DUE PROCESS

Ichong v. Hernandez The test of reasonableness of a law is the

appropriateness or adequacy under all
circumstances of the means adopted to carry out
its purpose into effect. The due process of law
clause is not violated because the law is
prospective in operation and recognizes the
privilege of aliens already engaged in the
occupation and reasonably protects their privileges.
Philippine Phosphate Fertilizer v. Torres The Supreme Court ruled that the essence of due
(position papers) process is simply an opportunity to be heard or as
applied to administrative proceedings, an
opportunity to explain one’s side or an opportunity
to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling
complained of. Wherein in the instant case,
petitioner PHILPHOS agreed to file its position
paper with the Mediator Arbiter 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 as petitioner was afforded reasonable
opportunity to present its side.
Ynot vs. IAC The Supreme Court ruled that the minimum
requirements of due process are notice and
hearing may not be dispensed with because they
are intended as safeguard against official
arbitrariness. The law which hears before it
condemns and which proceeds upon inquiry and
renders judgment only after trial.

Strike but hear me first.

Allonte v. Savellano Due process in Criminal Proceedings:
(hearing on the affidavit of desistance sa rape
case) 1. The court or tribunal trying the case is
properly clothed with judicial power to hear
and determine the matter before it.
2. That jurisdiction is lawfully acquired by it
over person of the accused.
3. That the accused is given an opportunity to
be heard.
4. Judgment is rendered only upon lawful
hearing.

The Supreme Court ruled that the standard of

waiver requires that it must not only be voluntary,
but must be knowing, intelligent and done with
sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances
and likely consequences. Mere silence of the
holder of the right should not be construed as a
waiver of right, and the courts must indulge
every reasonable presumption against waiver.
In the present case, As to that matter of the
affidavit of desistance, the accused voluntarily
waived his right in evidence. As to the matter of
his guilt or culpability as to the crime charged,
 the waiver of one stage of the trial does not
necessarily mean a waiver of all the rights
pertaining to the other specs of the stages in
the trial. Waiver of the defense in presenting
evidence on the issue of voluntary desistance it
should not be taken also as a waiver of the right
to present evidence to prove their innocence.
Aniag v. Commision on Elections The Supreme Court ruled that the manner by which
(preliminary inv sa COMELEC case re gun COMELEC proceeded against the petitioner was
possession) counter to the due process clause of the
Constitution. The facts show that the petitioner was
not among those charged by the PNP in violation of
the Omnibus Election Code. Nor he was 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.
Sps. Romualdez vs. COMELEC

Philcomsat vs. Alcuaz The order in question which was issued by

respondent Alcuaz no doubt contains all the
attributes of a quasi judicial adjudication.
Foremost is the fact that said order pertains
exclusively to petitioner and to no other. Further it
is premised on a finding of fact although patently
superficial, that there is merit in reduction of some
rates charged based on initial evaluation of
petitioner’s financial statements without affording
the petitioner the benefit of an explanation as to
what particular aspect or aspects of the financial
statements warranted a corresponding reduction.
No rationalizations was offered nor were the
attending contingencies if any discussed which
prompted respondents to impose as much as 15%
rate reduction.

“Where a public administrative body acts in a

judicial or quasi judicial matter and its act are
particular and immediate rather than general and
prospective, the person whose rights or property
may be affected by the action is entitled to notice
and hearing. “
MACEDA V. ERB (exercising quasi legislative power) order applied to
all

“When such rules and / or rates are meant to apply

to all enterprises of a given kind throughout the
Philippines.”
Ang Tibay vs. CIR
1. Right to a hearing
2. The tribunal must consider the evidence
presented.
3. The decision must be supported by evidence.
4. The evidence must be substantial.
5. The decision must be rendered on the evidence
presented at the hearing or at least contained in the
record and disclosed to the parties affected.
6. The court or any of its judges, therefore must act
on its or his own independent consideration of the
law and facts of the
controversy and not simply accept the views of a
subordinate in arriving at a decision.
7. The court should, in all controversial questions,
render its decision in such a manner that the
parties to the proceeding can know the various
issues involved and the reasons for the decision
rendered.

Ateneo De Manila v. Capulong The right to confrontation is not part of due process
in school administrative proceedings. Right may be
invoked only is to demand for the presentation of
the evidence held against them. Right to rebut but
not cross examine.

Requirements of due process in school

administrative proceedings
1. Students must be informed in writing of the
nature and cause of accusation against
them.
2. Answer the charges against them with the
assistance of a counsel, if so desired.
3. Adduce evidence.
4. Informed of the evidence.
5. Evidence must be duly considered by the
investigating committee or official
designated by the school authorities to
hear and decide the case.

Southern Hemisphere vs. Anti-terrorism

Council
EQUAL PROTECTION
PEOPLE VS. VERA Whether Act 4221 (Probation Law is valid)

No. A law may appear fair on its face or impartial in

appearance, yet if it permits unjust and illegal
discrimination, it is still subject to the constitutional
prohibition.

The effectivity of the Act was made to depend upon

an act to be done by the provincial boards, that is,
the appropriating of funds for the salary of the
probation
 officer. This means that a person otherwise coming
within the purview of the law would be liable to
enjoy the benefits of probation in one province
while another person similarly situated in another
province would be denied those same benefits.
This is obnoxious discrimination.
INCHONG VS. HERNANDEZ Is a nationality a substantial distinction?

