Garcia vs Drillon

only that
1. Rational Basis Scrutiny – the traditional test, which requires "

government must not impose differences in

treatment except upon some reasonable
differentiation fairly related to the object of
regulation." Simply put, it merely demands that the classification in the statute
reasonably relates to the legislative purpose.

– requires that the classification

2. Intermediate Scrutiny

(means) must serve an important governmental

objective (ends) and is substantially related to
the achievement of such objective. A classification based
on sex is the best-established example of an intermediate level of review.

3. Strict Scrutiny – requires that the classification serve a

compelling state interest and is necessary to achieve such
interest. This level is used when suspect classifications or
fundamental rights are involved.
The strict scrutiny test applies when a classification either (i) interferes with the exercise
of fundamental rights, including the basic liberties guaranteed under the Constitution,
or (ii) burdens suspect classes.
The intermediate scrutiny test applies when a classification does not involve suspect
classes or fundamental rights, but requires heightened scrutiny, such as in
classifications based on gender and legitimacy.
the rational basis test applies to all other subjects not covered by the first two tests.
Strict Scrutiny:
They are applied when a law or government action implicates fundamental rights or
involves suspect classifications.
Requires the government to demonstrate a compelling interest, narrowly tailored
means, and the absence of less restrictive alternatives.
Most rigorous standards, often lead to the invalidation of the law unless the
government's justification is extremely strong.
Intermediate Scrutiny:
We are applied when a law involves important but not fundamental rights or
classifications.
Requires the government to show an important interest, means substantially related to
that interest, and a reasonable relationship in cases of classifications.
Represents a middle ground, providing more scrutiny than rational basis but less than
strict scrutiny.
Rational Basis Scrutiny:
Applied when a law does not implicate fundamental rights or involve suspect
classifications.
Requires the government to have a legitimate interest and use means that are rationally
related to that interest.
Highly deferential to the government, with a presumption of constitutionality, and the law
is typically upheld unless there is no conceivable rational basis for it.

PBM Employees
The petitioners decided to stage a protest alleged abuses of Pasig Police power.
Respondent filed a counterclaim stating that the labor union disregards the “No strike
and no lockout.”
The defense of the petitioner stated that before they initiated the protest, they sent a
notice to the company. Also, they claimed that the company violated their constitutional
rights, especially the freedom of speech.
After both parties submitted their claim to the court, Judge Salvador, found that the
petitioner was guilty of bargaining in bad faith.
The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the said order. However, the said
motion is dismissed because it lapses already the reglementary period for filing the
motion. The petitioners claimed that it was because of negligence and honest mistake.
Without waiting for any resolution for their motion, the petitioner filed a notice of appeal
to the Supreme Court.
Doctrine: In the hierarchy of civil liberties, the rights of free expression and of assembly
occupy a preferred position as they are essential to the preservation and vitality of our
civil and political institutions, and such priority “gives these liberties the sanctity and
sanction not permitting dubious intrusion.
Ermita Malate
The petition revolves around prohibition against Ordinance No. 4760 against the
respondent Mayor of the City of Manila who sued in his capacity.
The petitioner sought the protection of their 18 members' operation hotels and motels.
Section 1 of the challenge ordinance is unconstitutional and void for being unreasonable
and violative of due process insofar as it would impose a 6,000.00 fee per annum for
first-class motels and 4,500.00 for second-class hotels. Also, in the same section, the
administration of the said hotels or motels is obliged to not entertain or accept any guest
without filling up the prescribed form in a lobby wherein the prescribed form requires full
name, address, occupation, sex, nationality, length of the stay, and numbers of
companion, etc. Their duly authorized representatives are unconstitutional and void
again on due process grounds that alleged invasion of the right to privacy and the
guarantee against self-incrimination.
The lower court issued a writ of preliminary injunction ordering the respondent Mayor to
refrain from enforcing the said ordinance.
The respondent prayed for dissolution and dismissal of the injunction however, the
respondent submitted stipulations of facts.
The judgment reversed the decision. The local legislative body has in effect given notice
that the regulations are essential to the well-being of the people. And judiciary should
not lightly set aside legislative action when there is not a clear invasion of personal or
property rights under the guise of police regulation.
The presumption is towards the validity of a law.” However, the Judiciary should not
lightly set aside legislative action when there is not a clear invasion of personal or
property rights under the guise of police regulation.
There is no question but that the challenged ordinance was precisely enacted to
minimize certain practices hurtful to public morals, particularly fornication and
prostitution. Moreover, the increase in the licensing fees was intended to discourage
“establishments of the kind from operating for a purpose other than legal” and at the
same time, to increase “the income of the city government.
Smith vs Natividad
Smith Corporation was organized and existed under the laws of Ph Island. Most of its
stockholders are British subjects. The owner of a motor vessel known as the Bato built
for it in the PH island in 1916. Bato was brought to Cebu for transporting merchandise.
When it got to the registration, the Collector of Customs for a certificate. The collector
refused to issue the certificate, giving as his reason that all the stockholders of Smith
were not citizens.
Villegas vs Pao Ho
Defense of the Petitioners
Mayor Villegas argued that Ordinance No. 6537 was an exercise of the police power of
the state, primarily a regulatory measure rather than a tax or revenue measure.
He contended that the rule of uniformity in taxation, which the petitioner claimed was
violated, applied only to purely tax or revenue measures and not to regulatory
measures.
Defense of the Respondent
Discrimination and Violation of Uniformity in Taxation:
The respondent argued that the ordinance, particularly the provision requiring a P50.00
employment permit fee from aliens, was discriminatory and violated the rule of
uniformity in taxation.
It was contended that the fee imposed an unreasonable burden on aliens and lacked a
reasonable basis for differentiation.
The respondent argued that the ordinance violated the due process and equal
protection clauses of the Constitution by requiring aliens to obtain a permit from the
Mayor before being employed.
It was contended that such a requirement amounted to a denial of the basic right to
engage in a means of livelihood.
Decision
The court held that requiring an alien to obtain a permit from the City Mayor of Manila
before being employed, with the Mayor having the discretion to withhold or refuse it at
will, amounted to a denial of the basic right of the people in the Philippines, including
aliens, to engage in a means of livelihood. The court emphasized that once an alien is
admitted into the Philippines, he cannot be deprived of life without due process of law,
and this guarantee includes the right to earn a living.
Teodoro vs Balao

