You are on page 1of 40

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II but has reason as a standard.

In this case, the


CASES precise reason why the ordinance was enacted
was to curb down prostitution in the city which
WHO EXERCISES THESE GOV’T POWER is reason enough and cannot be defeated by
mere singling out of the provisions of the said
ordinance alleged to be vague.
cases:
POLICE POWER
ERMITA-MALATE HOTEL & MOTEL On the legislative organs of the government,
OPERATORS ASSOC., INC VS MAYOR OF whether national of local, primarily rest the
MANILA exercise of the police power, which, it cannot
be too often emphasized, is the power to
G.R. No. L-24693 prescribe regulations to promote the health,
morals, peace, good order, safety and general
Police Power – Due Process Clause welfare of the people. Police power is based
upon the concept of necessity of the State and
On 13 June 1963, the Manila Municipal Board its corresponding right to protect itself and its
enacted Ord 4760 and the same was approved people.43 Police power has been used as
by then acting mayor Astorga. Ord 4760 justification for numerous and varied actions
sought to regulate hotels and motels. It by the State. These range from the regulation
classified them into 1st class (taxed at 6k/yr) of dance halls,44 movie theaters,45 gas
and 2nd class (taxed at 4.5k/yr). It also stations46 and cockpits.47 The awesome
compelled hotels/motels to get the scope of police power is best demonstrated by
demographics of anyone who checks in to the fact that in its hundred or so years of
their rooms. It compelled hotels/motels to presence in our nation’s legal system, its use
have wide open spaces so as not to conceal has rarely been denied.
the identity of their patrons. Ermita-Malate
impugned the validity of the law averring that May Courts Inquire Upon the Exercise of Police
such is oppressive, arbitrary and against due Power?
process. The lower court as well as the
appellate court ruled in favor of Ermita-Malate. In view of the requirements of due process,
equal protection and other applicable
ISSUE: Whether or not Ord 4760 is against the constitutional guaranties, however, the
due process clause. exercise of such police power insofar as it may
affect the life, liberty or property of any person
HELD: The SC ruled in favor of Astorga. There is subject to judicial inquiry. Where such
is a presumption that the laws enacted by exercise of police power may be considered as
Congress (in this case Mun Board) is valid. W/o either capricious, whimsical, unjust or
a showing or a strong foundation of invalidity, unreasonable, a denial of due process or a
the presumption stays. As in this case, there violation of any other applicable constitutional
was only a stipulation of facts and such cannot guaranty may call for correction by the courts.
prevail over the presumption. Further, the
ordinance is a valid exercise of Police Power. Two types of Due Process
There is no question but that the challenged
ordinance was precisely enacted to minimize Procedural Due Process: Procedural due
certain practices hurtful to public morals. This process refers to the procedures that the
is to minimize prostitution. The increase in government must follow before it deprives a
taxes not only discourages hotels/motels in person of life, liberty, or property.49
doing any business other than legal but also Procedural due process concerns itself with
increases the revenue of the lgu concerned. government action adhering to the established
And taxation is a valid exercise of police power process when it makes an intrusion into the
as well. The due process contention is likewise private sphere. Examples range from the form
untenable, due process has no exact definition
of notice given to the level of formality of a comfort, convenience and morals of the
hearing. community, which do not ... violate any of the
provisions of the organic law."
Substantive Due Process: Substantive due "It [the police power] has for its object the
process completes the protection envisioned improvement of social and economic
by the due process clause. It inquires whether conditioned affecting the community at large
the government has sufficient justification for and collectively with a view to bring about "he
depriving a person of life, liberty, or property. greatest good of the greatest number."Courts
have consistently and wisely declined to set
CHURCHILL vs. RAFFERTY, any fixed limitations upon subjects calling for
G.R. NO. L-10572, December 21, 1915 ( 32 Phil the exercise of this power. It is elastic and is
580) exercised from time to time as varying social
conditions demand correction."
FACTS: "It may be said in a general way that the
The case arises from the fact that defendant, police power extends to all the great public
Collector of Internal Revenue, would like to needs. It may be put forth in aid of what is
destroy or remove any sign, signboard, or sanctioned by usage, or held by the prevailing
billboard, the property of the plaintiffs, for the morality or strong and preponderant opinion to
sole reason that such sign, signboard, or be greatly and immediately necessary to the
billboard is, or may be offensive to the sight. public welfare."
The plaintiffs allege otherwise. Was there valid "It is much easier to perceive and realize the
exercise of police power in this case? existence and sources of this police power
than to mark its boundaries, or to prescribe
HELD: limits to its exercise."
Yes. There can be no doubt that the exercise
of the police power of the Philippine ACEBEDO OPTICAL Co. v. CA
Government belongs to the Legislature and G.R. No. 100152, March 31, 2000
that this power is limited only by the Acts of
Congress and those fundamentals principles Police Power as exercised by LGUs, restrictions
which lie at the foundation of all republican and qualifications
forms of government. An Act of the Legislature Power of city mayor to grant/cancel/revoke
which is obviously and undoubtedly foreign to business permits
any of the purposes of the police power and Granting of business permits vs. granting of
interferes with the ordinary enjoyment of permit to practice profession
property would, without doubt, be held to be
invalid. But where the Act is reasonably within FACTS:
a proper consideration of and care for the Petitioner applied with the Office of the City
public health, safety, or comfort, it should not Mayor of Iligan for a business permit. Permit
be disturbed by the courts. was therefor issued, subject to certain
"The power vested in the legislature by the conditions like prohibition of putting up an
constitution to make, ordain, and establish all optical clinic, examining and/or prescribing
manner of wholesome and reasonable laws, reading and similar optical glasses, etc. When
statutes, and ordinances, either with penalties it was found that petitioner violated these
or without, not repugnant to the constitution, conditions, its business permit was cancelled.
as they shall judge to be for the good and
welfare of the commonwealth, and of the ISSUE:
subjects of the same." Whether or not the imposition of special
"The police power of the State, so far, has not conditions by the public respondents were acts
received a full and complete definition. It may ultra vires
be said, however, to be the right of the State,
or state functionary, to prescribe regulations RULING:
for the good order, peace, health, protection,
Police Power exercised by LGUs issuance of a license to engage in the practice
of a particular profession. The first is usually
Police power as an inherent attribute of granted by the local authorities and the
sovereignty is the power to prescribe second is issued by the Board or Commission
regulations to promote the health, morals, tasked to regulate the particular profession. A
peace, education, good order or safety and business permit authorizes the person, natural
general welfare of the people. The State, or otherwise, to engage in business or some
through the legislature, has delegated the form of commercial activity. A professional
exercise of police power to local government license, on the other hand, is the grant of
units, as agencies of the State, in order to authority to a natural person to engage in the
effectively accomplish and carry out the practice or exercise of his or her profession.
