BILL OF RIGHTS

Crespo v. Provincial Board of Nueva Ecija

Preventive suspension of a municipal mayor was without due process of law;
Preventive suspension which was issued without giving petitioner a chance
to be heard constitutes denial of due process.

Lumiqued v. Exevea
The right to counsel, which cannot be waived unless the waiver is in writing
and in the presence of counsel, is a right afforded a suspect or an accused
during custodial investigation and may not be invoked by a respondent in an
administrative investigation.
The right to counsel, which cannot be waived unless in writing and in the
presence of counsel, is a right afforded a suspect or an accused during
custodial investigation. It is not an absolute right and may, thus, be invoked
or rejected in a criminal proceeding and, with more reason, in an
administrative inquiry.
In the case at bar, petitioners invoked or rejected the right of an
accused in criminal proceedings to have competent and independent counsel
of his own choice. Lumiqued, however, was not an accused of any crime in
the proceedings below. The investigations conducted by the committee
created by Department Order No. 145 was for the purpose of determining if
he could be held administratively liable under the law for the complaints filed
against him.

RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS

Libanan v. Sandiganbayan
The suspension order cannot amount to a deprivation of liberty without due
process of law. Public office is a public agency or trust and it is not the
property envisioned by the Constitutional provision which petitioner invokes.
In Deloso v. Sandiganbayan, this Court rejected a similar argument advance
by Governor Deloso who, at the time of issuance of the suspension order,
was already occupying the office of governor and not the position of
municipal mayor that he held previously when charged with having violated
the Anti-Graft Law.

Tañada v. Tuvera
It is not correct to say that under the disputed clause publication may be
dispensed with altogether. The reason is that such omission would offend
due process insofar as it would deny the public knowledge of the laws that
are supposed to govern it. Surely, if the legislature could validly provide that
a law shall become effective immediately upon its approval notwithstanding
the lack of publication, it is not unlikely that persons not aware of it would
be prejudiced as a result; and they would be so not because of a failure to
comply with it but simply because they did not know of its existence.
Significantly, this is not true only of penal laws as is commonly supposed.
One can think of many non-penal measures, like a law on prescription, which
must also be communicated to the persons they may affect before they can
begin to operate.
The publication must be in full or it is no publication at all since its
purpose is to inform the public of the contents of the laws.

Javier v. Comelec
Fair play and delicadeza, where a Commissioner was once a law partner of
one of the parties to an election case demands that he inhibit therefrom. The
relationship of the judge with one of the parties may color the facts and
distort the law to the prejudice of a just decision. Where there is probable or
even only possible, due process demands that the judge inhibit himself, if
only out of a sense of delicadeza.

Galman v. Sandiganbayan
Double jeopardy does not attach where a criminal trial was a sham.
The Sandiganbayan should not have rendered decision on the case while
there was a pending motion for reconsideration in the Supreme Court for
inhibition although there was no longer a restraining order against that
court.
Eastern Broadcasting Corporation v. Dans, Jr.
The cardinal requirements in administrative proceedings laid down by this
Court in Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations should be followed before
a broadcast station may be closed or its operations curtailed. It is necessary
to reiterate that while there is no controlling and precise definition of due
process, it furnishes an unavoidable standard to which the government
action must conform in order that any deprivation of life, liberty, or
property, in each appropriate case, may be valid.
The government has a right to be protected against broadcasts which
incite the listeners to violently overthrow it. Radio and television may not be
used to organize a rebellion or to signal the start of widespread uprising. At
the same time, the people have a right to be informed. Radio and television
would have little reason for existence if broadcasts are limited to bland,
obsequious, or pleasantly entertaining utterances. Since they are the most
convenient and popular means of disseminating varying views on public
issues, they also deserve special protection.

Gonzales v. Honorable Civil Service Commission

Under the circumstances, it is a grave abuse of discretion for the respondent
Commission to hold that there was substantial compliance with the notice
requirement of due process. It is the ruling of the respondent Civil Service
Commission that the sending of the said notice to the residence of petitioner
constitutes substantial compliance with the demands of due process. The
ruling would have some allure if the address of petitioner in the United
States was not known to the officials of ATI and if his Philippine address was
his last known address. But as stressed above, they knew of petitioner’s
exact address in the United States and there appears no impediment for
them to send the notice in this correct address.
Zaldivar v. Gonzales
There is no denial of procedural due process where opportunity to be heard,
either through oral arguments or pleadings is accorded.
A lawyer is not merely a professional but also an officer of the court
and as such, he is called upon to share in the task and responsibility of
dispensing justice and resolving disputes in society.