James M. Balao, a UP-Baguio graduate, co-founded the Cordillera Peoples Alliance

(CPA) in 1984, advocating for indigenous peoples' rights. As head of CPA's education
committee, he organized farmers and served as President of the Oclupan Clan
Association, protecting ancestral land rights. In 1988, arrested under the Anti-
Subversion Law while with CPA, the case was dismissed for lack of evidence.
James Balao was allegedly abducted on September 17, 2008, by armed men claiming
to be policemen in La Trinidad, Benguet. Witnesses reported that he was handcuffed,
forcibly taken in a van, and later identified through missing person posters. Earlier,
James had reported surveillance on him, attributing it to the PNP Regional Office and
AFP-ISU. On the day of his disappearance, he texted his sister about going to their
ancestral residence but never arrived. Despite efforts by the Balao family, CPA, and
NGOs, James's whereabouts remained unknown. The petitioners filed for a writ of
amparo, seeking disclosure of James's location, his release, and a halt to further harm.
They also requested inspection and production orders related to his case.
Section 1 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo is clear that a violation of or threat to the
right to life, liberty and security may be caused by either an act or an omission of a
public official. In our jurisprudence on the writ of amparo, responsibility may refer to
respondents’ participation – by action or omission – in enforced disappearance, while
accountability may attach to respondents who are imputed with knowledge relating to
the enforced disappearance and who carry the burden of disclosure; or those who carry,
but have failed to discharge, the burden of extraordinary diligence in the investigation of
the enforced disappearance.
Terrace v Thompson
The ruling regarding property in this case involves the court affirming the
constitutionality of a Washington state statute that restricts the property rights of certain
aliens, specifically those who have not declared their intention to become U.S. citizens.
The key points related to the property in this case are:
State Statute Upheld: The court affirmed that the Washington state statute (c. 50,
Laws 1921) that disqualifies aliens, who have not declared their intention to
become U.S. citizens, from owning or leasing land for farming purposes is
constitutional.
Property Rights Restricted: The statute restricts the property rights of aliens
falling within the defined category by prohibiting them from owning or leasing
agricultural land in the state.
No Violation of Fourteenth Amendment: The court held that the state statute does
not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's due process or equal protection clauses.
It concluded that the state, in exercising its police powers, has the authority to
regulate property rights in the interest of public policy and safety.
Treaty with Japan Not Violated: The court determined that the state statute did not
conflict with the treaty between the United States and Japan. The treaty did not grant
the right to own or lease land for agricultural purposes, and the court found no indication
of such conflicting provisions.

