHILCOMSAT filed with NTC an application for authority to continue operating
and maintaining the same facilities, continue providing the international satellite
communications services and to charge the current rates applied in rendering
such services. It also applied for provisional authority.
 NTC extended the provisional authority but directed PHILCOMSAT to charge
modified reduced rates through a reduction of 15% on the present authrozed
rates
 PHILCOMSAT assailed the said order

Issue: WON notice and hearing is necessary for the questioned order issued
WON NTC violated procedural due process

Ruling: YES
 The NTC order violates procedural due process because it was issued
motopropio without notice to PHILCOMSAT and without the benefit of a hearing.
Said is a unilateral evaluation, but had PHILCOMSAT been given an opportunity
to present its side before the order in question was issued, the confiscatory
nature of the rate reduction and the consequent
 deterioration of the public service could have been shown and demonstrated to
NTC. Reduction of rates was made without affording PHILCOMSAT the benefit
of an explanation as to what particular aspect or aspects of the financial
 statements warranted a corresponding rate reduction. PHILCOMSAT was not
even afforded the opportunity to cross-examine the inspector who issued the
report on which NTC based its questioned order. While NTC may fix a temporary
rate pending final determination of the application of PHILCOMSAT, such rate-
fixing order, temporary though it may be, is not exempt from the statutory
procedural requirements of notice and hearing, as well as the requirement of
reasonableness.
 At any rate, there remains the categorical admission made by respondent NTC
that the questioned order was issued pursuant to its quasi- judicial functions. It,
however, insists that notice and hearing are not necessary since the assailed
order is merely incidental to the entire proceedings and, therefore, temporary in
nature. This postulate is bereft of merit.
 The NTC, in the exercise of its rate-fixing power, is limited by the requirements of
public safety, public interest, reasonable feasibility and reasonable rates, which
conjointly more than satisfy the requirements of a valid delegation of legislative
power.

ANGTIBAY VS. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

(G.R. No. 46496 [1940])
 Primary rights in administrative due process
Facts:
 There was an agreement between AngTibay and the NLU (National Labor Union,
Inc.)
 NLU alleged that the supposed lack of leather material claimed by Toribio
Teodoro was a scheme adopted to discharge all the members of NLU from work
 Petitioner proved this through the records of Bureau of Customs and Books of
Accounts of native dealers in leather
 That National Worker's Brotherhood Union of AngTibay is a company or
employer union dominated by ToribioTeodoro, which was lleged by the NLU as
an illegal one. The CIR, decided the case and elevated it to the Supreme Court,
but a motion for new trial was raised by the NLU. But the AngTibay filed a motion
for opposing the said motion.

Issue: WON the motion for new trial should be granted

Ruling: YES
 The interest of justice would be better served if the movant is given opportunity to
present at the hearing the documents referred to in his motion and such other
evidence as may be relevant to the main issue involved.
 CIR is a special court. It is more an administrative board than a part of the
integrated judicial system of the nation.
 CIR is not narrowly constrained by technical rules of procedure, and equity and
substantial merits of the case, without regard to technicalities or legal forms and
shall not be bound by any technical rules of legal evidence but may inform its
mind in such manner as it may deem just and equitable. The fact, however, that
the CIR may be said to be free from rigidity of certain procedural requirements
 does not mean that it can in justiciable cases coming before it, entirely ignore or
disregard the fundamental and essential requirements of due process in trials
and investigations of an administrative character.
 There are cardinal primary rights which must be respected even in proceedings
of this character:
(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;and
(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;

ATENEO DE MANILA VS. CAPULONG

(G.R. No. [1993])
 Right to cross examination is not included in the guarantee of due process
Facts:
 Leonardo H. Villa, a 1st year law student, died of serious physical injuries at
Chinese General Hospital after initiation rites of Aquila Legis, a frat in Ateneo
Law School
 Bienvenido Marquez was also hospitalized at Capitol Medical Center after the
initiation rites
 The petitioner, Dean Cynthia del Castillo, created an investigating committee
tasked to look into the circumstances surrounding the death of Villa and submit a
report within 72 hours
 The dean also required the 7 respondent students to submit written statements
within 24 hours but the students failed to file a reply
 Respondent students were placed on preventive suspension
 The investigating committee found a prima facie case against the respondent
students for violation a rule stated in the Law School Catalogue regarding
discipline
 The respondent students were then required to file their written answers to the
formal charge
 The dean created a Disciplinary board to hear the charges against the students
and the board found the students to be guilty for violating Rules on Discipline
regarding participation in hazing activities
 However, due to lack of unanimity among the members of the Board on the
penalty, the board left the imposition of the penalty to the university admin
 Fr. Bernas, then president of Ateneo, imposed the penalty of dismissal on all
respondent students
 Respondent students filed with RTC Makati a TRO since they are currently
enrolled, which was granted
 After the expiration of the TRO, the Dean created a Special board to investigate
the charges of hazing against respondent students, Abas and Mendoza
  This was requested to be stricken out by the respondents and argued that the
creation of the Special Board was totally unrelated to the petition which alleged
lack of due process
 This was granted and reinstatement of the students was ordered