declared objects of their creation. This
delegation of police power is embodied in the In the case at bar, what is sought by petitioner
general welfare clause of the Local from respondent City Mayor is a permit to
Government Code xxx engage in the business of running an optical
shop. It does not purport to seek a license to
The scope of police power has been held to be engage in the practice of optometry as a
so comprehensive as to encompass almost all corporate body or entity, although it does
matters affecting the health, safety, peace, have in its employ, persons who are duly
order, morals, comfort and convenience of the licensed to practice optometry by the Board of
community. Police power is essentially Examiners in Optometry.
regulatory in nature and the power to issue
licenses or grant business permits, if exercised MMDA VS BEL AIR VILLAGE ASSOCIATION
for a regulatory and not revenue-raising Date: March 27, 2000
purpose, is within the ambit of this power. Petitioner: Metropolitan Manila Development
Authority
Power of city mayor to grant business permits Respondent: Bel Air Village Association Inc

The authority of city mayors to issue or grant FACTS:


licenses and business permits is beyond cavil. MMDA is a government agency tasked with the
It is provided for by law. delivery of basic services in Metro Manila. Bel-
Air Village Association, Inc. is a non-stock, non-
However, the power to grant or issue licenses profit corporation whose members are
or business permits must always be exercised homeowners in Bel-Air Village, a private
in accordance with law, with utmost subdivision in Makati City. BAVA is the
observance of the rights of all concerned to registered owner of Neptune Street, a road
due process and equal protection of the law. inside Bel-Air Village.
On December 30, 1995, respondent received
But can city mayor cancel business permits or from petitioner, through its Chairman, a notice
impose special conditions? As aptly discussed dated December 22, 1995 requesting
by the Solicitor General in his Comment, the respondent to open Neptune Street to public
power to issue licenses and permits vehicular traffic starting January 2, 1996. BAVA
necessarily includes the corollary power to was apprised that the perimeter wall
revoke, withdraw or cancel the same. And the separating the subdivision from the adjacent
power to revoke or cancel, likewise includes Kalayaan Avenue would be demolished.
the power to restrict through the imposition of On January 2, 1996, BAVA instituted against
certain conditions. petitioner before the RTC a civil case for
injunction. Respondent prayed for the issuance
Did the conditions or restrictions imposed of a TRO and preliminary injunction enjoining
amount to a confiscation of the business? the opening of Neptune Street and prohibiting
the demolition of the perimeter wall. The trial
Distinction must be made between the grant court issued a temporary restraining order the
of a license or permit to do business and the
following day. After due hearing, the trial court powers as are conferred on them by the
denied the issuance of preliminary injunction. national lawmaking body.
On appeal, the CA rendered a Decision on the Metropolitan or Metro Manila is a
merits of the case finding that the MMDA has body composed of several local
no authority to order the opening of Neptune government units - i.e., twelve (12) cities
Street, a private subdivision road and cause and five (5) municipalities, namely, the cities
the demolition of its perimeter walls. It held of Caloocan, Manila, Mandaluyong, Makati,
that the authority is lodged in the City Council Pasay, Pasig, Quezon, Muntinlupa, Las Pinas,
of Makati by ordinance. Marikina, Paranaque and Valenzuela, and the
municipalities of Malabon, , Navotas, , Pateros,
ISSUE: WON the MMDA has authority to San Juan and Taguig. With the passage of
open Neptune Road to the public RA 7924 in 1995, Metropolitan Manila
was declared as a "special development
HELD: No and administrative region" and the
Ratio: MMDA claims that it has the authority to Administration of "metro-wide" basic
open Neptune Street to public traffic because services affecting the region placed
it is an agent of the state endowed with police under "a development authority" referred
power in the delivery of basic services in Metro to as the MMDA.
Manila. One of these basic services is traffic The implementation of the MMDA’s
management which involves the regulation of plans, programs and projects is undertaken by
the use of thoroughfares to insure the safety, the local government units, national
convenience and welfare of the general public. government agencies, accredited people’s
It is alleged that the police power of MMDA organizations, non-governmental
was affirmed by this Court in the consolidated organizations, and the private sector as well as
cases of Sangalang v. IAC. From the premise by the MMDA itself. For this purpose, the
that it has police power, it is now urged that MMDA has the power to enter into contracts,
there is no need for the City of Makati to enact memoranda of agreement and other
an ordinance opening Neptune street to the cooperative arrangements with these bodies
public. for the delivery of the required services within
Police power is an inherent attribute of Metro Manila.
sovereignty. It has been defined as the power Clearly, the scope of the MMDA’s
vested by the Constitution in the legislature to function is limited to the delivery of the seven
make, ordain, and establish all manner of (7) basic services. One of these is transport
wholesome and reasonable laws, statutes and and traffic management which includes the
ordinances, either with penalties or without, formulation and monitoring of policies,
not repugnant to the Constitution, as they standards and projects to rationalize the
shall judge to be for the good and welfare of existing transport operations, infrastructure
the commonwealth, and for the subjects of the requirements, the use of thoroughfares and
same. The power is plenary and its scope is promotion of the safe movement of persons
vast and pervasive, reaching and justifying and goods. It also covers the mass transport
measures for public health, public safety, system and the institution of a system of road
public morals, and the general welfare. regulation, the administration of all traffic
It bears stressing that police power is enforcement operations, traffic engineering
lodged primarily in the National Legislature. It services and traffic education programs,
cannot be exercised by any group or body of including the institution of a single ticketing
individuals not possessing legislative power. system in Metro Manila for traffic violations.
