Part 8. Due Process and Equal Protection HL

Sa Bed Colleg of Law
POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER

“He gives power to the faint, and to him Correctly has it been identified as
who has no might he increases strength.” freedom from arbitrariness. It is
Isaiah 40:29 the embodiment of the sporting
idea of fair play. It exacts fealty 'to
those striving for justice' and
PART 8 judges the act of officialdom of
DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL whatever branch 'in the light of
PROTECTION OF THE LAWS reason drawn from considerations
of fairness that reflect
[democratic] traditions of legal and
SECTION 1. No person shall be deprived of political thought. (J. Fernando |
life, liberty, or property without due Tinio v. Mina)
process of law, nor shall any person be ● A constitutional safeguard against
denied the equal protection of the laws. any arbitrariness on the part of the
Government, whether committed

by the Legislature, the Executive,
DUE PROCESS or the Judiciary (J. Cruz)
● Law of the land is a law which
DID THE CONSTITUTION SPECIFICALLY hears before it condemns, which
DEFINE DUE PROCESS? proceeds upon inquiry and renders
● NO judgment only after trial (Daniel
Webster | Darmouth College v.
WHY IS DUE PROCESS NOT GIVEN AN Woodward)
EXACT DEFINITION? ATTY GAB: The statement of Daniel
● The due process clause was kept Webster is not yet equivalent to our
intentionally vague so it would modern day due process because the
remain also conveniently resilient. concept of the law of the land only
This was felt necessary because covers one aspect of the modern day
due process is not, like some due process that is the procedural, and
provisions of the fundamental law, aside from procedural due process the
an "iron rule" laying down an modern day due process, guaranteed by
implacable and immutable Section 1 of Article 3, also includes the
command for all seasons and all substantive aspect.
persons. Flexibility must be the
● The embodiment of the sporting
best virtue of the guaranty. The
idea of fair play. (J. Frankfurter)
very elasticity of the due process

clause was meant to make it adapt
IN THE CASE OF YNOT, THE SC
easily to every situation, enlarging
SUMMARIZED THE CONCEPT OF DUE
or constricting its protection as
PROCESS IN FIVE WORDS
the changing times and
● "Strike - but hear me first!" (Ynot v.
circumstances may require. (Ynot
IAC)
v. IAC)

DEFINITION
● It is responsiveness to the ICHONG v. HERNANDEZ
supremacy of reason, obedience to FACTS: Republic Act No. 1180 is entitled
the dictates of justice. Negatively "An Act to Regulate the Retail Business." In
put, arbitrariness is ruled out and effect it nationalizes the retail trade
unfairness avoided. To satisfy the business. Petitioner attacks the
due process requirement, official constitutionality of the Act, contending
action, to paraphrase Cardozo, that it denies to alien residents the equal
must not outrun the bounds of protection of the laws and deprives of
reason and result in sheer their liberty and property without due
oppression. Due process is thus process of law. In answer, the
hostile to any official action respondents contend that the Act was
marred by lack of reasonableness. passed in the valid exercise of the police

A.Y. 2019-2020 YOU DO NOTE(s) 1 of 33

power of the State, which exercise is followed and the wording was purposely
authorized in the Constitution in the kept ambiguous. In fact, a proposal to
interest of national economic survival. delineate it more clearly was submitted in
the Constitutional Convention of 1934,
HELD: The conflict between police power but it was rejected by Delegate Jose P.
and the guarantees of due process and Laurel, Chairman of the Committee on
equal protection of the laws is more the Bill of Rights, who forcefully argued
apparent than real. Properly related, the against it. He was sustained by the body.
power and the guarantees are supposed The due process clause was kept
to coexist. The balancing is the essence, intentionally vague so it would remain
or the indispensable means for the also conveniently resilient. This was felt
attainment of legitimate aspirations of necessary because due process is not, like
any democratic society. There can be no some provisions of the fundamental law,
absolute power, whoever exercises it, for an "iron rule" laying down an implacable
that would be tyranny. Yet there can and immutable command for all seasons
neither be absolute liberty, for that would and all persons. Flexibility must be the
mean license and anarchy. So the State best virtue of the guaranty. The very
can deprive persons of life, liberty or elasticity of the due process clause was
property, provided there is due process of meant to make it adapt easily to every
law; and persons may be classified into situation, enlarging or constricting its
classes and groups, provided everyone is protection as the changing times and
given the equal protection of the law. The circumstances may require.
test or standard, as always, is the reason. Aware of this, the courts have also
The police power legislation must be hesitated to adopt their own specific
firmly grounded on public interest and description of due process lest they
welfare, and a reasonable relation must confine themselves in a legal straitjacket
exist between purposes and means. And if that will deprive them of the elbow room
a distinction or classification has been they may need to vary the meaning of the
made, there must be a reasonable basis clause whenever indicated. Instead, they
for said distinction. have preferred to leave the import of the
protection open-ended, as it were, to be
"gradually ascertained by the process of
YNOT v. IAC
inclusion and exclusion in the course of
FACTS: Executive Order No. 626-A the decisions of cases as they arise." Thus,
prohibited the transportation of carabaos Justice Felix Frankfurter of the U.S.
and carabeef from one province to Supreme Court, for example, would go no
another. The carabaos of petitioner were farther than to define due process — and
confiscated for violation of Executive in so doing sums it all up — as nothing
Order No 626-A while he was more and nothing less than "the
transporting them from Masbate to Iloilo. embodiment of the sporting idea of fair
Petitioner challenged the play."
constitutionality of Executive Order No. When the barons of England
626-A. The government argued that extracted from their sovereign liege the
Executive Order No. 626-A was issued in reluctant promise that that Crown would
the exercise of police power to conserve thenceforth not proceed against the life
the carabaos that were still fit for farm liberty or property of any of its subjects
work or breeding. except by the lawful judgment of his peers
or the law of the land, they thereby won
HELD: It is part of the art of for themselves and their progeny that
constitution-making that the provisions splendid guaranty of fairness that is now
of the charter be cast in precise and the hallmark of a free society. The solemn
unmistakable language to avoid vow that King John made at Runnymede
controversies that might arise on their in 1215 has since then resounded through
correct interpretation. That is the Ideal. In the ages, as a ringing reminder to all
the case of the due process clause, rulers, benevolent or base, that every
however, this rule was deliberately not

A.Y. 2019-2020 YOU DO NOTE(s) 2 of 33

person, when confronted by the stern admission of contrary evidence as long as
visage of the law, is entitled to have his such presumption is based on human
say in a fair and open hearing of his cause. experience or there is a rational
The closed mind has no place in connection between the fact proved and
the open society. It is part of the sporting the fact ultimately presumed therefrom.
Idea of fair play to hear "the other side"
before an opinion is formed or a decision WHAT IS THE SIMILAR CONCEPT OF
is made by those who sit in judgment. DUE PROCESS UNDER THE MAGNA
Obviously, one side is only one-half of the CARTA LIBERTATUM PARTICULARLY
question; the other half must also be UNDER CLAUSE 39?
considered if an impartial verdict is to be ● No free man shall be taken or
reached based on an informed imprisoned or disseized or
appreciation of the issues in contention. It outlawed or in any manner
is indispensable that the two sides destroyed nor shall we go upon
complement each other, as unto the bow him or send upon him except by
the arrow, in leading to the correct ruling the lawful judgment of his peers or
after examination of the problem, not by the law of the land.
from one or the other perspective only
but in its totality. A judgment based on WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF VIOLATION
less that this full appraisal, on the pretext OF DUE PROCESS? WHEN DUE
that a hearing is unnecessary or useless, PROCESS IS VIOLATED WHAT IS THE
is tainted with the vice of bias or CONSEQUENCE?
intolerance or ignorance, or worst of all, ● It depends on what aspect of due
in repressive regimes, the insolence of process was violated. If it is
power. substantive aspect, the law will be
The minimum requirements of due unconstitutional. If it is
process are notice and hearing which, procedural, the ruling of the
generally speaking, may not be dispensed tribunal, court or committee will
with because they are intended as a be invalid but the law itself will
safeguard against official arbitrariness. It remain valid.
is a gratifying commentary on our judicial
system that the jurisprudence of this WHEN IS THERE A VIOLATION OF
country is rich with applications of this SUBSTANTIVE AND WHEN IS THERE A
guaranty as proof of our fealty to the rule VIOLATION OF PROCEDURAL DUE
of law and the ancient rudiments of fair PROCESS?
play. We have consistently declared that ● In substantive aspect the courts
every person, faced by the awesome will look into the intrinsic validity
power of the State, is entitled to "the law of the law. The first step is to
of the land," which Daniel Webster determine what power was
described almost two hundred years ago exercised by the state in enacting
in the famous Dartmouth College Case, the law. Police power, eminent
as "the law which hears before it domain or power of taxation. Just
condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry like in the case of Ynot vs IAC,
and renders judgment only after trial." It where the state exercised police
has to be so if the rights of every person power in enacting the law, the
are to be secured beyond the reach of courts will determine whether the
officials who, out of mistaken zeal or plain law complied with the valid test for
arrogance, would degrade the due the exercise of police power
process clause into a worn and empty (lawful subject; lawful means). So in
catchword. that case, the test were not
This is not to say that notice and complied with, the law is
hearing are imperative in every case for, intrinsically invalid and therefore it
to be sure, there are a number of constitutes a violation on the
admitted exceptions. The conclusive substantive aspect of due process.
presumption, for example, bars the The same will be applied in case of

A.Y. 2019-2020 YOU DO NOTE(s) 3 of 33

the other inherent powers of the the City Prosecutor issued a resolution
state. recommending that the case against
● In procedural aspect, it will Arellano be dismissed and that the
depend on whether the process is “unofficial” charge against Aniag be also
administrative due process, dismissed. Nevertheless, the COMELEC
criminal and civil due process, and directing the filing of information against
school or administrative due Aniag and Arellano for violation of Sec.
process. The courts will determine 261, par. (q), of BP 881 otherwise known as
whether the steps required by law the Omnibus Election Code, in relation to
have been followed. Sec. 32 of RA 7166

HELD: The manner by which COMELEC
ANIAG JR v. COMELEC
proceeded against petitioner runs
FACTS: In preparation for the counter to the due process clause of the
synchronized national and local elections Constitution. The facts show that
scheduled on 11 May 1992, the petitioner was not among those charged
Commission on Elections (COMELEC) by the PNP with violation of the Omnibus
issued Resolution 2323 (”Gun Ban”), Election Code. Nor was he subjected by
promulgating rules and regulations on the City Prosecutor to a preliminary
bearing, carrying and transporting of investigation for such offense. The
firearms or other deadly weapons, on non-disclosure by the City Prosecutor to
security personnel or bodyguards, on the petitioner that he was a respondent in
bearing arms by members of security the preliminary investigation is violative
agencies or police organizations, and of due process which requires that the
organization or maintenance of reaction procedure established by law should be
forces during the election period. obeyed.
Pursuant to the “Gun Ban,” Mr. Serapio P. COMELEC argues that petitioner
Taccad, Sergeant-at-Arms, House of was given the chance to be heard because
Representatives, wrote Congressman he was invited to enlighten the City
Francisc B. Aniag Jr., who was then Prosecutor regarding the circumstances
Congressman of the 1st District of leading to the arrest of his driver, and that
Bulacan requesting the return of the 2 petitioner in fact submitted a sworn letter
firearms issued to him by the House of of explanation regarding the incident.
Representatives. Aniag immediately This does not satisfy the requirement of
instructed his driver, Ernesto Arellano, to due process the essence of which is the
pick up the firearms from his house at reasonable opportunity to be heard and
Valle Verde and return them to Congress. to submit any evidence one may have in
The policemen manning the outpost support of his defense. Due process
flagged down the car driven by Arellano guarantees the observance of both
as it approached the checkpoint. They substantive and procedural rights,
searched the car and found the firearms whatever the source of such rights, be it
neatly packed in their gun cases and the Constitution itself or only a statute or
placed in a bag in the trunk of the car. a rule of court.
Arellano was then apprehended and While the right to preliminary
detained. Thereafter, the police referred investigation is statutory rather than
Arellano’s case to the Office of the City constitutional in its fundament, since it
Prosecutor for inquest. The referral did has in fact been established by statute, it
not include Aniag as among those charged is a component part of due process in
with an election offense. The City criminal justice. The right to have a
Prosecutor invited Aniag to shed light on preliminary investigation conducted
the circumstances mentioned in before being bound over to trial for a
Arellano’s sworn explanation. Aniag criminal offense and hence formally at
explained that Arellano did not violate the risk of incarceration or some other
firearms ban as he in fact was complying penalty is not a mere formal or technical
with it when apprehended by returning right; it is a substantive right. The right to
the firearms to Congress. The Office of