Lastimosa v. Vasquez
The Office of the Ombudsman has the power to investigate and prosecute on
its own or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public
officer or employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to
be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient. This power has held to include the
investigation and prosecution of any crime committed by a public official
regardless of whether the acts or omissions complained of are related to, or
connected with, or arise from, the performance of his official duty. Hence,
the crime of rape, when committed by a public official like a municipal
mayor, is within the power of the Ombudsman to investigate and prosecute.
Prior notice and hearing not required since suspension not being a
penalty but only a preliminary step in an administrative investigation.
Petitioner contends that her suspension in invalid because the order was
issued without giving her and Provincial Prosecutor Kintanar the opportunity
to refute the charges against them is not strong as required. The contention
is without merit.

Torres v. Gonzales
This Court ruled that “Due process is not necessarily judicial. Determination
of breach of condition of pardon purely executive acts not subject to judicial
scrutiny under Section 64(1) of the Revised Administrative Code.

Alba v. Nitorred, et al
The constitutional requirement of due process may be satisfied
notwithstanding the denial of the right to appeal for the essence of due
process is simply the opportunity to be heard and to present evidence in
support of one’s case.
The right to appeal is not a natural right nor a part of due process; it is
merely a statutory privilege, and may be exercise only in the manner and in
accordance with the provisions of the law.

Go v. Court of Appeals
The right to have a preliminary investigation conducted before being bound
over to trial for a criminal offense and hence formally at risk of incarceration
or some other penalty is not a mere formal or technical right; it is a
substantial right.
 The rule is that the right to preliminary investigation is waived when
the accused fails to invoke it before or at the time of entering a plea at
arraignment. In the instant case, petitioner Go had vigorously insisted on his
right to preliminary investigation before his arraignment. At the time of his
arraignment, petitioner was already before the Court of Appeals on
certiorari, prohibition and mandamus precisely asking for a preliminary
investigation before being forced to stand trial.

Philippine National Construction Corporation v. NLRC

The National Labor Relations Commission’s grave omission to afford a party
a chance to be heard on appeal is a clear violation of its constitutional right
and has the effect of rendering its judgment null and void. It is a cardinal
rule in law that a decision or judgment is fatally defective if rendered in
violation of a party-litigant’s right to due process.
The right to due process is fundamental in our legal system and we
adhere to this principle not for reasons of convenience or merely to comply
with the technical formalities but because of a strong conviction that every
man must have his day in court.

Fabella v. Court of Appeals

The resolution of this case revolves around the question of due process of
law, not on the right of government workers to strike.
In the present case, however, the issue is not whether the
respondents engaged in any prohibited activity which may warrant the
imposition of disciplinary sanctions against them as a result of administrative
proceedings. Their right to due process has been violated. In short, before
they can be investigated and meted out any penalty, due process must first
be observed.
In administrative proceedings, due process has been recognized to include
the following: (1) the right to actual or constructive notice of the institution
of proceedings which may affect a respondent’s legal rights (2) a real
opportunity to be heard personally or with the assistance of counsel, to
present witnesses and evidence in one’s favor, and to defend one’s rights
(3) a tribunal vested with competent jurisdiction as so constituted as to
afford a person charged administratively a reasonable guarantee of honesty
as well as impartiality; and (4) a finding by said tribunal which is supported
by substantial evidence submitted for consideration during the hearing or
contained in the records or made known to the parties affected.

National Semiconductor Distribution v. NLRC

The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard, or as
applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one’s side.
In the instant case, petitioner furnished private respondent notice as to the
particular acts which constituted the grounds for her dismissal. By requiring
him to submit a written explanation within forty eight (48) hours from
receipt of the notice, the company gave him the opportunity to be heard in
his defense. Private respondent availed of his chance by submitting a written
explanation.
A formal or trial type hearing is not at all times and in all instances
essential to due process, the requirements of which are satisfied where the
parties are afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their side of
the controversy. That the investigations conducted by petitioner may not be
considered formal or recorded hearings or investigations is immaterial.