The National Legislature, however, may Under this service, the MMDA is expressly
delegate this power to the President and authorized "to set the policies concerning
administrative boards as well as the traffic" and "coordinate and regulate the
lawmaking bodies of municipal corporations or implementation of all traffic management
local government units. Once delegated, the programs." In addition, the MMDA may "install
agents can exercise only such legislative and administer a single ticketing system," fix,
impose and collect fines and penalties for all simply relied on its authority under its charter
traffic violations. "to rationalize the use of roads and/or
It will be noted that the powers of the thoroughfares for the safe and convenient
MMDA are limited to the following acts: movement of persons." Rationalizing the use
formulation, coordination, regulation, of roads and thoroughfares is one of the acts
implementation, preparation, management, that fall within the scope of transport and
monitoring, setting of policies, installation of a traffic management. By no stretch of the
system and administration. There is no imagination, however, can this be interpreted
syllable in R. A. No. 7924 that grants the as an express or implied grant of ordinance-
MMDA police power, let alone legislative making power, much less police power.
power. Even the Metro Manila Council has not Misjuris
been delegated any legislative power. Unlike Secondly, the MMDA is not the
the legislative bodies of the local government same entity as the MMC in Sangalang.
units, there is no provision in R. A. No. 7924 Although the MMC is the forerunner of
that empowers the MMDA or its Council to the present MMDA, an examination of
"enact ordinances, approve resolutions and Presidential Decree (P. D.) No. 824, the
appropriate funds for the general welfare" of charter of the MMC, shows that the latter
the inhabitants of Metro Manila. The MMDA is, possessed greater powers which were
as termed in the charter itself, a "development not bestowed on the present MMDA. Jjlex
authority." It is an agency created for the In 1990, President Aquino issued
purpose of laying down policies and Executive Order (E. O.) No. 392 and
coordinating with the various national constituted the Metropolitan Manila
government agencies, people’s organizations, Authority (MMA). The powers and
non-governmental organizations and the functions of the MMC were devolved to
private sector for the efficient and expeditious the MMA. It ought to be stressed,
delivery of basic services in the vast however, that not all powers and
metropolitan area. All its functions are functions of the MMC were passed to the
administrative in nature and these are MMA. The MMA’s power was limited to
actually summed up in the charter itself the "delivery of basic urban services
Petitioner cannot seek refuge in the requiring coordination in Metropolitan
cases of Sangalang v. Intermediate Appellate Manila." The MMA’s governing body, the
Court where we upheld a zoning ordinance Metropolitan Manila Council, although
issued by the Metro Manila Commission composed of the mayors of the
(MMC), the predecessor of the MMDA, as an component cities and municipalities, was
exercise of police power. The first Sangalang merely given the power of: (1)
decision was on the merits of the petition, formulation of policies on the delivery of
while the second decision denied basic services requiring coordination and
reconsideration of the first case and in consolidation; and (2) promulgation of
addition discussed the case of Yabut v. Court resolutions and other issuances, approval
of Appeals. of a code of basic services and the
Contrary to petitioner’s claim, the exercise of its rule-making power.
two Sangalang cases do not apply to the Under the 1987 Constitution, the
case at bar. Firstly, both involved zoning local government units became primarily
ordinances passed by the municipal council of responsible for the governance of their
Makati and the MMC. In the instant case, the respective political subdivisions. The MMA’s
basis for the proposed opening of Neptune jurisdiction was limited to addressing
Street is contained in the notice of December common problems involving basic services
22, 1995 sent by petitioner to respondent that transcended local boundaries. It did not
BAVA, through its president. The notice does have legislative power. Its power was
not cite any ordinance or law, either by the merely to provide the local government units
Sangguniang Panlungsod of Makati City or by technical assistance in the preparation of local
the MMDA, as the legal basis for the proposed development plans. Any semblance of
opening of Neptune Street. Petitioner MMDA legislative power it had was confined to a
"review [of] legislation proposed by the local We stress that this decision does not
legislative assemblies to ensure consistency make light of the MMDA’s noble efforts to
among local governments and with the solve the chaotic traffic condition in Metro
comprehensive development plan of Metro Manila. Everyday, traffic jams and traffic
Manila," and to "advise the local governments bottlenecks plague the metropolis. Even our
accordingly." once sprawling boulevards and avenues are
When R.A. No. 7924 took effect, now crammed with cars while city streets are
Metropolitan Manila became a "special clogged with motorists and pedestrians. Traffic
development and administrative region" has become a social malaise affecting our
and the MMDA a "special development people’s productivity and the efficient delivery
authority" whose functions were "without of goods and services in the country. The
prejudice to the autonomy of the affected MMDA was created to put some order in the
local government units." The character of metropolitan transportation system but
the MMDA was clearly defined in the unfortunately the powers granted by its
legislative debates enacting its charter. charter are limited. Its good intentions cannot
It is thus beyond doubt that the justify the opening for public use of a private
MMDA is not a local government unit or a street in a private subdivision without any
public corporation endowed with legal warrant. The promotion of the general
legislative power. It is not even a "special welfare is not antithetical to the preservation
metropolitan political subdivision" as of the rule of law.
contemplated in Section 11, Article X of the
Constitution. The creation of a "special ART. 3 Sec. 1 SCOPE OF PROTECTED LIFE,
metropolitan political subdivision" requires the LIBERTY AND PROPERTY
approval by a majority of the votes cast in a
plebiscite in the political units directly cases:
affected. R. A. No. 7924 was not submitted to
the inhabitants of Metro Manila in a plebiscite. DUNCAN ASSOC. OF DETAILMAN-PTGWO
The Chairman of the MMDA is not an official VS. GLAXO WELLCOME PHILS., INC.
elected by the people, but appointed by the 438 SCRA 343
President with the rank and privileges of a
cabinet member. In fact, part of his function is FACTS:
to perform such other duties as may be
assigned to him by the President, whereas in Tecson was hired by Glaxo as a medical
local government units, the President merely representative on Oct. 24, 1995. Contract of
exercises supervisory authority. This employment signed by Tecson stipulates,
emphasizes the administrative character of among others, that he agrees to study and
the MMDA. abide by the existing company rules; to
Clearly then, the MMC under P. D. disclose to management any existing future
No. 824 is not the same entity as the relationship by consanguinity or affinity with
MMDA under R. A. No. 7924. Unlike the co-employees or employees with competing
MMC, the MMDA has no power to enact drug companies and should management find
ordinances for the welfare of the that such relationship poses a prossible
community. It is the local government units, conflict of interest, to resign from the
acting through their respective legislative company. Company's Code of Employee
councils, that possess legislative power and Conduct provides the same with stipulation
police power. In the case at bar, the that management may transfer the employee
Sangguniang Panlungsod of Makati City did to another department in a non-
not pass any ordinance or resolution ordering counterchecking position or preparation for
the opening of Neptune Street, hence, its employment outside of the company after 6
proposed opening by petitioner MMDA is illegal months.
and the respondent Court of Appeals did not
err in so ruling. We desist from ruling on the Tecson was initially assigned to market
other issues as they are unnecessary. Esmso Glaxo's products in the Camarines Sur-
Camarines Norte area and entered into a The company actually enforced the policy after
romantic relationship with Betsy, an employee repeated requests to the employee to comply
of Astra, Glaxo's competition. Before getting with the policy. Indeed the application of the
married, Tecson's District Manager reminded policy was made in an impartial and even-
him several times of the conflict of interest but handed manner, with due regard for the lot of
marriage took place in Sept. 1998. In Jan. the employee.