A.Y. 2019-2020 YOU DO NOTE(s) 4 of 33

an opportunity to avoid a process painful
PHILIPPINE PHOSPHATE v. TORRES
to anyone save, perhaps, to hardened
criminals is a valuable right. To deny FACTS: The PhilPhos Movement for
petitioner's claim to a preliminary Progress (PMPI), a labor organization
investigation would be to deprive him of composed of supervisory employees of
the full measure of his right to due the Philippine Phosphate Fertilizer
process. Corporation, filed a certification election
Apparently, petitioner was merely on July 7, 1989 with the Department of
invited during the preliminary Labor and Employment. The move was
investigation of Arellano to corroborate not contested by the Philippine
the latter’s explanation. Petitioner then Phosphate Fertilizer Corporation
was made to believe that he was not a management and in fact was supported
party respondent in the case, so that his by a position paper submitted to the
written explanation on the incident was Mediator-Arbiter on August 11, 1989. The
only intended to exculpate Arellano, not management hailed the creation of a
petitioner himself. Hence, it cannot be supervisor’s union provided that they
seriously contended that petitioner was meet all the necessary legal requirements.
fully given the opportunity to meet the On October 13, 1989 the
accusation against him as he was not Mediator-Arbiter Milado issued an order
apprised that he was himself a for the holding of the elections excluding
respondent when he appeared before the the technical, professional and
City Prosecutor. confidential employees. Then on
Finally, it must be pointed out too November15, 1989 respondent PMPI
that petitioner’s filing of a motion for prayed for the inclusion of technical,
reconsideration with COMELEC cannot professional and confidential employees.
be considered as a waiver of his claim to a On December 14, 1989 both parties
separate preliminary investigation for submitted their position papers on the
himself. The motion itself expresses said subject matter. Mr. Milado, allowing
petitioner’s vigorous insistence on his the membership of other employees as
right. Petitioner’s protestation started as stated, granted the petition of PMPI.
soon as he learned of his inclusion in the Petitioner then moved to have the
charge, and did not ease up even after technical, professional and confidential
COMELEC’s denial of his motion for employees removed from the
reconsideration. This is understandably membership of the PMPI on April 16, 1990
so since the prohibition against carrying to the Secretary of Labor and
firearms bears the penalty of Employment and a decision was made on
imprisonment of not less than one (1) year August 7, 1990 dismissing the appeal and
nor more than six (6) years without the subsequent motion for
probation and with disqualification from reconsideration. Then on July 8, 1991 the
holding public office, and deprivation of Court issued a temporary restraining
the right to suffrage. Against such strong order against the holding of the
stance, petitioner clearly did not waive his certification election scheduled on July 12,
right to a preliminary investigation. 1991 pending judicial review.

IN THE CASE OF ANIAG v. COMELEC, HELD: The essence of due process is
THE CONGRESSMAN WAS INCLUDED simply an opportunity to be heard or, as
AS PETITIONER AS AN ACCUSED. WAS applied to administrative proceedings, an
THERE A VIOLATION OF PROCEDURAL opportunity to explain one’s side or an
DUE PROCESS? opportunity to seek a reconsideration of
● Yes there is violation of procedural the action or ruling complained of.
due process because the subject of Where, as in the instant case, petitioner
preliminary investigation in this PHILPHOS agreed to file its position
case is not against the paper with the MediatorArbiter and to
congressman but against his consider the case submitted for decision
driver. on the basis of the position papers filed
by the parties, there was sufficient

A.Y. 2019-2020 YOU DO NOTE(s) 5 of 33

compliance with the requirement of due mind might accept as adequate to
process, as petitioner was afforded support a conclusion
reasonable opportunity to present its
side. Moreover, petitioner could have, if it ARE NOTICE AND HEARING
so desired, insisted on a hearing to IMPERATIVE MEANING
confront and examine the witnesses of INDISPENSABLE?
the other party. But it did not; instead, it ● Yes
opted to submit its position paper with
the Mediator-Arbiter. Besides, petitioner ABSOLUTE?
had all the opportunity to ventilate its ● No
arguments in its appeal to the Secretary
of Labor WHAT ARE THE EXCEPTIONS?
1. The conclusive presumption, for
WHAT ARE THE TWO MINIMUM example, bars the admission of
REQUIREMENTS OF DUE PROCESS FOR contrary evidence as long as such
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS? presumption is based on human
● Notice and hearing experience or there is a rational
connection between the fact
ARE THERE ANY OTHER proved and the fact ultimately
REQUIREMENTS? presumed therefrom.
1. The right to a hearing, which 2. In the summary abatement of a
includes the right to present one’s nuisance per se, like a mad dog on
case and submit evidence in the loose, which may be killed on
support thereof; sight because of the immediate
2. The tribunal must consider the danger it poses to the safety and
evidence presented; lives of the people. Pornographic
3. The decision must have something materials, contaminated meat and
to support itself; narcotic drugs are inherently
4. The evidence must be substantial; pernicious and may be summarily
5. The decision must be rendered on destroyed.
the evidence presented at the 3. The passport of a person sought
hearing, or at least contained in for a criminal offense may be
the record and disclosed to the cancelled without hearing, to
parties; compel his return to the country
6. The tribunal or any of its judges he has fled.
must act on its or his own 4. Filthy restaurants may be
independent consideration of the summarily padlocked in the
facts and the law of the interest of the public health and
controversy, and not simply accept bawdy houses to protect the public
the views of a subordinate in morals.
arriving at a decision; and
7. The board or body should, in all REASON FOR NON-REQUIREMENT OF
controversial questions, render its NOTICE AND HEARING?
decision in such a manner that the ● Because of the nature of the
parties to the proceeding will property involved or the urgency
know the various issues involved, of the need to protect the general
and the reasons for the decision. welfare from a clear and present
(Ang Tibay v. CIR) danger.

WHAT IS THE REQUIRED STANDARD IN DOES DUE PROCESS REQUIRE THAT
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS? THERE BE TRIAL? WHY?
● Substantial Evidence - more than a ● No, it does not always require
mere scintilla. It means such trial-type proceeding. The essence
relevant evidence as a reasonable of due process is found in the
opportunity to be heard and the

A.Y. 2019-2020 YOU DO NOTE(s) 6 of 33

submission of evidence. To be However, pursuant to Executive
heard does not necessarily mean Order (EO) 196, it was placed under the
oral arguments in court. It may be jurisdiction, control and regulation of
through pleadings. (Zaldivar v. NTC, including all its facilities and
Sandiganbayan) services and the fixing of rates.
Implementing said executive order, NTC
WHAT ARE THE SUBSTANTIVE required PHILCOMSAT to apply for the
REQUIREMENTS IN LGUs IN ORDER requisite certificate of public
THAT AN ORDINANCE MAY BE convenience. On 9 September 1987,
CONSIDERED VALID? PHILCOMSAT filed with NTC an
1. it must not contravene the application for authority to continue
Constitution or any statute; operating and maintaining the same
2. it must be fair, not oppressive; facilities, to continue providing the
3. it must not be partial or international satellite communications
discriminatory; services, and to charge the current rates
4. it must not prohibit but may applied for in rendering such services.
regulate trade; Pending hearing, it also applied for a
5. it must be general and consistent provisional authority so that it can
with public policy; and continue to operate and maintain the
6. it must not be unreasonable. facilities, provide the services and charge
(Mosqueda v. Pilipino Banana therefor the aforesaid rates therein
Growers) applied for. Petitioner was granted a
provisional authority which was valid for
IN PROMULGATING RULES AND 6 months. When said provisional
REGULATIONS, ARE ADMINISTRATIVE authority expired, the NTC extended the
AGENCIES REQUIRED TO COMPLY provisional authority of PHILCOMSAT,
WITH THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS but it directed PHILCOMSAT to charge
OF NOTICE AND HEARING? modified reduced rates through a
● It depends. Orders of reduction of 15% on the present
administrative agencies which are authorized rates. PHILCOMSAT assailed
quasi-judicial in character must said order. Petitioner maintained that the
comply with the twin enabling act (Executive Order No. 546) of
requirements while orders of respondent NTC empowering it to fix
administrative agencies in the rates for public service communications
exercise of administrative, does not provide the necessary standards
executive or quasi legislative, no constitutionally required, hence there is
need for prior notice and hearing. an undue delegation of legislative power,
particularly the adjudicatory powers of
NTC; and that assuming arguendo that
PHILCOMSAT v. ALCUAZ
the rate-fixing power was properly and
FACTS: By virtue of Republic Act 5514, the constitutionally conferred, the same was
Philippine Communications Satellite exercised in an unconstitutional manner,
Corporation (PHILCOMSAT) was granted hence it is ultra vires, in that (a) the
“a franchise to establish, construct, questioned order violates procedural due
maintain and operate in the Philippines, process for having been issued without
at such places as the grantee may select, prior notice and hearing; and (b) the rate
station or stations and associated reduction it imposes is unjust,
equipment and facilities for international unreasonable and confiscatory, thus
satellite communications.” Since 1968, It constitutive of a violation of substantive
has been leasing its satellite circuits to due process. Respondents admit that the
PLDT, Philippine Global Communications, application of a policy like the fixing of
and other telecommunication companies. rates as exercised by administrative
It was exempt from the jurisdiction of the bodies is quasi-judicial rather than
National Telecommunications quasi-legislative: that where the function
Commission (NTC). of the administrative agency is legislative,

A.Y. 2019-2020 YOU DO NOTE(s) 7 of 33
notice and hearing are not required, but operation of public service
where an order applies to a named communications which necessarily
person, as in the instant case, the include the power to promulgate rules
function involved is adjudicatory. and regulations in connection therewith.
Nonetheless, they insist that under the NTC, in the exercise of its rate-fixing
facts obtaining the order in question need power, is limited by the requirements of
not be preceded by a hearing, not public safety, public interest, reasonable
because it was issued pursuant to feasibility and reasonable rates, which
respondent NTC's legislative function but conjointly more than satisfy the
because the assailed order is merely requirements of a valid delegation of
interlocutory, it being an incident in the legislative power.
ongoing proceedings on petitioner's The rule-making power and even
application for a certificate of public the power to fix rates- when such rules
convenience; and that petitioner is not and/or rates are meant to apply to all
the only primary source of data or enterprises of a given kind throughout
information since respondent is currently the Philippines-may partake of a
engaged in a continuing review of the legislative character, such is not the
rates charged. nature of the order complained of.
Where the function of the
ISSUE: Whether the NTC is required to administrative body is legislative, notice
provide notice and hearing to of hearing is not required by due process
PHILCOMSAT in its rate-fixing order, of law. The necessity of notice and
which fixed a temporary rate pending hearing in an administrative proceeding
final determination of PHILCOMSAT’s depends on the character of the
application. proceeding and the circumstances
involved. In so far as generalization is
HELD: YES. Fundamental is the rule that possible in view of the great variety of
delegation of legislative power may be administrative proceedings, it may be
sustained only upon the ground that stated as a general rule that notice and
some standard for its exercise is provided hearing are not essential to the validity of
and that the legislature in making the administrative action where the
delegation has prescribed the manner of administrative body acts in the exercise of
the exercise of the delegated power. executive, administrative, or legislative
Therefore, when the administrative functions; but where a public
agency concerned, respondent NTC in administrative body acts in a judicial or
this case, establishes a rate, its act must quasi-judicial matter, and its acts are
both be non- confiscatory and must have particular and immediate rather than
been established in the manner general and prospective, the person
prescribed by the legislature; otherwise, whose rights or property may be affected
in the absence of a fixed standard, the by the action is entitled to notice and
delegation of power becomes hearing.
unconstitutional. In case of a delegation While respondents may fix a
of rate-fixing power, the only standard temporary rate pending final
which the legislature is required to determination of the application of
prescribe for the guidance of the petitioner, such rate-fixing order,
administrative authority is that the rate temporary though it may be, is not
be reasonable and just. However, it has exempt from the statutory procedural
been held that even in the absence of an requirements of notice and hearing, as
express requirement as to well as the requirement of
reasonableness, this standard may be reasonableness. Assuming that such
implied. power is vested in NTC, it may not
Pursuant to Executive Orders Nos. exercise the same in an arbitrary and
546 and 196, respondent NTC is confiscatory manner. Categorizing such
empowered, among others, to determine an order as temporary in nature does not
and prescribe rates pertinent to the perforce entail the applicability of a
A.Y. 2019-2020 YOU DO NOTE(s) 8 of 33