Issue: WON there was denial of due process against the respondent students

Ruling: NO
 There was no denial of procedural due process
 When the dean notified and required the respondents to submit their written
statement on the incident, instead of filing a reply, they requested copies of the
charges
 While the students mentioned in the notice duly submitted written statements, the
others failed to do so. Thus, they were granted an extension to file their
statements
 It was clearly shown that the respondents were given ample opportunity to
adduce evidence in their behalf and to answer the charges levelled against them
 Respondents may not use the argument that they were not accorded opportunity
the to see and examine the written statements which became the basis of
petitioner’ order they were denied procedural due process
 Granting that they were denied such opportunity, the same may not be said to
detract from the observance of due process, for disciplinary cases involving
students need not necessarily include the right to cross examination
 An administrative proceeding conducted to investigate students’ participation in a
hazing activity need not be clothed with the attributes of a judicial proceeding
 The elements of notice and hearing were present: The Minimum standards to be
satisfied in the imposition of disciplinary sanctions in academic institutions, such
as petitioner university herein, thus:
(1) the students must be informed in WRITING of the nature and cause of any
accusation against them
(2) that they shall have the right to answer the charges against them with the
assistance of counsel, if desired:
(3) they shall be informed of the evidence against them
(4) they shall have the right to adduce evidence in their own behalf; and
(5) the evidence must be duly considered by the investigating committee or
official designated by the school authorities to hear and decide the case.
 It cannot be asserted that the requirements were not met

SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE ENGAGEMENT NETWORK, INC. VS. ANTI-TERRORISM

COUNCIL (G.R. No.178552 [2010])
 Overbreadth and vagueness doctrines

FACTS:
 The case consists of 6 petitions challenging the constitutionality of RA 9372, “An
Act to Secure the State and Protect our People from Terrorism,” aka Human
Security Act of 2007.
  Petitioner-organizations assert locus standi on the basis of being suspected
communist fronts” by the government, whereas individual petitioners invoke the
“transcendental importance” doctrine and their status as citizens and taxpayers.
 Petitioners claim that RA 9372 is vague and broad, in 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: Whether or not a penal statute may be assailed for being vague
as applied to petitioners.

RULING: NO. A limited vagueness analysis of the definition of “terrorism” in RA 9372 is

legally impossible absent an actual or imminent charge against them. A statute or act
suffers from the defect of vagueness when it lack comprehensible standards that men of
common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its
application. A “facial” challenge is likewise different from an “as applied” challenge.
“Facial” challenge is an examination of the entire law, pinpointing its flaws and defects,
not only on the basis of its actual operation to the parties, but also on the assumption or
prediction that its very existence may cause others not before the court to refrain from
constitutionally protected speech or activities. Under no case may ordinary penal
statutes be subjected to a facial challenge. If facial challenge to a penal statute is
permitted, the prosecution of crimes may be hampered. No prosecution would be
possible.

BoR: EQUAL PROTECTION

Cases:
• People vs. Vera [G.R. No. 45685, November 16, 1937]
• Ichong vs. Hernandez [G.R. No. L-7995, May 31, 1957]
• Villegas vs. Hiu Chiong Tsai Pao Ho [G.R. No. L-29646, November 10,
1978]
• People vs. Cayat [G.R. No. L-45987, May 5, 1939]
• Dumlao vs. COMELEC [G.R. No. L-52245, January 22, 1980]
• Philippine Association of Service Exporters vs. Drilon [G.R. No. L-81958,
June 30, 1988]
• Himagan vs. People [G.R. No. 113811, October 7, 1994]
• Quinto vs. COMELEC [G.R. No. 189698, February 22, 2010]
• Biraogo vs. The Philippine Truth Commission [G.R. No. 192935,
December 7, 2010]
• Ormoc Sugar Co., Inc. vs. Treasurer of Ormoc City [G.R. No. L-23794,
February 17, 1968]