1999, Tecson's superiors informed him of
conflict of intrest. Tecson asked for time to On Constructive Dismissal
comply with the condition (that either he or
Betsy resign from their respective positions). Constructive dismissal is defined as a quitting,
Unable to comply with condition, Glaxo an involuntary resignation resorted to when
transferred Tecson to the Butuan-Surigao City- continued employment becomes impossible,
Agusan del Sur sales area. After his request unreasonable or unlikely; when there is
against transfer was denied, Tecson brought demotion in rank, or diminution in pay; or
the matter to Glaxo's Grievance Committee when a clear discrimination, insensibility, or
and while pending, he continued to act as disdain by an employer becomes unbearable
medical representative in the Camarines Sur- to the employee. None of these conditions are
Camarines Norte sales area. On Nov. 15, 2000, present in the instant case.
the National Conciliation and Mediation Board
ruled that Glaxo's policy was valid... HELD:
The challenged policy has been implemented
ISSUE: by Glaxo impartially and disinterestedly for a
Whether or not the policy of a pharmaceutical long period of time. In the case at bar, the
company prohibiting its employees from record shows that Glaxo gave Tecson several
marrying employees of any competitor chances to eliminate the conflict of interest
company is valid brought about by his relationship with Betsy,
but he never availed of any of them.
RULING:
On Equal Protection "WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack
of merit."
Glaxo has a right to guard its trade secrets,
manufacturing formulas, marketing strategies, TWO KINDS OF DUE PROCESS
and other confidential programs and
information from competitors. The prohibition cases:
against pesonal or marital relationships with
employees of competitor companies upon BANCO ESPANOL FILIPINO v. PALANCA
Glaxo's employees is reasonable under the G.R. No. L-11390, March 26, 1918
circumstances because relationships of that
nature might compromise the interests of the JURISDICTION, HOW ACQUIRED: Jurisdiction
company. That Glaxo possesses the right to over the property which is the subject of the
protect its economic interest cannot be litigation may result either from a seizure of
denied. the property under legal process, whereby it is
brought into the actual custody of the law, or it
It is the settled principle that the commands of may result from the institution of legal
the equal protection clause are addressed only proceedings wherein, under special provisions
to the state or those acting under color of its of law, the power of the court over the
authority. Corollarily, it has been held in a long property is recognized and made effective.
array of US Supreme Court decisions that the The action to foreclose a mortgage is said to
equal protection clause erects to shield be a proceeding quasi in rem, by which is
against merely privately conduct, however, expressed the idea that while it is not strictly
discriminatory or wrongful. speaking an action in rem yet it partakes of
that nature and is substantially such.
DUE PROCESS IN FORECLOSURE The word “jurisdiction” is used in several
PROCEEDINGS: Property is always assumed to different, though related, senses since it may
be in the possession of its owner, in person or have reference (1) to the authority of the court
by agent; and he may be safely held, under to entertain a particular kind of action or to
certain conditions, to be affected with administer a particular kind of relief, or it may
knowledge that proceedings have been refer to the power of the court over the
instituted for its condemnation and sale. parties, or (2) over the property which is the
FACTS: subject to the litigation.
Engracio Palanca Tanquinyeng y Limquingco
mortgaged various parcels of real property in The sovereign authority which organizes a
Manila to El Banco Espanol-Filipino. court determines the nature and extent of its
Afterwards, Engracio returned to China and powers in general and thus fixes its
there he died on January 29, 1810 without competency or jurisdiction with reference to
returning again to the Philippines. The the actions which it may entertain and the
mortgagor then instituted foreclosure relief it may grant.
proceeding but since defendant is a non-
resident, it was necessary to give notice by How Jurisdiction is Acquired
publication. The Clerk of Court was also
directed to send copy of the summons to the Jurisdiction over the person is acquired by the
defendant’s last known address, which is in voluntary appearance of a party in court and
Amoy, China. It is not shown whether the Clerk his submission to its authority, or it is acquired
complied with this requirement. Nevertheless, by the coercive power of legal process exerted
after publication in a newspaper of the City of over the person.
Manila, the cause proceeded and judgment by
default was rendered. The decision was Jurisdiction over the property which is the
likewise published and afterwards sale by subject of the litigation may result either from
public auction was held with the bank as the a seizure of the property under legal process,
highest bidder. On August 7, 1908, this sale whereby it is brought into the actual custody
was confirmed by the court. However, about of the law, or it may result from the institution
seven years after the confirmation of this sale, of legal proceedings wherein, under special
a motion was made by Vicente Palanca, as provisions of law, the power of the court over
administrator of the estate of the original the property is recognized and made effective.
defendant, wherein the applicant requested In the latter case the property, though at all
the court to set aside the order of default and times within the potential power of the court,
the judgment, and to vacate all the may never be taken into actual custody at all.
proceedings subsequent thereto. The basis of An illustration of the jurisdiction acquired by
this application was that the order of default actual seizure is found in attachment
and the judgment rendered thereon were void proceedings, where the property is seized at
because the court had never acquired the beginning of the action, or some
jurisdiction over the defendant or over the subsequent stage of its progress, and held to
subject of the action. abide the final event of the litigation. An
illustration of what we term potential
ISSUE: jurisdiction over the res, is found in the
Whether or not the lower court acquired proceeding to register the title of land under
jurisdiction over the defendant and the subject our system for the registration of land. Here
matter of the action the court, without taking actual physical
Whether or not due process of law was control over the property assumes, at the
observed instance of some person claiming to be owner,
to exercise a jurisdiction in rem over the
RULING: property and to adjudicate the title in favor of
On Jurisdiction the petitioner against all the world.