different rule of statutory procedure than becomes inductible, which brings us to
would otherwise be applied to any other the issue on substantive due process.
order on the same matter unless What is a just and reasonable rate
otherwise provided by the applicable law. is not a question of formula but of sound
It is thus clear that with regard to business judgment based upon the
rate-fixing, respondent has no authority evidence it is a question of fact calling for
to make such order without first giving the exercise of discretion, good sense,
petitioner a hearing, whether the order and a fair, enlightened and independent
be temporary or permanent, and it is judgment. In determining whether a rate
immaterial whether the same is made is confiscatory, it is essential also to
upon a complaint, a summary consider the given situation,
investigation, or upon the commission's requirements and opportunities of the
own motion as in the present case. That utility. A method often employed in
such a hearing is required is evident in determining reasonableness is the fair
respondents' order of September 16, 1987 return upon the value of the property to
in NTC Case No. 87-94 which granted the public utility. Competition is also a
PHILCOMSAT a provisional authority "to very important factor in determining the
continue operating its existing facilities, reasonableness of rates since a carrier is
to render the services it presently offers, allowed to make such rates as are
and to charge the rates as reduced by necessary to meet competition.
them "under the condition that "subject to A cursory perusal of the assailed
hearing and the final consideration of the order reveals that the rate reduction is
merit of this application, the Commission solely and primarily based on the initial
may modify, revise or amend the rates ..." evaluation made on the financial
While it may be true that for statements of petitioner, contrary to
purposes of rate-fixing respondents may respondent NTC's allegation that it has
have other sources of information or data, several other sources of information
still, since a hearing is essential, without, however, divulging such sources.
respondent NTC should act solely on the Furthermore, it did not as much as make
basis of the evidence before it and not on an attempt to elaborate on how it arrived
knowledge or information otherwise at the prescribed rates. It just
acquired by it but which is not offered in perfunctorily declared that based on the
evidence or, even if so adduced, financial statements, there is merit for a
petitioner was given no opportunity to rate reduction without any elucidation on
controvert. what implications and conclusions were
Again, the order requires the new necessarily inferred by it from said
reduced rates to be made effective on a statements. Nor did it deign to explain
specified date. It becomes a final how the data reflected in the financial
legislative act as to the period during statements influenced its decision to
which it has to remain in force pending impose a rate reduction.
the final determination of the case. An
order of respondent NTC prescribing SEVERAL MONTHS AGO THERE WAS AN
reduced rates, even for a temporary ORDER FROM THE LTFRB DIRECTING
period, could be unjust, unreasonable or ALL TNVs TO REDUCE THEIR FEES.
even confiscatory, especially if the rates THERE IS ALSO ANOTHER ORDER FOR
are unreasonably low, since the utility GRAB TO REIMBURSE ALL EXCESS
permanently loses its just revenue during COLLECTIONS FROM ITS CLIENTS.
the prescribed period. In fact, such order SUPPOSING BOTH ORDERS OF LTFRB
is in effect final insofar as the revenue WERE ISSUED WITHOUT NOTICE AND
during the period covered by the order is HEARING, ARE BOTH ORDERS VALID?
concerned. Upon a showing, therefore, ● Only the first one. The first order
that the order requiring a reduced rate is directed to TNVs to reduce its rate
confiscatory, and will unduly deprive is an exercise of administrative,
petitioner of a reasonable return upon its executive or quasi-legislative. But
property, a declaration of its nullity the order of the LTFRB directing

A.Y. 2019-2020 YOU DO NOTE(s) 9 of 33

Grab or Uber to reimburse its HOW DO COURTS ACQUIRE
customer is a quasi judicial. JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF
● A rule making power in the THE ACCUSED?
exercise of quasi judicial power is ● Arrest; or
specific and the effect is ● Voluntary surrender
immediate. While in the case of
quasi-legislative or administrative
ALONTE v. SAVELLANO JR
or executive, the order is general
and prospective. In that regard, FACTS: Bayani M. Alonte, incumbent
orders of administrative agencies Mayor of Biñan, Laguna, was accused of
which are quasi-judicial in raping Juvie-Lyn Punongbayan with
character must comply with the accomplice Buenaventura Concepcion. It
twin requirements while orders of was alleged that Concepcion befriended
administrative agencies in the Juvie and had later lured her into Alonte’s
exercise of administrative, house. The case was brought before the
executive or quasi legislative, no Regional Trial Court of Biňan. The counsel
need for prior notice and hearing. and the prosecutor later moved for a
change of venue due to alleged
WHEN CAN WE SAY THAT THE intimidation. While the change of venue
RULEMAKING POWER IS IN THE was pending, Juvie executed an affidavit
DISCHARGE OF QUASI LEGISLATIVE OR of desistance. The prosecutor continued
ADMINISTRATIVE ON ONE HAND AND on with the case and the change of venue
QUASI-JUDICIAL ON THE OTHER? was done notwithstanding opposition
● The distinguishing factor depends from Alonte. The case was raffled to the
on the persons affected. In quasi- Manila Regional Trial Court under J
legislative the regulation applies to Savellano. Savellano later found probable
all. In quasi-judicial it applies to a cause and had ordered the arrest of
specific person. As to the effect of Alonte and Concepcion. Thereafter, the
the order, in quasi legislative, the prosecution presented Juvie and had
implementation of the order must attested the voluntariness of her
be prospective. If it is desistance the same being due to media
quasi-judicial it may be immediate pressure and that they would rather
and retroactive. establish new life elsewhere. Case was
then submitted for decision and Savellano
WHAT ARE THE ESSENTIAL sentenced both accused to reclusion
REQUISITES OF DUE PROCESS IN perpetua. Savellano commented that
CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS? Alonte waived his right to due process
1. that the court or tribunal trying when he did not cross examine Juvie
the case is properly clothed with when clarificatory questions were raised
judicial power to hear and about the details of the rape and on the
determine the matter before it; voluntariness of her desistance.
2. that jurisdiction is lawfully
acquired by it over the person of HELD: Jurisprudence acknowledges that
the accused; due process in criminal proceedings, in
3. that the accused is given an particular, require (a) that the court or
opportunity to be heard; and tribunal trying the case is properly
4. that judgment is rendered only clothed with judicial power to hear and
upon lawful hearing (Alonte v. determine the matter before it; (b) that
Savellano Jr) jurisdiction is lawfully acquired by it over
the person of the accused; (c) that the
HOW DO COURTS ACQUIRE accused is given an opportunity to be
JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT heard; and (d) that judgment is rendered
MATTER OF THE CONTROVERSY? only upon lawful hearing.
● By law The above constitutional and
jurisprudential postulates, by now
elementary and deeply imbedded in our

A.Y. 2019-2020 YOU DO NOTE(s) 10 of 33

own criminal justice system, are possibly constitute evidence whose
mandatory and indispensable. The weight or probative value, like any other
principles find universal acceptance and piece of evidence, would be up to the
are tersely expressed in the oft-quoted court for proper evaluation.
statement that procedural due process
cannot possibly be met without a “law DID THE SC AGREE THAT THERE WAS A
which hears before it condemns, which VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO BE
proceeds upon inquiry and renders HEARD IN THE CASE OF ALONTE v.
judgment only after trial.” JAVELLA? BECAUSE IN THIS CASE THE
It should be pointed out, however, HEARING WAS CONDUCTED ONLY TO
that the existence of the waiver must be ASCERTAINED THE VOLUNTARINESS
positively demonstrated. The standard of OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF DESISTANCE.
waiver requires that it "not only must be ● Yes there was a violation of due
voluntary, but must be knowing, process because what the accused
intelligent, and done with sufficient waived is the right to be heard in
awareness of the relevant circumstances so far as the voluntariness and due
and likely consequences." Mere silence of execution of affidavit of
the holder of the right should not be so desistance. The waiver of the right
construed as a waiver of right, and the to be heard in one issue does not
courts must indulge every reasonable extend to all other issues
presumption against waiver. The Solicitor particularly the issue on their
General has aptly discerned a few of the innocence or guilt.
deviations from what otherwise should
have been the regular course of trial: (1)
ANG TIBAY v. CIR
Petitioners have not been directed to
present evidence to prove their defenses FACTS: There was agreement between
nor have dates therefor been scheduled Ang Tibay and the National Labor Union,
for the purpose; (2) the parties have not Inc (NLU). The NLU alleged that the
been given the opportunity to present supposed lack of leather material claimed
rebutting evidence nor have dates been by Toribio Teodoro was but a scheme
set by respondent Judge for the purpose; adopted to systematically discharge all
and (3) petitioners have not admitted the the members of the NLU, from work. And
act charged in the Information so as to this averment is desired to be proved by
justify any modification in the order of the petitioner with the records of the
trial. There can be no short-cut to the Bureau of Customs and Books of Accounts
legal process, and there can be no excuse of native dealers in leather. That National
for not affording an accused his full day in Worker's Brotherhood Union of Ang Tibay
court. Due process, rightly occupying the is a company or employer union
first and foremost place of honor in our dominated by Toribio Teodoro, which was
Bill of Rights, is an enshrined and alleged by the NLU as an illegal one. The
invaluable right that cannot be denied CIR, decided the case and elevated it to
even to the most undeserving. the Supreme Court, but a motion for new
The affidavit of desistance of trial was raised by the NLU. But the Ang
Juvie-Lyn Punongbayan does not contain Tibay filed a motion for opposing the said
any statement that disavows the veracity motion.
of her complaint against petitioners but
merely seeks to "be allowed to withdraw" ISSUE: Whether or not the motion for
her complaint and to discontinue with the new trial should be granted.
case for varied other reasons. An affidavit
of desistance by itself, even when HELD: YES. The Court of Industrial
construed as a pardon in the so-called Relations is not narrowly constrained by
"private crimes," is not a ground for the technical rules of procedure, and
dismissal of the criminal case once the Commonwealth Act No. 103 requires it to
action has been instituted. The affidavit, act according to justice and equity and
nevertheless, may, as so earlier intimated, substantial merits of the case, without
regard to technicalities or legal evidence

A.Y. 2019-2020 YOU DO NOTE(s) 11 of 33

but may inform its mind in such manner does not satisfy the thirst for a factual
as it may deem just and equitable. The basis upon which to predicate, in a
fact, however, that the Court of Industrial rational way, a conclusion of law. This
Relations may be said to be free from the result, however, does not now preclude
rigidity of certain procedural the concession of a new trial prayed for
requirements does not mean that it can, by the respondent National Labor Union,
in justiciable cases coming before it, Inc. The interest of justice would be
entirely ignore or disregard the better served if the movant is given
fundamental and essential requirements opportunity to present at the hearing the
of due process in trials and investigations documents referred to in his motion and
of an administrative character. such other evidence as may be relevant to
There are cardinal primary rights the main issue involved. The legislation
which must be respected even in which created the Court of Industrial
proceedings of this character. The first of Relations and under which it acts is new.
these rights is the right to a hearing, The failure to grasp the fundamental issue
which includes the right of the party involved is not entirely attributable to the
interested or affected to present his own parties adversely affected by the result.
case and submit evidence in support Accordingly, the motion for a new trial
thereof. Not only must the party be given should be, and the same is hereby,
an opportunity to present his case and to granted, and the entire record of this case
adduce evidence tending to establish the shall be remanded to the Court of
rights which he asserts but the tribunal Industrial Relations, with instructions that
must consider the evidence presented. it reopen the case, receive all such
While the duty to deliberate does not evidence as may be relevant, and
impose the obligation to decide right, it otherwise proceed in accordance with the
does imply a necessity which cannot be requirements set forth in the decision.
disregarded, namely, that of having
something to support its decision. Not HOW ABOUT IN SCHOOL
only must there be some evidence to DISCIPLINARY INVESTIGATIONS, DO
support a finding or conclusion, but the WE FOLLOW THE SAME CARDINAL
evidence must be substantial. The PRIMARY RIGHTS?
decision must be rendered on the ● NO. The Minimum standards to be
evidence presented at the hearing, or at observed by schools before
least contained in the record and imposing disciplinary sanctions:
disclosed to the parties affected. The 1. the students must be
Court of Industrial Relations or any of its informed in writing of the
judges, therefore, must act on its or his nature and cause of any
own independent consideration of the law accusation against them;
and facts of the controversy, and not 2. that they shall have the right
simply accept the views of a subordinate to answer the charges against
in arriving at a decision. The Court of them with the assistance of
Industrial Relations should, in all counsel, if desired;
controversial questions, render its 3. they shall be informed of the
decision in such a manner that the parties evidence against them;
to the proceeding can know the various 4. they shall have the right to
issues involved, and the reasons for the adduce evidence in their own
decisions rendered. The performance of behalf; and
this duty is inseparable from the authority 5. the evidence must be duly
conferred upon it. considered by the
In the light of the foregoing investigating committee or
fundamental principles, it is sufficient to official designated by the
observe here that, except as to the alleged school authorities to hear and
agreement between the Ang Tibay and decide the case (AdMU v.
the National Workers' Brotherhood Capulong)
(appendix A), the record is barren and

A.Y. 2019-2020 YOU DO NOTE(s) 12 of 33

ISSUE: Whether or not there was a denial
AdMU v. CAPULONG
of due process against the respondent
FACTS: Leonardo H. Villa, a first year law students.
student of Petitioner University, died of
serious physical injuries at Chinese HELD: There was no denial of due
General Hospital after the initiation rites process, more particularly procedural due
of Aquila Legis. Bienvenido Marquez was process. The Dean of the Ateneo Law
also hospitalized at the Capitol Medical School, notified and required respondent
Center. Petitioner Dean Cynthia del students to submit their written
Castillo created a Joint Administration statement on the incident. Instead of
Faculty Student Investigating Committee filing a reply, respondent students
which was tasked to investigate and requested through their counsel, copies
submit a report within 72 hours on the of the charges. The nature and cause of
circumstances surrounding the death of the accusation were adequately spelled
Lennie Villa. Said notice also required out in petitioners' notices. Present is the
respondent students to submit their twin elements of notice and hearing.
written statements within twenty-four Minimum standards to be
(24) hours from receipt. Although observed by schools before imposing
respondent students received a copy of disciplinary sanctions:
the written notice, they failed to file a 1. the students must be informed in
reply. In the meantime, they were placed writing of the nature and cause of
on preventive suspension. The any accusation against them;
Investigating Committee found a prima 2. that they shall have the right to
facie case against respondent students for answer the charges against them
violation of Rule 3 of the Law School with the assistance of counsel, if
Catalogue entitled "Discipline." desired;
Respondent students were then required 3. they shall be informed of the
to file their written answers to the formal evidence against them;
charge. Petitioner Dean created a 4. they shall have the right to adduce
Disciplinary Board to hear the charges evidence in their own behalf; and
against respondent students. The Board 5. the evidence must be duly
found respondent students guilty of considered by the investigating
violating Rules on Discipline which committee or official designated
prohibits participation in hazing by the school authorities to hear
activities. However, in view of the lack of and decide the case
unanimity among the members of the It cannot seriously be asserted that
Board on the penalty of dismissal, the the above requirements were not met.
Board left the imposition of the penalty to When, in view of the death of Leonardo
the University Administration. Villa, petitioner Cynthia del Castillo, as
Accordingly, Fr. Bernas imposed the Dean of the Ateneo Law School, notified
penalty of dismissal on all respondent and required respondents students on
students. Respondent students filed with February 11, 1991 to submit within
RTC Makati a TRO since they are twenty-four hours their written
currently enrolled. This was granted. A statement on the incident, the records
day after the expiration of the temporary show that instead of filing a reply,
restraining order, Dean del Castillo respondent students requested through
created a Special Board to investigate the their counsel, copies of the charges.
charges of hazing against respondent While some of the students mentioned in
students Abas and Mendoza. This was the February 11, 1991 notice duly
requested to be stricken out by the submitted written statements, the others
respondents and argued that the creation failed to do so. Thus, the latter were
of the Special Board was totally unrelated granted an extension of up to February 18,
to the original petition which alleged lack 1991 to file their statements.
of due process. This was granted and The requisite assistance of counsel
reinstatement of the students was was met when, from the very start of the
ordered.