Manuel v. N.C. Construction Supply

An employer has a right to terminate the services of an employee subject to
both substantive and procedural limitations. This means that (1) the
dismissal must be for a just or authorized cause provided in the Labor Code,
and (2) the employee must be accorded due process before his employment
is terminated. The validity of the dismissal hinges on the employer’s
compliance with these two requirements.
The exclusionary rule under paragraph (3), section 12 of the Bill of
Rights applies only to admissions made in a criminal investigation but not to
those made in an administrative investigation. We also reject the petitioner’s
argument that said admission is inadmissible as evidence against them
under Section 12, Article III of the 1987 Constitution. The right to counsel
under Section 12 of the Bill of Rights is meant to protect a suspect in a
criminal case under custodial investigation. Custodial investigation is the
stage where the police investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an
unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular suspect who had been
taken into custody by the police to carry out a process of interrogation that
lends itself to elicit incriminating statements. It is when questions are
initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into
custody otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.
Private respondents, however, failed to observe due process in
terminating the employment of petitioners. Due process demands that the
employer should furnish the worker whose employment is sought to be
terminated a written notice containing a statement of the cause for
termination and afford him ample opportunity to be heard and to defend
himself with the assistance of a representative if he so desires.

Zambales Chromite v. Court of Appeals

It is a grave abuse of discretion for a department secretary to review his
own decision while Director of Mines – We told that Scretary Gozon acted
with grave abuse of discretion in reviewing his decision as Director of Mines.
The palpably flagrant anomaly of a Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources reviewing his own decision as Director of Mines is a mockery of
administration of justice.

EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE

Inchong v. Hernandez
The Constitutional guarantees in section 1, Article III, of the Constitution,
which embody the essence of individual liberty and freedom in democracies,
are not limited to citizens alone but are admittedly universal in their
application, without regard to any differences of race, of color, of color, or of
nationality.
The equal protection of the law clause is against undue favor and
individual or class privilege, as well as hostile discrimination or the
oppression of inequality. There can be no absolute power, whoever exercises
it, for that would be tyranny. Yet there can neither be absolute liberty, for
that would mean license and anarchy. So the state can deprive persons
of life, liberty or property, provided there is due process of law; and
persons may be classified into classes and groups, provided
everyone is given the equal protection of the law.

People of the Philippine Islands v. Vera

A probation court hearing a probation case may look into the circumstances
attending the commission of the offense, this does not authorize it to
reverse the findings and conclusions of the Supreme Court, either directly or
indirectly, especially where from its own admission reliance was merely had
on the printed brief, averments, and pleadings of the parties.
The constitutionality of an act of the legislature will not be determined
by the courts unless that question is properly raised and presented in
appropriate cases and is necessary to a determination of the case, the issue
of constitutionality must be the very lis inota presented.

Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc. v. Drilon

Police power constitutes an implied limitation on the Bill of Rights.
Significantly, the Bill of Rights itself does not purport to be an absolute
guaranty of individual rights and liberties. Even liberty itself, the greatest of
all rights, is not unrestricted license to act according to one’s will. It is
subject to the far more overriding demands and requirements of the greater
number.
There is no question that Department Order No.1 applies only to
“female contract workers”, but it does not thereby make an undue
discrimination between the sexes. It is well-settled that “equality before the
law” under the Constitution does not import a perfect identity of rights
among all men and women. It admits classifications, provided that (1) such
classification rest on substantial distinctions; (2) they are germane to the
purpose of the law; (3) they are not confined to existing conditions, and (4)
they apply equally to all members of the same class. The Court is satisfied
that the classification made, the preference for female workers, rest on
substantial distinctions.