In the terminology of American law the action Passing at once to the requisite that the
to foreclose a mortgage is said to be a defendant shall have an opportunity to be
proceeding quasi in rem, by which is heard, we observe that in a foreclosure case
expressed the idea that while it is not strictly some notification of the proceedings to the
speaking an action in rem yet it partakes of nonresident owner, prescribing the time within
that nature and is substantially such. The which appearance must be made, is
expression "action in rem" is, in its narrow everywhere recognized as essential. To
application, used only with reference to certain answer this necessity the statutes generally
proceedings in courts of admiralty wherein the provide for publication, and usually in addition
property alone is treated as responsible for the thereto, for the mailing of notice to the
claim or obligation upon which the defendant, if his residence is known. Though
proceedings are based. The action quasi rem commonly called constructive, or substituted
differs from the true action in rem in the service of process in any true sense. It is
circumstance that in the former an individual merely a means provided by law whereby the
is named as defendant, and the purpose of the owner may be admonished that his property is
proceeding is to subject his interest therein to the subject of judicial proceedings and that it
the obligation or lien burdening the property. is incumbent upon him to take such steps as
All proceedings having for their sole object the he sees fit to protect it.
sale or other disposition of the property of the
defendant, whether by attachment, It will be observed that this mode of
foreclosure, or other form of remedy, are in a notification does not involve any absolute
general way thus designated. The judgment assurance that the absent owner shall thereby
entered in these proceedings is conclusive receive actual notice. The periodical
only between the parties. containing the publication may never in fact
xxx come to his hands, and the chances that he
should discover the notice may often be very
It is true that in proceedings of this character, slight. Even where notice is sent by mail the
if the defendant for whom publication is made probability of his receiving it, though much
appears, the action becomes as to him a increased, is dependent upon the correctness
personal action and is conducted as such. This, of the address to which it is forwarded as well
however, does not affect the proposition that as upon the regularity and security of the mail
where the defendant fails to appear the action service. It will be noted, furthermore, that the
is quasi in rem; and it should therefore be provision of our law relative to the mailing of
considered with reference to the principles notice does not absolutely require the mailing
governing actions in rem. of notice unconditionally and in every event,
but only in the case where the defendant's
On Due Process residence is known. In the light of all these
facts, it is evident that actual notice to the
xxx As applied to a judicial proceeding, defendant in cases of this kind is not, under
however, it may be laid down with certainty the law, to be considered absolutely
that the requirement of due process is necessary.
satisfied if the following conditions are
present, namely; (1) There must be a court or The idea upon which the law proceeds in
tribunal clothed with judicial power to hear recognizing the efficacy of a means of
and determine the matter before it; (2) notification which may fall short of actual
jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the notice is apparently this: Property is always
person of the defendant or over the property assumed to be in the possession of its owner,
which is the subject of the proceeding; (3) the in person or by agent; and he may be safely
defendant must be given an opportunity to be held, under certain conditions, to be affected
heard; and (4) judgment must be rendered with knowledge that proceedings have been
upon lawful hearing. instituted for its condemnation and sale.
Did the failure of the clerk to send notice to Due Process
defendant’s last known address constitute
denial of due process? Mark Jimenez was charged of multiple crimes
ranging from tax evasion to wire tapping to
The observations which have just been made conspiracy to defraud the USA. Jimenez was
lead to the conclusion that the failure of the then wanted in the US. The US government,
clerk to mail the notice, if in fact he did so fail pursuant to the RP-US extradition treaty
in his duty, is not such an irregularity, as requested to have Jimenez be extradited
amounts to a denial of due process of law; and there. Jimenez requested for a copy of the
hence in our opinion that irregularity, if complaint against him as well as the
proved, would not avoid the judgment in this extradition request by the USA. The DOJ sec
case. Notice was given by publication in a refused to provide him copy thereof advising
newspaper and this is the only form of notice that it is still premature to give him so and
which the law unconditionally requires. This in that it is not a preliminary investigation hence
our opinion is all that was absolutely he is not entitled to receive such copies.
necessary to sustain the proceedings. Jimenez sued the DOJ Sec and the lower court
ruled in favor of Jimenez.
It will be observed that in considering the ISSUE: Whether or not Jimenez is deprived of
effect of this irregularity, it makes a difference due process.
whether it be viewed as a question involving
jurisdiction or as a question involving due HELD: The SC affirmed the ruling of the lower
process of law. In the matter of jurisdiction court. The case against Jimenez refer to an
there can be no distinction between the much impending threat of deprivation of one’s
and the little. The court either has jurisdiction property or property right. No less is this true,
or it has not; and if the requirement as to the but even more so in the case before us,
mailing of notice should be considered as a involving as it does the possible deprivation of
step antecedent to the acquiring of liberty, which, based on the hierarchy of
jurisdiction, there could be no escape from the constitutionally protected rights, is placed
conclusion that the failure to take that step second only to life itself and enjoys
was fatal to the validity of the judgment. In the precedence over property, for while forfeited
application of the idea of due process of law, property can be returned or replaced, the time
on the other hand, it is clearly unnecessary to spent in incarceration is irretrievable and
be so rigorous. The jurisdiction being once beyond recompense.