A.Y. 2019-2020 YOU DO NOTE(s) 13 of 33

investigations before the Joint actions and proceedings in courts of
Administration Faculty Student justice. Accordingly, disciplinary charges
Committee, the law firm of Gonzales against a student need not be drawn with
Batiller and Bilog and Associates put in its the precision of a criminal information or
appearance and filed pleadings in behalf complaint. Having given prior notice to
of respondent students. the students involved that “hazing” which
Respondent students may not use is not defined in the School Catalogue
the argument that since they were not shall be defined in accordance with
accorded the opportunity to see and Senate Bill No. 3815, the proposed bill on
examine the written statements which the subject of Sen. Jose Lina, petitioners
became the basis of petitioners’ February have said what needs to be said. We deem
14, 1991 order, they were denied this sufficient for purposes of the
procedural due process. Granting that investigation under scrutiny.
they were denied such an opportunity, Hazing, as a ground for
the same may not be said to detract from disciplining a student, to the extent of
the observance of due process, for dismissal or expulsion, finds its raison d’
disciplinary cases involving students need etre in the increasing frequency of injury,
not necessarily include the right to cross even death, inflicted upon the neophytes
examination. An administrative by their insensate masters.” Assuredly, it
proceeding conducted investigate passes the test of reasonableness and
students’ participation in a hazing activity absence of malice on the part of the
need not be clothed with the attributes of school authorities. Far from fostering
a judicial proceeding. A closer comradeship and esprit de’ corps, it has
examination of the March 2, 1991 hearing merely fed upon the cruel and baser
which characterized the rules on the instincts of those who aspire to eventual
investigation as being summary in nature leadership in our country.
and that respondent students have no
right to examine affiants neophytes, WHAT IS THE RELEVANCE OF THE VOID
reveals that this is but a reiteration of our FOR VAGUENESS RULE TO THE RIGHT
previous ruling in Alcuaz. TO DUE PROCESS?
With regard to the charge of ● A law or government act suffers
hazing, respondent students fault from the defect of vagueness if it
petitioners for not explicitly defining the lacks comprehensible standards
word “hazing” and allege that there is no that men of common intelligence
proof that they were furnished copies of must necessarily guess at its
the 1990-91 Ateneo Law School Catalogue meaning and differ as to its
which prohibits hazing. Such flawed application. Since the law is so
sophistry is not worthy of students who vague, a person does not know
aspire to be future members of the Bar. It what the law is all about therefore
cannot be over-emphasized that the he does not know what to prevent.
charge filed before the Joint It constitutes a violation to the
Administration Faculty Student right of due process because the
Investigating Committee and the vagueness of the law amount to
Disciplinary Board is not a criminal case lack of notice of what conduct to
requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt prevent.
but is merely administrative in character.
As such, it is not subject to the rigorous
SPS. ROMUALDEZ v. COMELEC
requirements of criminal due process,
particularly with respect to the FACTS: Dennis Garay filed a
specification of the charge involved. As complaint-affidavit with the COMELEC
we have had occasion to declare in alleging that petitioners made false and
previous cases of a similar nature, due untruthful representations in violation of
process in disciplinary cases involving Section 261(y)(2) and Section 261(y)(5) of
students does not entail proceedings and the Omnibus Election Code and Section
hearings identical to those prescribed for 12 of Republic Act No. 8189, by indicating
therein that they are residents of 935 San

A.Y. 2019-2020 YOU DO NOTE(s) 14 of 33

Jose Street, Burauen, Leyte, when in truth violation of which would constitute an
and in fact, they were and still are election offense; hence, it runs contrary
residents of 113 Mariposa Loop, Mariposa to Section 14(1) and Section 14(2), Article
Street, Bagong Lipunan ng Crame, III of the 1987 Constitution.
Quezon City.
Petitioners filed a Joint HELD: The nature of the criminal charges
Counter-Affidavit with Motion to Dismiss in private respondent’s
and contended therein that they did not Complaint-Affidavit and that of the
make any false or untruthful statements charges contained in the Informations
in their application for registration. They filed with the RTC, pursuant to the
avowed that they intended to reside in COMELEC Resolution En Banc are the
Burauen, Leyte, since the year 1989. On 9 same, such that, petitioners cannot claim
May 2000, they took actual residence in that they were not able to refute or
Burauen, Leyte, by leasing for five (5) submit documentary evidence against the
years, the house of Juanito and Fe charges that the COMELEC filed with the
Renomeron at No. 935, San Jose Street in RTC. Petitioners were afforded due
Burauen, Leyte. process because they were granted the
Law Department of the COMELEC opportunity to refute the allegations in
filed with the RTC, Burauen, Leyte, private respondent’s Complaint-Affidavit.
separate Informations against petitioner On 2 April 2001, in opposition to the
Carlos S. Romualdez for violation of Complaint-Affidavit, petitioners filed a
Section 10(g), in relation to Section 45(j) of Joint Counter-Affidavit with Motion to
Republic Act No. 8189, and against Dismiss with the Law Department of the
petitioner Erlinda R. Romualdez for COMELEC. They similarly filed a
violation of Section 10(g), in relation to Memorandum before the said body.
Section 45(j) of Republic Act No. 8189. Finding that due process was not
Moreover, separate Informations for dispensed with under the circumstances
violation of Section 10(j), in relation to in the case at bar, we agree with the
Section 45(j) of Republic Act No. 8189 stance of the Office of the Solicitor
were filed against petitioners. General that petitioners were reasonably
Petitioners contend that the apprised of the nature and description of
election offenses for which they are the charges against them. It likewise
charged by private respondent are bears stressing that preliminary
entirely different from those which they investigations were conducted whereby
stand to be accused of before the RTC by petitioners were informed of the
the COMELEC. According to petitioners, complaint and of the evidence submitted
private respondent’s complaint charged against them. They were given the
them for allegedly violating, to wit: 1) opportunity to adduce controverting
Section 261(y)(2) and Section 261(y)(5) of evidence for their defense. In all these
the Omnibus Election Code, and 2) stages, petitioners actively participated.
Section 12 of the Voter’s Registration Act; The void-for-vagueness doctrine
however, the COMELEC En Banc directed holds that a law is facially invalid if men of
in the assailed Resolutions, that they be common intelligence must necessarily
charged for violations of Section 10(g) and guess at its meaning and differ as to its
(j), in relation to Section 45(j) of the application. However, this Court has
Voter’s Registration Act. Essentially, imposed certain limitations by which a
petitioners are of the view that they were criminal statute, as in the challenged law
not accorded due process of law. at bar, may be scrutinized. This Court has
Specifically, their right to refute or submit declared that facial invalidation or an
documentary evidence against the new “on-its-face” invalidation of criminal
charges which COMELEC ordered to be statutes is not appropriate.
filed against them. Moreover, petitioners An "on-its-face" invalidation of
insist that Section 45(j) of the Voter’s criminal statutes would result in a mass
Registration Act is vague as it does not acquittal of parties whose cases may not
refer to a definite provision of the law, the have even reached the courts. Such

A.Y. 2019-2020 YOU DO NOTE(s) 15 of 33

invalidation would constitute a departure the overbroad law becomes
from the usual requirement of "actual unenforceable until a properly authorized
case and controversy" and permit court construes it more narrowly. The
decisions to be made in a sterile abstract factor that motivates courts to depart
context having no factual concreteness. from the normal adjudicatory rules is the
We declare that under these concern with the "chilling;" deterrent
terms, the opinions of the dissent which effect of the overbroad statute on third
seek to bring to the fore the purported parties not courageous enough to bring
ambiguities of a long list of provisions in suit. The Court assumes that an
Republic Act No. 8189 can be deemed as a overbroad laws "very existence may cause
facial challenge. An appropriate “as others not before the court to refrain
applied” challenge in the instant Petition from constitutionally protected speech or
should be limited only to Section 45 (j) in expression." An overbreadth ruling is
relation to Sections 10 (g) and (j) of designed to remove that deterrent effect
Republic Act No. 8189 —the provisions on the speech of those third parties.
upon which petitioners are charged. An Related to the "overbreadth"
expanded examination of the law covering doctrine is the "void for vagueness
provisions which are alien to petitioners’ doctrine" which holds that "a law is
case would be antagonistic to the facially invalid if men of common
rudiment that for judicial review to be intelligence must necessarily guess at its
exercised, there must be an existing case meaning and differ as to its application." It
or controversy that is appropriate or ripe is subject to the same principles
for determination, and not conjectural or governing overbreadth doctrine. For one,
anticipatory. it is also an analytical tool for testing "on
Facial invalidation of laws is their faces" statutes in free speech cases.
considered as "manifestly strong And like overbreadth, it is said that a
medicine," to be used "sparingly and only litigant may challenge a statute on its face
as a last resort," and is "generally only if it is vague in all its possible
disfavored;" The reason for this is obvious. applications.
Embedded in the traditional rules The test in determining whether a
governing constitutional adjudication is criminal statute is void for uncertainty is
the principle that a person to whom a law whether the language conveys a
may be applied will not be heard to sufficiently definite warning as to the
challenge a law on the ground that it may proscribed conduct when measured by
conceivably be applied unconstitutionally common understanding and practice.
to others, i.e., in other situations not This Court has similarly stressed that the
before the Court. vagueness doctrine merely requires a
The most distinctive feature of the reasonable degree of certainty for the
overbreadth technique is that it marks an statute to be upheld—not absolute
exception to some of the usual rules of precision or mathematical exactitude. As
constitutional litigation. Ordinarily, a structured, Section 45 of Republic Act No.
particular litigant claims that a statute is 8189 makes a recital of election offenses
unconstitutional as applied to him or her; under the same Act. Section 45(j) is,
if the litigant prevails, the courts carve without doubt, crystal in its specification
away the unconstitutional aspects of the that a violation of any of the provisions of
law by invalidating its improper Republic Act No. 8189 is an election
applications on a case to case basis. offense. The language of Section 45(j) is
Moreover, challengers to a law are not precise. The challenged provision renders
permitted to raise the rights of third itself to no other interpretation. A reading
parties and can only assert their own of the challenged provision involves no
interests. In overbreadth analysis, those guesswork. We do not see herein an
rules give way; challenges are permitted uncertainty that makes the same vague.
to raise the rights of third parties; and the This Court has underlined that an
court invalidates the entire statute "on its act will not be held invalid merely because
face," not merely "as applied for" so that it might have been more explicit in its