Yes. The alien resident owes allegiance to the

country of his birth or his country; his stay here is
for personal convenience; he is attracted by the
lure of gain and profit. His aim or purpose of stay,
we admit is neither illegitimate nor immoral, but he
is naturally lacking the spirit of loyalty and
enthusiasm for this country where he temporarily
stays and makes his living, or of that spirit of
regard, sympathy and consideration for his Filipino
customers as would prevent him from taking
advantage of their weakness and exploiting them.
Villegas v. Hiu Chiong A LAW THAT DOES NOT SPECIFY THE
MANNER OF EXERCISE OF DISCRIMINATION
IS VIOLATIVE OF EQUAL PROTECTION
CLAUSE.

The P50.00 fee is unreasonable not only because it

is excessive but because it fails to consider valid
substantial differences in situation among individual
aliens who are required to pay it. Although the
equal protection clause of the Constitution does not
forbid classification, it is imperative that the
classification, should be based on real and
substantial differences having a reasonable relation
to the subject of the particular legislation. The same
amount of P50.00 is being collected from every
employed alien, whether he is casual or
permanent, part time or full time or whether he is a
lowly employee or a highly paid executive.
People vs. Cayat Requireents of Valid Classification:
(1) must rest on substantial distinctions;
(2) must be germane to the purposes of the law; (3)
must not be limited to existing conditions only; and
(4) must apply equally to all members of the same
class.

The Supreme Court ruled that the duration is not

limited in its application to conditions existing at the
time of its enactment because it is intended to
apply for all times as long those conditions exist.
Dumlao vs. COMELEC AGE IS A VALID CLASSIFICATION IN
GOVERNMENT SERVICE.

For purposes of public service, employees 65 years

of age, have been validly classified differently from
younger employees. Employees attaining that age
are subject to compulsory retirement, while those of
younger ages are not so compulsorily retirable. The
 need for new blood assumes relevance. The
tiredness of the retiree for government work is
present, and what is emphatically significant is that
the retired employee has already declared himself
tired an unavailable for the same government work,
but, which, by virtue of a change of mind, he would
like to assume again.
Philippine Association of Service Exporters v. Where the classifications is based on distinctions
Drilon that make a real difference as infancy, sex, stage of
civilization of minority groups, the better rule, it
would seem, is to recognize its validity only if the
young, the women, and the cultural minorities
are singled out for favorable treatment. But if the
classification is based on distinction aimed for
prejudicial purpose then it would be declared
unconstitutional.
Himagan vs. People The Supreme Court ruled that members of PNP
shall be considered as one class apart from other
civil service personnel for the reason that…
policemen carry weapons and the badge of the law
which can be used to harass or intimidate
witnesses against them.
Quinto vs. COMELEC Whether or not the imposition of preventive
suspension of over 90 days is a violation of his
constitutional right to equal protection of laws?

The Supreme Court ruled that members of PNP

shall be considered as one class apart from other
civil service personnel for the reason that
policemen carry weapons and the badge of the law
which can be used to harass or intimidate
witnesses against them
People vs. Quinto The petitioner is contending that the Omnibus
Election code is unconstitutional on the ground that
it treats elective and appointive officers differently.
SC agreed?
No. The purpose of the code is to prevent the
appointive officers to violate the constitutional
prohibition in engaging political partisan campaigns
Biraogo v. The Philippine Truth Commisission E.O. no. 1 must be struck down as it is violative
of the equal protection clause. The clear
mandate of the envisioned truth commission is
to investigate and find out the truth concerning
the reported cases of graft and corruption
during the previous administration ONLY. The
intent to single out the previous administration
is plain, patent and manifest. In this regard it
must be borne in mind that the Arroyo
Administration is but just a member of a class,
that is, a class of past administrations. It is not
a class of its own. Not to include other past
administrations similarly situated constitutes
arbitrariness which the equal protection cannot
sanction. Such discriminating differentiation
clearly reverberates to label the commission as
a vehicle for vindictiveness and selective
 retribution.
Almonte vs. Vazquez ACCEPTANCE OF UNSIGNED COMPLAINTS
AGAINST GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS DOES
NOT AMOUNT TO UNJUST DISCRIMINATION.

The Office of the Ombudsman is different from the

other investigatory and prosecutory agencies of the
government because those subject to its
jurisdiction are public officials who, through official
pressure and influence, can quash, delay or
dismiss investigations held against them. On the
other hand complainants are more often than not
poor and simple folk who cannot afford to hire
lawyers.

The Constitution expressly enjoins the

Ombudsman to act on any complaint filed "in any
form or manner" concerning official acts or
omissions.(Sec. 12, Art. 11)
Ormoc Sugar Co. Inc. v. Treasurer of Ormoc The questioned ordinancetaxes only centrifugal
City sugar produced and exported by the Ormoc Sugar
Company, Inc. and none other. At the time of the
taxing ordinance's enactment, Ormoc Sugar
Company, Inc. was the only sugar central in the city
of Ormoc. Still, the classification, to be reasonable,
should be in terms applicable to future conditions
as well. The taxing ordinance should not be
singular and exclusive as to exclude any
subsequently established sugar central, of the
same class as plaintiff, from the coverage of the
tax. As it is now, even if later a similar company is
set up, it cannot be subject to the tax because the
ordinance expressly points only to Ormoc Sugar
Company, Inc. as the entity to be levied upon.

Must apply to future conditions as well (must apply

to future players in the industry).