established, all that due process of law
thereafter requires is an opportunity for the SECRETARY OF JUSTICE v. LANTION
defendant to be heard; and as publication was 322 SCRA 160 (2000)
duly made in the newspaper, it would seem
highly unreasonable to hold that failure to mail Nature: Petition for review of a decision of the
the notice was fatal. We think that in applying Manila RTC
the requirement of due process of law, it is
permissible to reflect upon the purposes of the FACTS:
provision which is supposed to have been On June 18, 1999 the Department of Justice
violated and the principle underlying the received from the Department of Foreign
exercise of judicial power in these Affairs a request for the extradition of private
proceedings. Judge in the light of these respondent Mark Jimenez to the U.S. The
conceptions, we think that the provision of Act Grand Jury Indictment, the warrant for his
of Congress declaring that no person shall be arrest, and other supporting documents for
deprived of his property without due process said extradition were attached along with the
of law has not been infringed. request. Charges include:
1. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud
SEC OF JUSTICE VS JUDGE RALPH the US
LANTION 2. Attempt to evade or defeat tax
3. Fraud by wire, radio, or television directed against him or the execution of a
4. False statement or entries penalty imposed on him under the penal or
5. Election contribution in name of another criminal law of the requesting state or
government.” Although the inquisitorial power
The Department of Justice (DOJ), through a exercised by the DOJ as an administrative
designated panel proceeded with the technical agency due to the failure of the DFA to comply
evaluation and assessment of the extradition lacks any judicial discretion, it primarily sets
treaty which they found having matters the wheels for the extradition process which
needed to be addressed. Respondent, then may ultimately result in the deprivation of the
requested for copies of all the documents liberty of the prospective extradite. This
included in the extradition request and for him deprivation can be effected at two stages: The
to be given ample time to assess it. provisional arrest of the prospective extradite
pending the submission of the request & the
The Secretary of Justice denied request on the temporary arrest of the prospective extradite
ff. grounds: during the pendency of the extradition petition
1. He found it premature to secure him copies in court. Clearly, there’s an impending threat
prior to the completion of the evaluation. At to a prospective extraditee’s liberty as early as
that point in time, the DOJ is in the process of during the evaluation stage. Because of such
evaluating whether the procedures and consequences, the evaluation process is akin
requirements under the relevant law (PD 1069 to an administrative agency conducting an
—Philippine Extradition Law) and treaty (RP-US investigative proceeding, the consequences of
Extradition Treaty) have been complied with which are essentially criminal since such
by the Requesting Government. Evaluation by technical assessment sets off or commences
the DOJ of the documents is not a preliminary the procedure for & ultimately the deprivation
investigation like in criminal cases making the of liberty of a prospective extradite. In
constitutionally guaranteed rights of the essence, therefore, the evaluation process
accused in criminal prosecution inapplicable. partakes of the nature of a criminal
2. The U.S. requested for the prevention of investigation. There are certain constitutional
unauthorized disclosure of the information in rights that are ordinarily available only in
the documents. criminal prosecution. But the Court has ruled
3. Finally, country is bound to Vienna in other cases that where the investigation of
convention on law of treaties such that every an administrative proceeding may result in
treaty in force is binding upon the parties. forfeiture of life, liberty, or property, the
administrative proceedings are deemed
The respondent filed for petition of mandamus, criminal or penal, & such forfeiture partakes
certiorari, and prohibition. The RTC of NCR the nature of a penalty. In the case at bar,
ruled in favor of the respondent. Secretary of similar to a preliminary investigation, the
Justice was made to issue a copy of the evaluation stage of the extradition
requested papers, as well as conducting proceedings which may result in the filing of
further proceedings. an information against the respondent, can
possibly lead to his arrest, & to the deprivation
ISSUES: of his liberty. Thus, the extraditee must be
1. WON private is respondent entitled to the accorded due process rights of notice &
two basic due process rights of notice and hearing according to A3 §14(1) & (2), as well
hearing as A3 §7—the right of the people to
Yes. §2(a) of PD 1086 defines extradition as information on matters of public concern & the
“the removal of an accused from the corollary right to access to official records &
Philippines with the object of placing him at documents
the disposal of foreign authorities to enable
the requesting state or government to hold The court held that the evaluation process
him in connection with any criminal partakes of the nature of a criminal
investigation directed against him in investigation, having consequences which will
connection with any criminal investigation result in deprivation of liberty of the
prospective extradite. A favorable action in an No. Doctrine of incorporation under
extradition request exposes a person to international law, as applied in most countries,
eventual extradition to a foreign country, thus decrees that rules of international law are
exhibiting the penal aspect of the process. The given equal standing with, but are not superior
evaluation process itself is like a preliminary to national legislative acts. Treaty can repeal
investigation since both procedures may have statute and statute can repeal treaty. No
the same result – the arrest and imprisonment conflict. Veil of secrecy is lifted during trial.
of the respondent. Request should impose veil at any stage.

The basic rights of notice & hearing are Judgment: Petition dismissed for lack of merit.
applicable in criminal, civil & administrative
proceedings. Non-observance of these rights Kapunan, separate concurring opinion: While
will invalidate the proceedings. Individuals are the evaluation process conducted by the DOJ
entitled to be notified of any pending case is not exactly a preliminary investigation of
affecting their interests, & upon notice, may criminal cases, it is akin to a preliminary
claim the right to appear therein & present investigation because it involves the basic
their side. constitutional rights of the person sought to be
extradited. A person ordered extradited is
Rights to notice and hearing: Dispensable in 3 arrested, forcibly taken from his house,
cases: separated from his family and delivered to a
a. When there is an urgent need for immediate foreign state. His rights of abode, to privacy,
action (preventive suspension in liberty and pursuit of happiness are taken
administrative charges, padlocking filthy away from him—a fate as harsh and cruel as a
restaurants, cancellation of passport). conviction of a criminal offense. For this
b. Where there is tentativeness of reason, he is entitled to have access to the
administrative action, & the respondent isn’t evidence against him and the right to
prevented from enjoying the right to notice & controvert them.
hearing at a later time (summary distraint &
levy of the property of a delinquent taxpayer, Puno, dissenting: Case at bar does not involve
replacement of an appointee) guilt or innocence of an accused but the
c. Twin rights have been offered, but the right interpretation of an extradition treaty where at
to exercise them had not been claimed. stake is our government’s international
obligation to surrender to a foreign state a
2. WON this entitlement constitutes a breach citizen of its own so he can be tried for an
of the legal commitments and obligation of the alleged offense committed within that
Philippine Government under the RP-US jurisdiction.
Treaty?
No. The U.S. and the Philippines share mutual administrative due process:
concern about the suppression and
punishment of crime in their respective cases:
jurisdictions. Both states accord common due
process protection to their respective citizens.
SERRANO VS NLRC / ISETANN
The administrative investigation doesn’t fall
FACTS:
under the three exceptions to the due process
Serrano was a regular employee of Isetann
of notice and hearing in the Sec. 3 Rules 112
Department Store as the head of Security
of the Rules of Court.
Checker. In 1991, as a cost-cutting measure,
Isetann phased out its entire security section
3. WON there’s any conflict between private
and engaged the services of an independent
respondent’s basic due process rights &
security agency. Petitioner filed a complaint
provisions of RP-US Extradition treaty
for illegal dismissal among others. Labor
arbiter ruled in his favor as Isetann failed to
RULING: establish that it had retrenched its security
section to prevent or minimize losses to its Toribio caused the lay off of members of
business; that private respondent failed to National Labor Union Inc. NLU averred that
accord due process to petitioner; that private Toribio’s act is not valid as it is not within the
respondent failed to use reasonable standards CBA. That there are two labor unions in Ang
in selecting employees whose employment Tibay; NLU and National Worker’s
would be terminated. NLRC reversed the Brotherhood. That NWB is dominated by
decision and ordered petitioner to be given Toribio hence he favors it over NLU. That NLU
separation pay. wishes for a new trial as they were able to
come up with new evidence/documents that
ISSUE: they were not able to obtain before as they
Whether or not the hiring of an independent were inaccessible and they were not able to
security agency by the private respondent to present it before in the CIR.
replace its current security section a valid
ground for the dismissal of the employees ISSUE: Whether or not there has been a due
classed under the latter. process of law.