A.Y. 2019-2020 YOU DO NOTE(s) 16 of 33

wordings or detailed in its provisions, law enforcement agencies with no
especially where, because of the nature of standard to measure the prohibited acts.
the act, it would be impossible to provide Respondents, through the OSG,
all the details in advance as in all other counter that the doctrines of
statutes. The evident intent of the void-for-vagueness and overbreadth find
legislature in including in the catena of no application in the present case since
election offenses the violation of any of these doctrines apply only to free speech
the provisions of Republic Act No. 8189, is cases; and that RA 9372 regulates
to subsume as punishable, not only the conduct, not speech.
commission of proscribed acts, but also
the omission of acts enjoined to be HELD: The confusion apparently stems
observed. On this score, the declared from the interlocking relation of the
policy of Republic Act No. 8189 is overbreadth and vagueness doctrines as
illuminating. The law articulates the grounds for a facial or as-applied
policy of the State to systematize the challenge against a penal statute (under a
present method of registration in order to claim of violation of due process of law) or
establish a clean, complete, permanent a speech regulation (under a claim of
and updated list of voters. A reading of abridgement of the freedom of speech
Section 45 (j) conjointly with the and cognate rights). To be sure, the
provisions upon which petitioners are doctrine of vagueness and the doctrine of
charged, i.e., Sections 10 (g) and (j) would overbreadth do not operate on the same
reveal that the matters that are required plane. A statute or act suffers from the
to be set forth under the aforesaid defect of vagueness when it lacks
sections are crucial to the achievement of comprehensible standards that men of
a clean, complete, permanent and common intelligence must necessarily
updated list of voters. The factual guess at its meaning and differ as to its
information required by the law is sought application. It is repugnant to the
not for mere embellishment. Constitution in two respects: (1) it violates
Moreover, every statute has in its due process for failure to accord persons,
favor the presumption of validity. To especially the parties targeted by it, fair
justify its nullification, there must be a notice of the conduct to avoid; and (2) it
clear and unequivocal breach of the leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion
Constitution, and not one that is doubtful, in carrying out its provisions and
speculative or argumentative. We hold becomes an arbitrary flexing of the
that petitioners failed to overcome the Government muscle. The overbreadth
heavy presumption in favor of the law. Its doctrine, meanwhile, decrees that a
constitutionality must be upheld in the governmental purpose to control or
absence of substantial grounds for prevent activities constitutionally subject
overthrowing the same to state regulations may not be achieved
by means which sweep unnecessarily
broadly and thereby invade the area of
SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE v.
protected freedoms. As distinguished
ANTI-TERRORISM COUNCIL
from the vagueness doctrine, the
FACTS: Before the Court are six petitions overbreadth doctrine assumes that
challenging the constitutionality of individuals will understand what a statute
Republic Act No. 9372 otherwise known as prohibits and will accordingly refrain
the Human Security Act of 2007. from that behavior, even though some of
Petitioners assail for being it is protected.
intrinsically vague and impermissibly A “facial” challenge is likewise
broad the definition of the crime of different from an “as-applied” challenge.
terrorism46 under RA 9372 in that terms Distinguished from an as-applied
like "widespread and extraordinary fear challenge which considers only extant
and panic among the populace" and facts affecting real litigants, a facial
"coerce the government to give in to an invalidation is an examination of the
unlawful demand" are nebulous, leaving entire law, pinpointing its flaws and

A.Y. 2019-2020 YOU DO NOTE(s) 17 of 33

defects, not only on the basis of its actual State’s power to prosecute on a mere
operation to the parties, but also on the showing that, as applied to third parties,
assumption or prediction that its very the penal statute is vague or overbroad,
existence may cause others not before notwithstanding that the law is clear as
the court to refrain from constitutionally applied to him.
protected speech or activities. Justice It is settled, on the other hand,
Mendoza accurately phrased the subtitle that the application of the overbreadth
in his concurring opinion that the doctrine is limited to a facial kind of
vagueness and overbreadth doctrines, as challenge and, owing to the given
grounds for a facial challenge, are not rationale of a facial challenge, applicable
applicable to penal laws. A litigant cannot only to free speech cases. By its nature,
thus successfully mount a facial challenge the overbreadth doctrine has to
against a criminal statute on either necessarily apply a facial type of
vagueness or overbreadth grounds. invalidation in order to plot areas of
The allowance of a facial challenge protected speech, inevitably almost
in free speech cases is justified by the aim always under situations not before the
to avert the “chilling effect” on protected court, that are impermissibly swept by
speech, the exercise of which should not the substantially overbroad regulation.
at all times be abridged. As reflected Otherwise stated, a statute cannot be
earlier, this rationale is inapplicable to properly analyzed for being substantially
plain penal statutes that generally bear an overbroad if the court confines itself only
“in terrorem effect” in deterring socially to facts as applied to the litigants.
harmful conduct. In fact, the legislature Since a penal statute may only be
may even forbid and penalize acts assailed for being vague as applied to
formerly considered innocent and lawful, petitioners, a limited vagueness analysis
so long as it refrains from diminishing or of the definition of "terrorism" in RA 9372
dissuading the exercise of constitutionally is legally impermissible absent an actual
protected rights. or imminent charge against them.
The rule established in our American jurisprudence instructs
jurisdiction is, only statutes on free that “vagueness challenges that do not
speech, religious freedom, and other involve the First Amendment must be
fundamental rights may be facially examined in light of the specific facts of
challenged. Under no case may ordinary the case at hand and not with regard to
penal statutes be subjected to a facial the statute’s facial validity.” In this
challenge. The rationale is obvious. If a jurisdiction, the void-for-vagueness
facial challenge to a penal statute is doctrine asserted under the due process
permitted, the prosecution of crimes may clause has been utilized in examining the
be hampered. No prosecution would be constitutionality of criminal statutes. In at
possible. A strong criticism against least three cases, the Court brought the
employing a facial challenge in the case of doctrine into play in analyzing an
penal statutes, if the same is allowed, ordinance penalizing the non-payment of
would effectively go against the grain of municipal tax on fishponds, the crime of
the doctrinal requirement of an existing illegal recruitment punishable under
and concrete controversy before judicial Article 132(b) of the Labor Code, and the
power may be appropriately exercised. A vagrancy provision under Article 202 (2)
facial challenge against a penal statute is, of the Revised Penal Code. Notably, the
at best, amorphous and speculative. It petitioners in these three cases, similar to
would, essentially, force the court to those in the two Romualdez and Estrada
consider third parties who are not before cases, were actually charged with the
it. As I have said in my opposition to the therein assailed penal statute, unlike in
allowance of a facial challenge to attack the present case.
penal statutes, such a test will impair the From the definition of the crime of
State’s ability to deal with crime. If terrorism in the earlier cited Section 3 of
warranted, there would be nothing that RA 9372, the following elements may be
can hinder an accused from defeating the culled: (1) the offender commits an act

A.Y. 2019-2020 YOU DO NOTE(s) 18 of 33

punishable under any of the cited speech. This holds true a fortiori in the
provisions of the Revised Penal Code, or present case where the expression figures
under any of the enumerated special only as an inevitable incident of making
penal laws; (2) the commission of the the element of coercion perceptible.
predicate crime sows and creates a
condition of widespread and IN THE CASE OF SOUTHERN
extraordinary fear and panic among the HEMISPHERE v. ANTI-TERRORISM
populace; and (3) the offender is actuated COUNCIL, A LAW WHICH IS VOID FOR
by the desire to coerce the government to BEING VAGUE VIOLATES THE
give in to an unlawful demand. In insisting CONSTITUTION FOR TWO REASON,
on a facial challenge on the invocation WHAT ARE THESE REASONS?
that the law penalizes speech, petitioners 1. It violates due process for failure
contend that the element of “unlawful to accord persons, especially the
demand” in the definition of terrorism parties targeted by it, fair notice of
must necessarily be transmitted through the conduct to avoid; and
some form of expression protected by the 2. It leaves law enforcers unbridled
free speech clause. The argument does discretion in carrying out its
not persuade. What the law seeks to provisions and becomes an
penalize is conduct, not speech. Before a arbitrary flexing of the
charge for terrorism may be filed under Government muscle;
RA 9372, there must first be a predicate
crime actually committed to trigger the WHAT IS OVERBREADTH DOCTRINE?
operation of the key qualifying phrases in ● Decrees that a governmental
the other elements of the crime, including purpose to control or prevent
the coercion of the government to accede activities constitutionally subject
to an “unlawful demand.” Given the to state regulations may not be
presence of the first element, any attempt achieved by means which sweep
at singling out or highlighting the unnecessarily broadly and thereby
communicative component of the invade the area of protected
prohibition cannot recategorize the freedoms. As distinguished from
unprotected conduct into a protected the vagueness doctrine, the
speech. overbreadth doctrine assumes that
Petitioners’ notion on the individuals will understand what a
transmission of message is entirely statute prohibits and will
inaccurate, as it unduly focuses on just accordingly refrain from that
one particle of an element of the crime. behavior, even though some of it is
Almost every commission of a crime protected. (Southern Hemisphere
entails some mincing of words on the part v. Anti-Terrorism Council)
of the offender like in declaring to launch
overt criminal acts against a victim, in WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
haggling on the amount of ransom or VOID FOR VAGUENESS AND
conditions, or in negotiating a deceitful OVERBREADTH DOCTRINE?
transaction. An analogy in one U.S. case ● In overbreadth the law is clear and
illustrated that the fact that the people understands the law but
prohibition on discrimination in hiring on because of the comprehensive
the basis of race will require an employer scope of the law it encroaches or
to take down a sign reading “White interferes with protected liberties.
Applicants Only” hardly means that the In void for vagueness the law is not
law should be analyzed as one regulating clear. Overbreadth and void for
speech rather than conduct. Utterances vagueness are ground for facially
not elemental but inevitably incidental to challenging the constitutionality of
the doing of the criminal conduct alter the law.
neither the intent of the law to punish
socially harmful conduct nor the essence
of the whole act as conduct and not

A.Y. 2019-2020 YOU DO NOTE(s) 19 of 33

WHAT IS FACIAL CHALLENGE MEAN? WHAT DOES EQUAL PROTECTION OF
AS DISTINGUISH FROM “AS APPLIED” THE LAW MEAN?
CHALLENGE? ● Persons or things similarly situated
● Facial challenge means the law is should be treated alike, both as to
on its face is invalid. The requisite the rights conferred and the
of proper party is dispensed with responsibilities imposed.
because it can be raised by any
person because of the chilling IS IT A RESTRAINT ONLY AGAINST
effect of the law. As applied LEGISLATIVE ACT?
challenge on the other can only be ● No
raised by the party to whom the
law was declared unconstitutional. WHEN DO WE APPLY DUE PROCESS OR
EQUAL PROTECTION?
DOES THE FACIAL CHALLENGE IN ● Arbitrariness in general may be
PENAL STATUTE APPLY? challenged on the basis of the due
● No because if penal laws may be process clause. But if the
challenged under the facial particular act assailed partakes of
challenge, the state may not be an unwarranted partiality or
able to enforce its penal laws since prejudice, the sharper weapon to
everytime there is a law enacted, it cut it down is the equal protection
will be challenged by one even if clause (Biraogo v. PTC)
he is not being injured. Only in free
speech cases, religious freedom
BIRAOGO v. PTC
cases and other fundamental right
may be the subject of facial FACTS: Pres. Aquino signed E. O. No. 1
challenge. establishing Philippine Truth Commission
of 2010 (PTC) dated July 30, 2010.
CAN WE APPLY VOID FOR VAGUENESS PTC is a mere ad hoc body formed
TO CHALLENGE PENAL STATUTE? under the Office of the President with the
● Yes but use ‘as applied’ doctrine primary task to investigate reports of
graft and corruption committed by
WHAT IS THE EFFECT IF A LAW IS third-level public officers and employees,
DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL their co-principals, accomplices and
USING ‘AS APPLIED’ DOCTRINE AS accessories during the previous
BASIS IN CHALLENGING IT? administration, and to submit its finding
● The law will be unconstitutional and recommendations to the President,
only to the party who challenged Congress and the Ombudsman. PTC has
it. all the powers of an investigative body.
But it is not a quasi-judicial body as it
HOW ABOUT IN FACIAL CHALLENGE? cannot adjudicate, arbitrate, resolve,
● Unconstitutional not only to the settle, or render awards in disputes
party who challenged it but it will between contending parties. All it can do
be unconstitutional to all. is gather, collect and assess evidence of
graft and corruption and make
recommendations. It may have subpoena
EQUAL PROTECTION
powers but it has no power to cite people
in contempt, much less order their arrest.
IS EQUAL PROTECTION THE SAME AS Although it is a fact-finding body, it
DUE PROCESS? MEANING IT IS ALSO cannot determine from such facts if
AMBIGUOUS AND AS VAGUE AS THE probable cause exists as to warrant the
CONCEPT OF DUE PROCESS? filing of an information in our courts of
● No it is clearer and particular than law.
due process Petitioners asked the Court to
declare it unconstitutional and to enjoin
the PTC from performing its functions.
They argued that:

A.Y. 2019-2020 YOU DO NOTE(s) 20 of 33

(a) E.O. No. 1 violates separation of powers not duplicate, supplant or erode the
as it arrogates the power of the Congress latter’s jurisdiction.
to create a public office and appropriate 4] The Truth Commission does not violate
funds for its operation. the equal protection clause because it
(b) The provision of Book III, Chapter 10, was validly created for laudable purposes.
Section 31 of the Administrative Code of
1987 cannot legitimize E.O. No. 1 because HELD: One of the basic principles on
the delegated authority of the President which this government was founded is
to structurally reorganize the Office of that of the equality of right which is
the President to achieve economy, embodied in Section 1, Article III of the
simplicity and efficiency does not include 1987 Constitution. The equal protection of
the power to create an entirely new the laws is embraced in the concept of
public office which was hitherto due process, as every unfair
inexistent like the “Truth Commission.” discrimination offends the requirements
(c) E.O. No. 1 illegally amended the of justice and fair play. It has been
Constitution and statutes when it vested embodied in a separate clause, however,
the “Truth Commission” with to provide for a more specific guaranty
quasi-judicial powers duplicating, if not against any form of undue favoritism or
superseding, those of the Office of the hostility from the government.
Ombudsman created under the 1987 Arbitrariness in general may be
Constitution and the DOJ created under challenged on the basis of the due
the Administrative Code of 1987. process clause. But if the particular act
(d) E.O. No. 1 violates the equal protection assailed partakes of an unwarranted
clause as it selectively targets for partiality or prejudice, the sharper
investigation and prosecution officials weapon to cut it down is the equal
and personnel of the previous protection clause.
administration as if corruption is their According to a long line of
peculiar species even as it excludes those decisions, equal protection simply
of the other administrations, past and requires that all persons or things
present, who may be indictable. similarly situated should be treated alike,
Respondents, through OSG, both as to rights conferred and
questioned the legal standing of responsibilities imposed.” It “requires
petitioners and argued that: public bodies and institutions to treat
1] E.O. No. 1 does not arrogate the powers similarly situated individuals in a similar
of Congress because the President’s manner.” “The purpose of the equal
executive power and power of control protection clause is to secure every
necessarily include the inherent power to person within a state’s jurisdiction against
conduct investigations to ensure that laws intentional and arbitrary discrimination,
are faithfully executed and that, in any whether occasioned by the express terms
event, the Constitution, Revised of a statue or by its improper execution
Administrative Code of 1987, PD No. 141616 through the state’s duly constituted
(as amended), R.A. No. 9970 and settled authorities.” “In other words, the concept
jurisprudence, authorize the President to of equal justice under the law requires the
create or form such bodies. state to govern impartially, and it may not
2] E.O. No. 1 does not usurp the power of draw distinctions between individuals
Congress to appropriate funds because solely on differences that are irrelevant to
there is no appropriation but a mere a legitimate governmental objective.” The
allocation of funds already appropriated equal protection clause is aimed at all
by Congress. official state actions, not just those of the
3] The Truth Commission does not legislature. Its inhibitions cover all the
duplicate or supersede the functions of departments of the government,
the Ombudsman and the DOJ, because it including the political and executive
is a fact-finding body and not a departments, and extend to all actions of
quasi-judicial body and its functions do a state denying equal protection of the

A.Y. 2019-2020 YOU DO NOTE(s) 21 of 33

laws, through whatever agency or UNDERINCLUSIVENESS WHICH MEANS
whatever guise is taken. THAT WHEN A LAW IS INSUFFICIENT,
The Court is not unaware that THIS IS NOT A GROUND TO DECLARE
“mere underinclusiveness is not fatal to THE LAW UNCONSTITUTIONAL. THE
the validity of a law under the equal REMEDY ACCORDING TO THE
protection clause.” “Legislation is not SOLICITOR GENERAL, IN CASES OF
unconstitutional merely because it is not DEFICIENT LAW, IS SUPPLEMENTAL
all-embracing and does not include all the LEGISLATION. SO IF EO NO. 1 DOES NOT
evils within its reach.” It has been written COVER ALL PAST ADMINISTRATION
that a regulation challenged under the THEY SHOULD NOT BE A BASIS TO
equal protection clause is not devoid of a DECLARE IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
rational predicate simply because it REMEDY IS TO ENACT ANOTHER
happens to be incomplete. In several EXECUTIVE ORDER OR LAW COVERING
instances, the underinclusiveness was not ALL PAST ADMINISTRATION. DID THE
considered a valid reason to strike down a SUPREME COURT APPLY THE UNDER
law or regulation where the purpose can INCLUSIVENESS DOCTRINE?
be attained in future legislations or ● NO. Underinclusiveness doctrine is
regulations. These cases refer to the “step applicable only in situations when
by step” process. “With regard to equal the deficiency or the insufficiency
protection claims, a legislature does not of the law was only by mere
run the risk of losing the entire remedial inadvertence. But if the
scheme simply because it fails, through insufficiency of the law was
inadvertence or otherwise, to cover every deliberate or intentional under
evil that might conceivably have been inclusiveness doctrine will not
attacked.” In Executive Order No. 1, apply. The Supreme Court noted
however, there is no inadvertence. That that the failure of the law to cover
the previous administration was picked all past administrations in the case
out was deliberate and intentional as can of EO No. 1 was not by mere
be gleaned from the fact that it was inadvertence but intentional.
underscored at least three times in the
assailed executive order. It must be noted IS THERE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A
that Executive Order No. 1 does not even LAW THAT DISCRIMINATES AND A LAW
mention any particular act, event or THAT ONLY ALLOWS
report to be focused on unlike the DISCRIMINATION?
investigative commissions created in the ● There is no difference between a
past. “The equal protection clause is law that discriminates and a law
violated by purposeful and intentional that only allows discrimination.
discrimination.” Both violated the equal protection
The probability that there would of the Constitution. Though the
be difficulty in unearthing evidence or law itself be fair on its face and
that the earlier reports involving the impartial in appearance, yet, if
earlier administrations were already applied and administered by public
inquired into is beside the point. authority with an evil eye and an
Obviously, deceased presidents and cases unequal hand, so as practically to
which have already prescribed can no make unjust and illegal
longer be the subjects of inquiry by the discriminations between persons
PTC. Neither is the PTC expected to in similar circumstances, material
conduct simultaneous investigations of to their rights, the denial of equal
previous administrations, given the body’s justice is still within the
limited time and resources. "The law does prohibition of the constitution
not require the impossible" (Lex non cogit (Yick Wo v. Hopkins cited in
ad impossibilia) People v. Vera and Biraogo v. PTC)
● Even if the law is not
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL IN BIRAOGO discriminatory but the law allows
v. PTC INVOKES THE DOCTRINE OF

A.Y. 2019-2020 YOU DO NOTE(s) 22 of 33

discrimination it is still a violation unconstitutional because of their effect in
of the constitutional guarantee operation. If a law has the effect of
denying the equal protection of the law it
is unconstitutional.
PEOPLE v. VERA

FACTS: The instant petition stems from WHAT ARE THE TWO ACTS THAT ARE
the application for bail filed by Co PROHIBITED UNDER THE EQUAL
Unjieng. He claims that he is innocent of PROTECTION CLAUSE ACCORDING TO
the crime charged against him, that he PEOPLE v. VERA?
has no existing criminal record and that 1. Undue favor and class or individual
he would observe proper conduct in the privilege
future if his application for bail is granted. 2. Unjust or illegal discrimination or
The application was referred to the hostile discrimination.
Insular Probation Office, but was
consequently denied. CAN A LAW BE CHALLENGED FOR
The denial was premised on the ground VIOLATING THE EQUAL PROTECTION
that Act No. 4221 provides probation only OF THE LAW BECAUSE IT APPLIES
to those provinces with available funds EQUALLY? CAN THE COURT SAY THAT
for the salary of probation officers, and THE LAW IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR
the province referred to has no sufficient VIOLATION OF EQUAL PROTECTION
funds. Thus, petitioner now comes before BECAUSE IT APPLIES EQUALLY?
the Court assailing the constitutionality ● YES. Uniform application of the
of the Act for being violative of the equal law to persons or things that are
protection clause. not similarly situated also violate
the equal protection of the law
HELD: In the case of Act No. 4221, the because equal protection of the
resultant inequality may be said to flow law only requires equality among
from the unwarranted delegation of equals.
legislative power to the provincial boards.
While inequality may result in the
VILLEGAS v. HIU CHIONG TSAI PAO
application of the law and in the
HO
conferment of the benefits therein
provided, inequality is not in all cases the FACTS: City ordinance No 6537, prohibits
necessary result. But whatever may be the aliens from being employed or engaged or
case, it is clear that section 11 of the participate in any position or association
Probation Act creates a situation in which or business enumerated therein, whether
discrimination and inequality are permanent, temporary or casual, without
permitted or allowed. There are, to be first securing an employment permit from
sure, abundant authorities requiring the Mayor of Manila is being questioned
actual denial of the equal protection of by the private respondent for allegedly in
the law before courts should assume the violation of the equal protection
task of setting aside a law vulnerable on guarantee. The trial court ruled in favor of
that score, but premises and the nullity of the ordinance.
circumstances considered, we are of the On appeal, petitioner argues that
opinion that section 11 of Act No. 4221 the ordinance cannot be invalidated on
permits of the denial of the equal the ground that it violated the rule on
protection of the law and is on that uniformity of taxation, because it applies
account bad. We see no difference to pure tax or revenue measures and said
between a law which denies equal ordinance is not such but is an exercise of
protection and a law which permits of the police power of the state.
such denial. A law may appear to be fair
on its face and impartial in appearance, ISSUE: Whether or not the said ordinance
yet, if it permits of unjust and illegal is unconstitutional?
discrimination, it is within the
constitutional prohibition. In other words, HELD: YES. The P50.00 fee is
statutes may be adjudged unreasonable not only because it is

A.Y. 2019-2020 YOU DO NOTE(s) 23 of 33

excessive but because it fails to consider
● Classifications based on
valid substantial differences in situation
gender or illegitimacy
among individual aliens who are required
receives intermediate
to pay it. Although the equal protection
scrutiny
clause of the Constitution does not forbid
● The law must not only
classification, it is imperative that the
further an important
classification should be based on real and
governmental interest and
substantial differences having a
be substantially related to
reasonable relation to the subject of the
that interest, but the
particular legislation. The same amount
justification for the
to P50.00 is being collected from every
classification must be
employed alien, whether he is casual or
genuine and must not
permanent, part time or full time or
depend on broad
whether he is a lowly employee or a
generalizations.
highly paid executive.
3. Rational basis scrutiny

● Demands that the
WHAT IS CLASSIFICATION?
classification reasonably
● It is the grouping of persons or
relate to the legislative
things similar in certain particulars
purpose.
but different from others in the
● The rational basis test
same particulars. The same trait
often applies in cases
that binds them is the same trait
involving economics or
that sets them apart from others.
social welfare, or to any
To be valid, the classification must
other case not involving a
be reasonable
suspect class

DOES THE CONSTITUTION ACCEPT ALL
KINDS OF CLASSIFICATION? WHAT ARE THE REQUISITES OF A
● NO. The Constitution only accepts REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION
reasonable classifications (RATIONAL BASIS SCRUTINY)?
1. The classification must rest on
substantial conditions which make
Three levels of scrutiny to determine
for real differences
the propriety of the classification
2. Classification must be germane to
(Mosqueda v. Pilipino Banana Growers):
the purpose of the law
1. Strict scrutiny
3. Must apply not only be limited to
● Applies when a legislative
existing conditions
classification impermissibly
4. Must apply equally to all members
interferes with the exercise
of the particular class
of a fundamental right or

operates to the peculiar
MAY CITIZENSHIP BE CONSIDERED AS
class disadvantage of a
BASIS FOR SUBSTANTIAL
suspect class
DISTINCTION?
● Government carries the
● YES. There is a substantial
burden to prove that the
distinction between alien retailers
classification is necessary
and Filipino retailers specifically
to achieve a compelling
because alien retailers does not
state interest, and that it is
owe absolute allegiance to the
the least restrictive means
Philippines unlike Filipino retailers.
to protect such interest.
The interest of aliens are different
2. Intermediate scrutiny
from the interest of Filipino
● When the classification
retailers (Ichong v. Hernandez)
puts a quasi-suspect class

at a disadvantage
PETITIONERS IN ICHONG v.
HERNANDEZ ALSO CONTEND THAT

A.Y. 2019-2020 YOU DO NOTE(s) 24 of 33

RETAIL TRADE ACT IS one class are treated alike, and it cannot
UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT be said that the classification is patently
ALLOWS AMERICAN CITIZEN TO unreasonable and unfounded. Hence, it is
ENGAGE IN RETAIL TRADE LIKE ANY the duty of this Court to declare that the
OTHER FILIPINOS BUT ALL OTHER legislature acted within its legitimate
ALIENS CANNOT. DID THE SC AGREE prerogative and it cannot declare that the
TO SINGLE OUT AMERICAN NATIONAL act transcends the limits of equal
FROM THE REST OF THE ALIENS WILL protection established by the
CONSTITUTE UNDUE FAVOR? Constitution.
● Ichong was decided under the 1935 The law in question is deemed
constitution. During that time absolutely necessary to bring about the
there is a parity treaty where it desired legislative objective, i.e., to free
provides that Americans have the the national economy from alien control
same privilege as the Filipinos in and dominance. It is not necessarily
the exploitation of natural unreasonable because it affects private
resources of the law. That rights and privileges. The test of
distinguishes the American reasonableness of a law is the
nationals from all other aliens appropriateness or adequacy under all
under the 1935 constitution. circumstances of the means adopted to
carry out its purpose into effect. Judged
by this test, the disputed legislation,
ICHONG v. HERNANDEZ
which is not merely reasonable but
The equal protection of the law actually necessary, must be considered
clause is against undue favor and not to have infringed the constitutional
individual or class privilege, as well as limitation of reasonableness.
hostile discrimination or the oppression Nationalistic tendency is
of inequalityIt is not intended to prohibit manifested in various provisions of the
legislation, which is limited either in the Constitution. The nationalization of the
object to which it is directed or by retail trade is only a continuance of the
territory within which it is to operate. It nationalistic protective policy laid down
does not demand absolute equality as a primary objective of the Constitution,
among residents; it merely requires that It cannot therefore be said that a law
all persons shall be treated alike, under imbued with the same purpose and spirit
like circumstances and conditions both as underlying many of the provisions of the
to privileges conferred and liabilities Constitution is unreasonable, invalid or
enforced. The equal protection clause is unconstitutional.
not infringed by legislation which applies
only to those persons falling within a CAN AGE BE A BASIS OF
specified class, if it applies alike to all CLASSIFICATION?
persons within such class, and reasonable ● YES. Classification of persons
grounds exist for making a distinction according to their age is based on
between those who fall within such class substantial distinction. Minors are
and those who do not. subject to influences and they may
The power of the legislature to be vulnerable to the crimes
make distinctions and classifications committed during nighttime
among persons is not curtailed or denied (SPARK v. Quezon City)
by the equal protection of the laws clause.
The legislative power admits of a wide
DUMLAO v. COMELEC
scope of discretion, and a law can be
violative of the constitutional limitation FACTS: The Petition alleges that
only when the classification is without petitioner, Patricio Dumlao, is a former
reasonable basis. Citizenship is a legal and Governor of Nueva Vizcaya. Petitioner
valid ground for classification. Dumlao specifically questions the
The classification in the law of constitutionality of section 4 of Batas
retail traders into nationals and aliens is Pambansa Blg. 52 as discriminatory and
actual, real and reasonable. All persons of contrary to the equal protection and due