Nunez vs Averia
Facts:
Petitioner filed an election protest (Election Case No. TM-470) contesting the results of
the November 8, 1971, mayoralty election in Tarnate, Cavite, citing fraud, irregularities,
and corrupt practices.
Original protestee Edgardo Morales, the proclaimed mayor-elect, was ambushed and
killed on February 15, 1974, and was succeeded by then vice-mayor Rodolfo de Leon,
who is now the incumbent mayor and party respondent.
Respondent court, in its order dated January 31, 1974, granted protestee's motion for
dismissal, asserting that the court lost jurisdiction due to the election protest becoming
moot and academic. The dismissal was based on the President's authority under
General Order No. 3 and Article XVII, section 9 of the 1973 Constitution.
Issue: The main issue is whether the respondent court's dismissal of the election protest
on the grounds of mootness and academic nature, citing the President's authority, is
valid.
Ruling: The Court sets aside the respondent court's dismissal order, relying on its recent
decision in other cases (Paredes, Sunga, and Valley), which held that such dismissal
orders were a "clear error." The Court declares that courts of first instance should
continue to exercise their jurisdiction to hear, try, and decide election protests filed
before them.
The Court emphasizes that the right of the private respondents to continue in office
does not shield unduly elected officials. The decision highlights that the term of office
continues until proven otherwise, rejecting the notion that the private respondents are
holding their offices under a new term.
The Court refers to constitutional provisions stating that existing laws, including section
220 of the Election Code of 1971, remain operative until amended or repealed. It also
cites the constitutional provision allowing all courts existing at the time of ratification to
continue exercising their jurisdiction until otherwise provided by law.

Crespo vs. PB
Facts:
Petitioner was the elected Municipal Mayor of Cabiao, Nueva Ecija, in the 1967 local
elections.
On January 25, 1971, a complaint was filed against petitioner by private respondent
Pedro T. Wycoco for harassment, abuse of authority, and oppression.
Pursuant to Section 5 of Republic Act No. 5185, petitioner filed a written explanation
with the Provincial Board of Nueva Ecija.
On February 15, 1971, without notifying petitioner or his counsel, the Provincial Board
conducted a hearing and passed Resolution No. 51, preventively suspending petitioner
from office based on evidence presented ex parte by Wycoco.
Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and injunction, seeking to annul the
suspension order and prevent further administrative proceedings.
Issue: Whether the preventively suspending petitioner from office without a hearing and
considering evidence presented ex parte violated petitioner's right to due process.
Ruling: The court agrees with the petitioner that he was denied due process by the
Provincial Board. The court cites the principle that one's employment or position, such
as being a Municipal Mayor, is considered a "property right" protected by due process.
The order of preventive suspension was issued without giving the petitioner a chance to
be heard, violating fundamental principles of due process.
The court emphasizes the importance of notice and hearing in procedural due process.
The contention of the Provincial Board, that petitioner's counsel failed to appear despite
a written request, is dismissed for lack of evidence. The court states that the order was
mainly based on evidence presented ex parte by Wycoco, and the petitioner's written
explanation was not considered.
However, the court notes that the petition has become moot and academic as there is
no evidence that petitioner was elected to any public office in the last local elections
held on January 18, 1988. The petition is dismissed, and the preliminary injunction is
lifted. No costs are imposed.
Javier vs. Comelec
In this case, Commissioner Opinion, who was formerly a law partner of one of the
parties, MP Pacificador, refused to inhibit himself from the proceedings and objected to
the transfer of the case to another division. This raised concerns about his impartiality.
The court's consistent demand for "the cold neutrality of an impartial judge" and the
importance of litigants having trust and confidence in the judge's sense of fairness. Due
process, seen as ensuring fair play and equal justice, requires judges to be above
suspicion. Commissioner Opinion's conduct is criticized for potentially compromising the
fairness of the proceeding, leading to the nullification of the decision.
RUBI VS Mindoro

Civil liberty is variously defined:

 Spencer emphasizes that everyone can claim the fullest liberty as long as it does
not infringe on the same liberty of others.
 Webster describes liberty as the creature of law, distinct from licentiousness that
trespasses on rights. It is a refined idea stemming from high civilization, existing
in proportion to wholesome restraint for protection against injury.
 Montesquieu sees liberty as the ability to pursue desired actions and not be
compelled to undertake undesired ones.
 Field, a Justice, notes that even the greatest right, liberty, is not absolute
freedom but is the absence of restraint under conditions essential to equal
enjoyment by others.
 Harlan highlights that liberty doesn't grant absolute freedom but is subject to
reasonable regulations for the safety of the general public, especially in well-
ordered societies.
 Mabini defines liberty as freedom to do right and avoid wrong, guided by reason
and an upright conscience.