RULING: HELD: The SC ruled that there should be a


An employer’s good faith in implementing a new trial in favor of NLU. The SC ruled that all
redundancy program is not necessarily put in administrative bodies cannot ignore or
doubt by the availment of the services of an disregard the fundamental and essential
independent contractor to replace the services requirements of due process. They are;
of the terminated employees to promote
economy and efficiency. Absent proof that (1) The right to a hearing which includes the
management acted in a malicious or arbitrary right of the party interested or affected to
manner, the Court will not interfere with the present his own case and submit evidence in
exercise of judgment by an employer. support thereof.
If termination of employment is not for any of
the cause provided by law, it is illegal and the (2) Not only must the party be given an
employee should be reinstated and paid opportunity to present his case and to adduce
backwages. To contend that even if the evidence tending to establish the rights which
termination is for a just cause, the employee he asserts but the tribunal must consider the
concerned should be reinstated and paid evidence presented.
backwages would be to amend Art 279 by
adding another ground for considering (3) While the duty to deliberate does not
dismissal illegal. impose the obligation to decide right, it does
If it is shown that the employee was dismissed imply a necessity which cannot be
for any of the causes mentioned in Art 282, disregarded, namely, that of having something
the in accordance with that article, he should to support its decision. A decision with
not be reinstated but must be paid backwages absolutely nothing to support it is a nullity, a
from the time his employment was terminated place when directly attached.
until it is determined that the termination of
employment is for a just cause because the (4) Not only must there be some evidence
failure to hear him before he is dismissed to support a finding or conclusion but the
renders the termination without legal effect. evidence must be “substantial.” Substantial
evidence is more than a mere scintilla It
ANG TIBAY VS COURT OF INDUSTRIAL means such relevant evidence as a reasonable
RELATIONS mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.
Due Process – Admin Bodies – CIR
(5) The decision must be rendered on the
TeodoroToribio owns and operates Ang Tibay a evidence presented at the hearing, or at least
leather company which supplies the Philippine contained in the record and disclosed to the
Army. Due to alleged shortage of leather, parties affected.
2. Whether or not the act conformed to the
(6) The Court of Industrial Relations or any printed form and 3 day requirement.
of its judges, therefore, must act on its or his 3. Whether or not the act of apportionment is
own independent consideration of the law and within the 3 year requirement.
facts of the controversy, and not simply accept 4. Whether or not the apportionment of
the views of a subordinate in arriving at a members of the HOR is valid.
decision.
HELD: The petitioners as voters and as
(7) The Court of Industrial Relations should, congressmen and governor of the aggrieved
in all controversial questions, render its provinces have the personality to sue. The
decision in such a manner that the parties to passage of the act did not conform to the
the proceeding can know the vario issues printed-form and the 3 day requirement, and
involved, and the reasons for the decisions that there is no certificate of urgency from the
rendered. The performance of this duty is President was received by the HO. The
inseparable from the authority conferred upon requirement that the apportionment must be
it. done within 3 year following the last census is
complied with. The apportionment of members
MACIAS V. COMELEC of the HOR is not valid because it is not based
on the number of inhabitants a province has.
FACTS: Some provinces were given more
Petitioners are four members of the House of representation despite the inferior in number
Representatives from Negros Oriental, Misamis of inhabitants. The Court held that RA 3040
Oriental and Bulacan, and the provincial infringed the provisions of the Constitution and
Governor of Negros Oriental. They are is therefore void.
requesting that the respondent officials be
prevented to implement RA 3040, an act that SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS
apportions representative districts in the
country. They alleged that their respective cases:
provinces were discriminated because they
UNITED STATES VS. LUIS TORIBIO
were given less representation. Furthermore,
Police Power
they allege that RA 3040 is unconstitutional
Sometime in the 1900s, Toribio applied for a
and void because:
license to have his carabao be slaughtered.
1. It was passed without printed final copies
His request was denied because his carabao is
which must be furnished to the members of
found not to be unfit for work. He nevertheless
the HOR at least 3 calendar days prior to
slaughtered his carabao without the necessary
passage
license. He was eventually sued and was
2. It was approved more than 3 years after the
sentenced by the trial court. His counsel in one
return of the last census of the population
way or the other argued that the law
3. It apportioned districts without regard to the
mandating that one should acquire a permit to
number of inhabitants of the several
slaughter his carabao is not a valid exercise of
provinces.
police power.
Respondents Comelec and Vicente Gella
ISSUE: Whether or not the said law is valid.
(National Treasurer) contend that they
1. were merely complying with their duties
HELD: The SC ruled against Toribio. The SC
under the statute which they presume and
explained that it “is not a taking of the
allege to be constitutional
property for public use, within the meaning of
2. petitioners have no personality to bring
the constitution, but is a just and legitimate
such action
exercise of the power of the legislature to
regulate and restrain such particular use of the
ISSUES:
property as would be inconsistent with or
1. Whether or not the petitioners have the
injurious to the rights of the publics. All
personality to bring such action.
property is acquired and held under the tacit There is a clear invasion of personal or
condition that it shall not be so used as to property rights, personal in the case of those
injure the equal rights of others or greatly individuals desirous of owning, operating and
impair the public rights and interests of the patronizing those motels and property in
community.” terms of the investments made and the
salaries to be paid to those therein employed.
CITY OF MANILA MAYOR ALFREDO LIM v. If the City of Manila so desires to put an end to
JUDGE LAGUIO & MTDC prostitution, fornication and other social ills, it
can instead impose reasonable regulations
Facts: such as daily inspections of the establishments
The petitioners seek to reverse the for any violation of the conditions of their
ruling of the ruling of the RTC regarding the licenses or permits; it may exercise its
unconstitutionality of Ordinance No. 7783 authority to suspend or revoke their licenses
which is entitled- AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING for these violations; and it may even impose
THE ESTABLISHMENT OR OPERATION OF increased license fees. In other words, there
BUSINESSES PROVIDING CERTAIN FORMS OF are other means to reasonably accomplish the
AMUSEMENT, ENTERTAINMENT, SERVICES AND desired end.