A.Y. 2019-2020 YOU DO NOTE(s) 25 of 33

process guarantees of the Constitution. distinction if its purpose is to
Said Section 4 provides: protect women. (PASEI v. Drilon)
"Sec. 4. Special Disqualification - In
addition to violation of section 10 of Art.
PASEI v. Drilon
XII-C of the Constitution and
disqualification mentioned in existing The petitioner has shown no
laws, which are hereby declared as satisfactory reason why the contested
disqualification for any of the elective measure should be nullified. There is no
officials enumerated in section 1 hereof. question that Department Order No. 1
Any retired elective provincial, city of applies only to "female contract workers,"
municipal official but it does not thereby make an undue
(1)who has received payment of the discrimination between the sexes. It is
retirement benefits to which he is well-settled that "equality before the law"
entitled under the law and under the Constitution does not import a
(2)who shall have been 65 years of age at perfect identity of rights among all men
the commencement of the term of office and women. It admits of classifications,
to which he seeks to be elected, shall not provided that (1) such classifications rest
be qualified to run for the same elective on substantial distinctions; (2) they are
local office from which he has retired." germane to the purposes of the law; (3)
Petitioner Dumlao alleges that the they are not confined to existing
aforecited provision is directe insidiously conditions; and (4) they apply equally to
against him, and that the classification all members of the same class. The Court
provided therein is based on "purely is satisfied that the classification
arbitrary grounds and, therefore, class made—the preference for female
legislation. workers—rests on substantial
distinctions.
HELD: In the case of a 65-year old The same, however, cannot be said
elective local official, who has retired of our male workers. In the first place,
from a provincial, city, or municipal office, there is no evidence that, except perhaps
there is reason to disqualify him from for isolated instances, our men abroad
running for the same office from which he have been afflicted with an identical
had retired, as provided for in the predicament. The petitioner has proffered
challenged provision. The need for new no argument that the Government should
blood assumes relevance. The tiredness of act similarly with respect to male
the retiree for government work is workers. The Court, of course, is not
present, and what is emphatically impressing some male chauvinistic notion
significant is that the retired employee that men are superior to women. What
has already declared himself tired and the Court is saying is that it was largely a
unavailable for the same government matter of evidence (that women domestic
work, but, which, by virtue of a change of workers are being ill-treated abroad in
mind, he would like to assume again. It is massive instances) and not upon some
for this very reason that inequality will fanciful or arbitrary yardstick that the
neither result from the application of the Government acted in this case. It is
challenged provision. Just as that evidence capable indeed of
provision does not deny equal protection, unquestionable demonstration and
neither does it permit of such denial. evidence this Court accepts. The Court
Persons similarly situated are similarly cannot, however, say the same thing as
treated. far as men are concerned. There is simply
no evidence to justify such an inference.
CAN SEX BE CONSIDERED AS A Suffice it to state, then, that insofar as
MATERIAL DISTINCTION THAT COULD classification are concerned, this Court is
BE THE BASIS OF A REASONABLE content that distinctions are borne by the
CLASSIFICATION? evidence. Discrimination in this case is
● YES. Classification based on justified.
gender rests on substantial

A.Y. 2019-2020 YOU DO NOTE(s) 26 of 33

HOW ABOUT THE DEGREE OR LEVEL Act No. 1639 satisfies these
OF CIVILIZATION? requirements. The classification rests on
● YES. The classification rests on real or substantial, not merely imaginary
real or substantial, not merely or whimsical, distinctions. It is not based
imaginary or whimsical, upon "accident of birth or parentage" but
distinctions. It is not based upon upon the degree of civilization and
"accident of birth or parentage" culture. The term "non-Christian tribes"
but upon the degree of civilization refers, not to religious belief, but, in a
and culture. The term way, to the geographical area, and, more
"non-Christian tribes" refers, not directly, to natives of the Philippines of a
to religious belief, but, in a way, to low grade of civilization, usually living in
the geographical area, and, more tribal relationship apart from settled
directly, to natives of the communities.
Philippines of a low grade of This distinction is unquestionably
civilization, usually living in tribal reasonable, for the Act was intended to
relationship apart from settled meet the peculiar conditions existing in
communities. (People v. Cayat) the non-Christian tribes. The exceptional
cases of certain members thereof who at
present have reached a position of
PEOPLE v. CAYAT
cultural equality with their Christian
FACTS: Accused Cayat, a native of Baguio, brothers, cannot affect the
Benguet, Mountain Province, and a reasonableness of the classification thus
member of the non-Christian tribes, was established.
found guilty of violating sections 2 and 3 That the classification is germane
of Act No. 1639 for having acquired and to the purposes of law cannot be doubted.
possessed one bottle of A-1-1 gin, an The prohibition "to buy, receive, have in
intoxicating liquor, which is not a native his possession, or drink any ardent spirits,
wine. The law made it unlawful for any ale, beer, wine, or intoxicating liquors of
native of the Philippines who is a member any kind, other than the so called native
of a non-Christian tribe within the wines and liquors which the members of
meaning of Act 1397 to buy, receive, have such tribes have been accustomed
in his possession, or drink any ardent themselves to make prior to the passage
spirits, ale, beer, wine or intoxicating of this Act," is unquestionably designed to
liquors of any kind, other than the insure peace and order in and among the
so-called native wines and liquors which non-Christian tribes. It has been the sad
the members of such tribes have been experience of the past, as the
accustomed to prior to the passage of the observations of the lower court disclose,
law. Cayat challenges the constitutionality that the free use of highly intoxicating
of Act 1639 on the grounds that it is liquors by the non-Christian tribes have
discriminatory and denies the equal often resulted in lawlessness and crimes
protection of the laws, violates due thereby hampering the efforts of the
process clause, and is an improper government to raise their standard of life
exercise of police power. and civilization.
The law is not limited in its
HELD: It is an established principle of application to conditions existing at the
constitutional law that the guaranty of the time of its enactment. It is intended to
equal protection of the laws is not apply for all times as long as those
violated by a legislation based on conditions exist. The Act was not
reasonable classification. And the predicated upon the assumption that the
classification, to be reasonable, (!) must nonChristians are "impermeable to any
rest on substantial distinctions; (2) must civilizing influence." On the contrary, the
be germane to the purposes of the law; (3) Legislature understood that the
must not be limited to existing conditions civilization of a people is a slow process
only; and (4) must apply equally to all and that hand in hand with it must go
members of the same class. measures of protection and security.

A.Y. 2019-2020 YOU DO NOTE(s) 27 of 33

That the Act applies equally to all their inherent right to equality in the
members of the class is evident from a enjoyment of those privileges now
perusal thereof. That it may be unfair in enjoyed by their Christian brothers. But as
its operation against a certain number of there can be no true equality before the
non-Christians by reason of their degree law, if there is, in fact, no equality in
of culture, is not an argument against the education, the government has
equality of its application. endeavored, by appropriate measures, to
To constitute due process of law, raise their culture and civilization and
notice and bearing are not always secure for them the benefits of their
necessary. This rule is especially true progress, with the ultimate end in view of
where much must be left to the discretion placing them with their Christian
of the administrative officials in applying brothers on the basis of true equality.
a law to particular cases. Due process of In the constitutional scheme of
law means simply: (1) that there shall be a our government, this court can go no
law prescribed in harmony with the farther than to inquire whether the
general powers of the legislative Legislature had the power to enact the
department of the government; (2) that it law. If the power exists, and we hold it
shall be reasonable in its operation; (3) does exist, the wisdom of the policy
that it shall be enforced according to the adopted, and the adequacy under existing
regular methods of procedure prescribed; conditions of the measures enacted to
and (4) that it shall be applicable alike to forward it, are matters which this court
all citizens of the state or to all of a class. has no authority to pass upon. And, if in
Neither is the Act an improper the application of the law, the educated.
exercise of the police power of the state. non-Christians shall incidentally suffer,
It has been said that the police power is the justification still exists in the
the most insistent and least limitable of all all-comprehending principle of salus
the powers of the government. It has populi suprema est lex.
been aptly described as a power When the public safety or the
coextensive with self-protection and public morals require the discontinuance
constitutes the law of overruling of a certain practice by a certain class of
necessity. Any measure intended to persons, the hand of the Legislature
promote the health, peace, morals, cannot be stayed from providing for its
education and good order of the people discontinuance by any incidental
or to increase the industries of -the state, inconvenience which some members of
develop its resources and add to its the class may suffer. The private interests
wealth and prosperity, is a legitimate of such members must yield to the
exercise of the police power, and unless paramount interests of the nation.
shown to be whimsical or capricious as to
unduly interfere with the rights of an TO RECAP THE SUPREME COURT
individual, the same must be upheld. SUSTAINED A CLASSIFICATION BASED
Act No. 1639 is designed to ON CITIZENSHIP, BASED ON AGE,
promote peace and order in the BASED ON GENDER AND BASED ON
non-Christian tribes so as to remove all DEGREE OR LOWER LEVEL OF
obstacles to their moral and intellectual CIVILIZATION. CAN WE NOW SAY THAT
growth and, eventually, to hasten their APPLYING THE DOCTRINE OF STARE
equalization and unification with the rest DECISIS WHENEVER LAW CLASSIFIES
of their Christian brothers. Its ultimate ACCORDING TO ANY OF THE FOUR WE
purpose can be no other than to unify the CAN APPLY THE RULINGS OF THE
Filipino people with a view to a greater SUPREME COURT IN PREVIOUS CASES
Philippines. The law, then, does not seek THAT THEY ARE REASONABLE?
to mark the non-Christian tribes as "an ● The reasonableness of
inferior or less capable race." On the classification shall be taken from
contrary, all measures thus far adopted in the context of the law involved and
the promotion of the public policy the factual circumstances. The
towards them rest upon a recognition of doctrine of stare decisis does not

A.Y. 2019-2020 YOU DO NOTE(s) 28 of 33

apply in determining reasonable 2. the person challenging the act
classification. must have the standing to question
the validity of the subject act or
WHEN CAN THE RULE ON STARE issuance; otherwise stated, he
DECISIS BE APPLIED ACCORDING TO must have a personal and
JUSTICE FERNANDO IN THE CASE OF substantial interest in the case
PASEI v. DRILON? such that he has sustained, or will
● When the classification is based on sustain, direct injury as a result of
distinction that make real its enforcement;
differences such as age,sex or 3. the question of constitutionality
civilization, the better rule is to must be raised at the earliest
recognize their validity only if the opportunity; and
young, the women or the cultural 4. the issue of constitutionality must
minority are single out for a be the very lis mota of the case
favorable treatment. But if the
classification is intended to WHAT DOES ACTUAL CASE OR
discriminate them based on this CONTROVERSY MEAN?
classification the law will be ● there must be a direct injury or
considered as unconstitutional threatened injury at the very least
● does not allow or does not accept
speculations
ATTY GAB: In the case of International