The Conference of Maritime Manning Agencies, Inc. v. POEA

It is an established principle of constitutional law that the guaranty of equal
protection of the laws is not violated by legislation based on reasonable
classification.
The constitutional prohibition against impairing contractual obligations
is not absolute and is not to be read with literal exactness. It is restricted to
contracts with respect to property or some object of value and which confer
rights that may be asserted in a court of justice; it has no application to
statutes relating to public subjects within the domain of the general
legislative powers of the State and involving the public rights and public
welfare of the entire community affected by it. It does not prevent a proper
exercise by the State of its police power by enacting regulations reasonably
necessary to secure the health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare
of the community, even though contracts may thereby be affected, for such
matters cannot be placed by contract beyond the power of the State to
regulate and control them.

People of the Philippines v. Cayat

It is an established principle of constitutional law that the guaranty of equal
protection of the laws is not violated by legislation based on reasonable
classification, provided that (1) such classification rest on substantial
distinctions; (2) they are germane to the purpose of the law; (3) they are
not confined to existing conditions, and (4) they apply equally to all
members of the same class. The Court is satisfied that the classification
made, the preference for female workers, rest on substantial distinctions.
Act No. 1639 satisfies these requirements. The classification rests on real or
substantial, not merely imaginary or whimsical, distinctions. It is not based
upon “accident of birth or parentage” but upon the degree of civilization and
culture. The term “non-Christians tribes” refers not to religious belief, but, in
a way, to the geographical area, and, more directly, to natives of the
Philippines of a low grade of civilization, usually living in the tribal
relationship apart from settled communities.
The classification is germane to the purposes of the law cannot be doubted.
The prohibition “to buy, receive, have in his possession, or drink any ardent
spirits, al, beer, wine, or intoxicating liquors of any kind, other than the so
called native wines and liquors which the members of such tribes have been
accustomed themselves to make prior to the passage of this Act is
unquestionably designed to insure peace and order in and among the non-
Christian tribes.
The law is not limited in its application to conditions existing at the time of
its enactment. It is intended to apply for all times as long as those
conditions exist. The Act was not predicated upon assumption that the non-
Christians are impermeable to any civilizing influence.
The Act applies equally to all members of the same class is evident from a
perusal thereof. That it may be unfair in its operation against a certain
number of non-Christians by reason of their degree of culture, is not an
argument against the equality of its application.

Ormoc Sugar Company, Inc. v. The Treasurer of Ormoc City

The equal protection clause applies only to persons or things identically
situated and does not bar a reasonable classification of the subject of
legislation. A classification is reasonable where (1) such classification rest on
substantial distinctions; (2) they are germane to the purpose of the law; (3)
they are not confined to existing conditions, and (4) they apply equally to all
members of the same class.
The ordinance should not be singular and exclusive. When the taxing
ordinance was enacted, Ormoc Sugar Co. Inc. was the only sugar central in
the City. A reasonable classification 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 from the coverage
of tax. A subsequently established sugar central cannot be subject to tax
because the ordinance expressly points to Ormoc Sugar Company, Inc. as
the entity to be levied upon

Philippine Judges Association v. Prado

Under the doctrine of separation of powers, the Court may not inquire
beyond the certification of the approval of a bill from the presiding officers of
Congress. Equal protection simply requires that all persons or things
similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to rights conferred and
responsibilities imposed. The equal protection of the laws is embraced in the
concept of due process, as very unfair discrimination offends the
requirements of justice and fair play. It has nonetheless been embodied in a
separate clause in Article III, sec. 1, of the Constitution to provide for a
more specific guaranty against any form of undue favoritism or hostility from
the government. Arbitrariness in general may be challenged on the basis of
the due process clause. But if the particular act assailed partakes of an
unwarranted partiality or prejudice, the sharper weapon to cut it down is the
equal protection clause. According to a long line of decisions, equal
protection simply requires that all persons or things similarly situated should
be treated alike, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed.
Similar subjects, in other words, should not be treated differently, so as to
give undue favor to some and unjustly discriminate against others. The
equal protection clause does not require the universal application of the laws
on all persons or things without distinction.

Stonehill v. Diokno
Officers of certain corporations, from which documents papers and things
were seized by means of search warrants, have no cause of action to assail
the legality of the seizures because said corporations have personalities
distinct and separate from those of said officers. The legality of seizures can
be contested only by a party whose rights have been impaired thereby. The
objection to an unlawful search is purely personal and cannot be availed of
by third parties. Lack of standard of petitioners cannot affect illegality of
seach and seizure.