School Alliance of Educators v.
IS IT REQUIRED THAT ALL THE
Quisumbing. This is a case involving
ESSENTIAL REQUISITES OF JUDICIAL
professors of the international school
REVIEW BE PRESENT IN EQUAL
which pays professors based on citizenship
PROTECTION CASES?
wherein local or Filipino professors are
● NO.Actual case or controversy may
paid lower than foreign professors
be dispensed with because one of
although they are performing the same job
the requisites of reasonable
and the same duties. The Supreme Court
classification is that it must not be
did not apply equal protection in striking
limited to existing conditions.
the regulation as discriminatory because

equal protection is available only against
the government and the international HIMAGAN v. PEOPLE
school is a private school. However, the
FACTS: Petitioner, a policeman was
Supreme Court applied a similar concept
implicated in the killing of Benjamin
under the Labor Code, i.e., equal pay for
Machitar, Jr. and the attempted murder of
equal work, which is the same as the
Bernabe Machitar. After the information
principle of equal protection. So in that
for murder and attempted murder were
regard the regulation was declared invalid.
filed, the trial court issued an Order
suspending petitioner until the
SUPPOSING THE REGULATION IN ISAE termination of the case on the basis of
v. QUISUMBING FILIPINOS ARE PAID Section 47, R.A. 6975. In response,
MORE THAN FOREIGN PROFESSORS. petitioner filed a motion to lift the order
THEY ARE PERFORMING THE SAME for his suspension, relying on Section 42
JOB BUT FILIPINOS ARE PAID MORE of P.D. 807 of the Civil Service Decree,
THAN FOREIGNERS. IS THIS VALID? that his suspension should be limited to
● YES. Filipinos are being singled out 90 days. Respondent judge denied the
for favorable treatment. But not if motion pointing out that under Section 47
it is intended to discriminate them. of R.A. 6975, the accused shall be
suspended from office until his case is
WHAT ARE THE ESSENTIAL terminated. The motion for
REQUISITES OF JUDICIAL REVIEW? reconsideration of the order of denial
1. there must be an actual case or was, likewise, denied. Hence, the petition
controversy calling for the for certiorari and mandamus to set aside
exercise of judicial power; the orders of respondent Judge and to

A.Y. 2019-2020 YOU DO NOTE(s) 29 of 33

command him to lift petitioner's of the same class; and applies to current
preventive suspension. Petitioner posits as well as future conditions, the
that as a member of the Philippine classification may not be impugned as
National Police, he is covered by the Civil violating the Constitution’s equal
Service Law, particularly Sec. 42 of PD 807 protection guarantee. A distinction based
of the Civil Service Decree, which limits on real and reasonable considerations
the maximum period of suspension to related to a proper legislative purpose
ninety (90) days. He claims that an such as that which exists here is neither
imposition of preventive suspension of unreasonable, capricious nor unfounded.
over 90 days is contrary to the Civil
Service Law and would be a violation of
QUINTO v. COMELEC
his constitutional right to equal
protection of laws. FACTS: In preparation for the 2010
elections, the Commission on Elections
HELD: The reason why members of the (COMELEC) issued Resolution No. 8678 –
PNP are treated differently from the other the Guidelines on the Filing of Certificates
classes of persons charged criminally or of Candidacy (CoC) and Nomination of
administratively insofar as the application Official Candidates of Registered Political
of the rule on preventive suspension is Parties in Connection with the May 10,
concerned is that policemen carry 2010 National and Local Elections. Sec. 4
weapons and the badge of the law which of Resolution No. 8678 provides that
can be used to harass or intimidate “Any person holding a public appointive
witnesses against them, as succinctly office or position x x x shall be considered
brought out in the legislative discussions. ipso facto resigned from his office upon
If a suspended policeman criminally the filing of his certificate of candidacy
charged with a serious offense is (automatic resignation) however it
reinstated to his post while his case is exempts those elected officials saying
pending, his victim and the witnesses that “Any person holding an elective office
against him are obviously exposed to or position shall not be considered
constant threat and thus easily cowed to resigned upon the filing of his certificate
silence by the mere fact that the accused of candidacy for the same or any other
is in uniform and armed. The imposition elective office or position.” Sec.13(par. 3)
of preventive suspension for over 90 days of Republic Act (“R.A.”) No. 9369 provides:
under Section 47 of R.A. 6975 does not “x x x any person holding a public
violate the suspended policeman’s appointive office or position x x x shall be
constitutional right to equal protection of considered ipso facto resigned from
the laws. his/her office x x x.” Sec. 66 of BP Blg. 881,
The equal protection clause exists or the Omnibus Election Code, reads: “x x
to prevent undue favor or privilege. It is x Any person holding a public appointive
intended to eliminate discrimination and office or position x x x shall be considered
oppression based on inequality. ipso facto resigned from his office upon
Recognizing the existence of real the filing of his certificate of candidacy.”
differences among men, the equal Petitioners were appointive
protection clause does not demand officers of the government who were
absolute equality. It merely requires that planning to run in the 2010 elections
all persons shall be treated alike, under sought the nullification of Sec. 4(a) on the
like circumstances and conditions both as ground, among others, that it is
to the privileges conferred and liabilities discriminatory and violates the equal
enforced. Thus, the equal protection protection clause of the Constitution. The
clause does not absolutely forbid Supreme Court ruled in their favor. This
classifications, such as the one which prompted the COMELEC to file a motion
exists in the instant case. If the for reconsideration and the
classification is based on real and movant-intervenors with their own
substantial differences; is germane to the motion for reconsideration in
purpose of the law; applies to all members intervention.

A.Y. 2019-2020 YOU DO NOTE(s) 30 of 33

HELD: Applying the four requisites to the to petitioners Almonte and Perez,
instant case, the Court finds that the requiring them to submit their
differential treatment of persons holding counter-affidavits and the affidavits of
appointive offices as opposed to those their witnesses, as well as a subpoena
holding elective ones is not germane to duces tecum to the Chief of the EIIB's
the purposes of the law. The obvious Accounting Division ordering him to bring
reason for the challenged provision is to "all documents relating to Personal
prevent the use of a governmental Services Funds for the year 1988 and all
position to promote one’s candidacy, or evidence, such as vouchers (salary) for the
even to wield a dangerous or coercive whole plantilla of EIIB for 1988."
influence on the electorate. The measure Petitioners Almonte and Perez
is further aimed at promoting the moved to quash the subpoena and the
efficiency, integrity, and discipline of the subpoena duces tecum. Respondent
public service by eliminating the danger Ombudsman granted the motion to quash
that the discharge of official duty would the subpoena in view of the fact that
be motivated by political considerations there were no affidavits filed against
rather than the welfare of the public. The petitioners. But he denied their motion to
restriction is also justified by the quash the subpoena duces tecum. He
proposition that the entry of civil servants ruled that petitioners were not being
to the electoral arena, while still in office, forced to produce evidence against
could result in neglect or inefficiency in themselves, since the subpoena duces
the performance of duty because they tecum was directed to the Chief
would be attending to their campaign Accountant, petitioner Nerio Rogado. In
rather than to their office work. addition the Ombudsman ordered the
Chief of the Records a Section of the EIIB,
petitioner Elisa Rivera, to produce before
ALMONTE v. VAZQUEZ
the investigator "all documents relating to
FACTS: Petitioner Almonte was formerly Personnel Service Funds, for the year
Commissioner of the Economic 1988, and all documents, salary vouchers
Intelligence and Investigation Bureau for the whole plantilla of the EIIB for 1988,
(EIIB), while Perez is Chief of the EIIB's within ten (10) days from receipt hereof."
Budget and Fiscal Management Division. Petitioners Almonte and Perez
The subpoena duces tecum was issued by moved for reconsideration, stating that,
the Ombudsman in connection with his the Ombudsman can act only "in any
investigation of an anonymous letter, appropriate case, and subject to such
written by an employee of the EIIB and a limitations as may be provided by law"
concerned citizen, alleging that funds and that the complaint in this case is
representing savings from unfilled unsigned and unverified, thus the case is
positions in the EIIB had been illegally not an appropriate one. According to
disbursed. There were unfilled positions them, those complainants who wrote the
because one hundred ninety (190) letter should be identified and should sign
personnel were dismissed, and allegedly, the complaint. Otherwise, their right
these 190 personnel continued to receive under the equal protection clause of the
their salaries as “ghost agents.”Petitioner Constitution will be violated. The motion
Almonte denied the allegations and asked for reconsideration, having been denied,
that the complaint be dismissed and the hence, this petition.
case was considered closed. Similarly
petitioner Perez, budget chief of the EIIB, HELD: The Constitution expressly enjoins
denied savings had been realized from the the Ombudsman to act on any complaint
implementation of E.O. No. 127 (dismissal filed "in any form or manner" concerning
of 190 personnel.) official acts or omissions. (Art. XI, § 12):
The Graft Investigation Officer of The Ombudsman and his Deputies, as
the Ombudsman's office, Jose F. Saño protectors of the people, shall act
asked for authority to conduct a promptly on complaints filed in any form
preliminary investigation. Anticipating the or manner against public officials or
grant of his request, he issued a subpoena

A.Y. 2019-2020 YOU DO NOTE(s) 31 of 33

employees of the Government, or any Nor is there a violation of
subdivision, agency, or instrumentality petitioners’ right to the equal protection
thereof, including government owned or of the laws. Petitioners complain that "in
controlled corporations and shall in all forum and tribunals . . . the aggrieved
appropriate cases, notify the parties . . . can only hale respondents via
complainants of the action taken and the their verified complaints or sworn
result thereof. statements with their identities fully
Accordingly, in Diaz v. disclosed," while in proceedings before
Sandiganbayan the Court held that the Office of the Ombudsman anonymous
testimony given at a fact-finding letters suffice to start an investigation. In
investigation and charges made in a the first place, there can be no objection
pleading in a case in court constituted a to this procedure because it is provided in
sufficient basis for the Ombudsman to the Constitution itself. In the second
commence investigation, because a place, it is apparent that in permitting the
formal complaint was really not filing of complaints "in any form or
necessary. Rather than referring to the manner," the framers of the Constitution
form of complaints, therefore, the phrase took into account the well-known
"in an appropriate case" in Art. XI, § 12 reticence of the people which keep them
means any case concerning official act or from complaining against official
omission which is alleged to be "illegal, wrongdoings. As this Court had occasion
unjust, improper, or inefficient." The to point out, the Office of the
phrase "subject to such limitations as may Ombudsman is different from the other
be provided by law" refers to such investigatory and prosecutory agencies of
limitations as may be provided by the government because those subject to
Congress or, in the absence its jurisdiction are public officials who,
thereof, to such limitations as may be through official pressure and influence,
imposed by the courts. Such limitations can quash, delay or dismiss investigations
may well include a requirement that the held against them. On the other hand
investigation be concluded in camera, complainants are more often than not
with the public excluded, as exception to poor and simple folk who cannot afford to
the general nature of the proceedings in hire lawyers.
the Office of the Ombudsman. A
reconciliation is thereby made between
ORMOC SUGAR CO. v. TREASURER OF
the demands of national security and the
ORMOC
requirement of accountability enshrined
in the Constitution. FACTS: In1964, the Municipal Board of
Ormoc City passed Ordinance No. 4
What has been said above disposes imposing "on any and all productions of
of petitioners' contention that the centrifugal sugar milled at the Ormoc
anonymous letter-complaint against them Sugar Company, Inc., in Ormoc City a
is nothing but a vexatious prosecution. It municipal tax equivalent to one per
only remains to say that the general centum (1%) per export sale to USA and
investigation in the Ombudsman' s office other foreign countries." Payments for
is precisely for the purpose of protecting said tax were made, under protest, by
those against whom a complaint is filed Ormoc Sugar Company, Inc. Ormoc Sugar
against hasty, malicious, and oppressive Company, Inc. filed before the CFI with
prosecution as much as securing the service of a copy upon the Solicitor
State from useless and expensive trials. General, a complaint against the City of
There may also be benefit resulting from Ormoc as well as its Treasurer, Municipal
such limited in camera inspection in Board and Mayor, alleging that the
terms of increased public confidence that aforestated ordinance is unconstitutional
the privilege is not being abused and for being violative of the equal protection
increased likelihood that no abuse is in clause and the rule of uniformity of
fact occurring. taxation, aside from being an export tax
forbidden under Section 2287 of the
Revised Administrative Code.The

A.Y. 2019-2020 YOU DO NOTE(s) 32 of 33

respondent asserted that the tax
ordinance was within the city's power to
enact under the Local Autonomy Act and
that the same did not violate the
afore-cited constitutional limitations.

HELD: Yes. The Constitution in the bill of
rights provides: ". . . nor shall any person
be denied the equal protection of the
laws." The equal protection clause applies
only to persons or things identically
situated and does not bar a reasonable
classification of the subject of legislation,
and a classification is reasonable where
(1) it is based on substantial distinctions
which make real differences;
(2) these are germane to the purpose of
the law;
(3) the classification applies not only to
present conditions but also to future
conditions which are substantially
identical to those of the present;
(4) the classification applies only to those
who belong to the same class.
A perusal of the requisites
instantly shows that the questioned
ordinance does not meet them, for it
taxes only centrifugal 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, for
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
City Sugar Company, Inc. as the entity to
be levied upon.

A.Y. 2019-2020 YOU DO NOTE(s) 33 of 33

Part 8. Due Process and Equal Protection HL

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Part 8. Due Process and Equal Protection HL

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Part 8. Due Process and Equal Protection HL

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sa Bed Colleg of Law

POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER

A.Y. 2019-2020 YOU DO NOTE(s) 8 of 33

You might also like