FACILITIES IN THE ERMITA-MALATE AREA,
PRESCRIBING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION Police power legislation of such
THEREOF, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. character deserves the full endorsement of we
reiterate our support for it. But inspite of
Private respondent, Malate Tourist itsthe judiciary virtuous aims, the enactment
Development Corporation (MTDC), contends of the Ordinance has no statutory or
that the City Council has no power to prohibit constitutional authority to stand on. Local
the operation of motels and that the legislative bodies, in this case, the City
Ordinance does not constitute a proper Council, cannot prohibit the operation of the
exercise of police power as the compulsory enumerated establishments or order their
closure of the motel business has no transfer or conversion without infringing the
reasonable relation to the legitimate municipal constitutional guarantees not even under the
interests sought to be protected. guiseof due process and equal protection of
laws of police power.
The petitioners, on the other hand, argues that The petition is DENIED and the decision
the City Council had the power to "prohibit of the Regional Trial Court declaring the
certain forms of entertainment in order to ordinance void is AFFIRMED.
protect the social and moral welfare of the YNOT VS. IAC
community" [Section 458 (a) 4 (vii) of the
Local Government Code] and that the G.R. No. 74457, March 20, 1987
Ordinance was enacted by the City Council of
Manila to protect the social and moral welfare MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF PROCEDURAL
of the community in conjunction with its police DUE PROCESS: (1) notice; (2) hearing;
powers [Article III, Section 18(kk) of Republic exceptions
Act No. 409]. SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS: (1) public
Judge Laguio issued an ex-parte temporary interest requires government interference; (2)
restraining order against the enforcement of reasonable means necessary for the
the Ordinance. He also granted the writ of accomplishment of the purpose
preliminary injunction prayed for by MTDC.
Hence, the appeal by the petitioners. FACTS:
Petitioner’s 6 carabaos were confiscated by
Issue: Whether or not the Ordinance No. the police for having been transported from
7783 is constitutional Masbate to Iloilo in violation of EO 626-A. He
brought an action for replevin, challenging the
Held: NO constitutionality of said EO. The trial court
sustained the confiscation of the animals and be killed on sight because of the immediate
declined to rule on the validity of the law on danger it poses to the safety and lives of the
the ground that it lacked authority to do so. Its people. Pornographic materials, contaminated
decision was affirmed by the IAC. Hence this meat and narcotic drugs are inherently
petition for review. pernicious and may be summarily destroyed.
The passport of a person sought for a criminal
ISSUE: offense may be cancelled without hearing, to
Whether or not the confiscation of the compel his return to the country he has fled.
carabaos amounted to arbitrary confiscation of Filthy restaurants may be summarily
property without due process of law padlocked in the interest of the public health
and bawdy houses to protect the public
RULING: morals. In such instances, previous judicial
Minimum Requirements of Due Process: Notice hearing may be omitted without violation of
and Hearing due process in view of the nature of the
property involved or the urgency of the need
The minimum requirements of due process are to protect the general welfare from a clear and
notice and hearing which, generally speaking, present danger.
may not be dispensed with because they are
intended as a safeguard against official Due Process is a Restraint on Police Power
arbitrariness. It is a gratifying commentary on
our judicial system that the jurisprudence of The protection of the general welfare is the
this country is rich with applications of this particular function of the police power which
guaranty as proof of our fealty to the rule of both restraints and is restrained by due
law and the ancient rudiments of fair play. We process. The police power is simply defined as
have consistently declared that every person, the power inherent in the State to regulate
faced by the awesome power of the State, is liberty and property for the promotion of the
entitled to "the law of the land," which Daniel general welfare. By reason of its function, it
Webster described almost two hundred years extends to all the great public needs and is
ago in the famous Dartmouth College Case, as described as the most pervasive, the least
"the law which hears before it condemns, limitable and the most demanding of the three
which proceeds upon inquiry and renders inherent powers of the State, far outpacing
judgment only after trial." It has to be so if the taxation and eminent domain. The individual,
rights of every person are to be secured as a member of society, is hemmed in by the
beyond the reach of officials who, out of police power, which affects him even before
mistaken zeal or plain arrogance, would he is born and follows him still after he is dead
degrade the due process clause into a worn from the womb to beyond the tomb in
and empty catchword. practically everything he does or owns. Its
reach is virtually limitless. It is a ubiquitous
Exceptions to Notice and Hearing and often unwelcome intrusion. Even so, as
long as the activity or the property has some
This is not to say that notice and hearing are relevance to the public welfare, its regulation
imperative in every case for, to be sure, there under the police power is not only proper but
are a number of admitted exceptions. The necessary. And the justification is found in the
conclusive presumption, for example, bars the venerable Latin maxims, Salus populi est
admission of contrary evidence as long as suprema lex and Sic utere tuo ut alienum non
such presumption is based on human laedas, which call for the subordination of
experience or there is a rational connection individual interests to the benefit of the
between the fact proved and the fact greater number.
ultimately presumed therefrom. There are
instances when the need for expeditions First Requisite of Substantive Due Process:
action will justify omission of these requisites, Interests of the Public Generally Require
as in the summary abatement of a nuisance Interference
per se, like a mad dog on the loose, which may
xxx we hold with the Toribio Case that the purpose of preventing their slaughter cannot
carabao, as the poor man's tractor, so to be prohibited, it should follow that there is no
speak, has a direct relevance to the public reason either to prohibit their transfer as, not
welfare and so is a lawful subject of Executive to be flippant dead meat.
Order No. 626. The method chosen in the
basic measure is also reasonably necessary for Even if a reasonable relation between the
the purpose sought to be achieved and not means and the end were to be assumed, we
unduly oppressive upon individuals, again would still have to reckon with the sanction
following the above-cited doctrine. There is no that the measure applies for violation of the
doubt that by banning the slaughter of these prohibition. The penalty is outright
animals except where they are at least seven confiscation of the carabao or carabeef being
years old if male and eleven years old if transported, to be meted out by the executive
female upon issuance of the necessary permit, authorities, usually the police only. In the
the executive order will be conserving those Toribio Case, the statute was sustained
still fit for farm work or breeding and because the penalty prescribed was fine and
preventing their improvident depletion. imprisonment, to be imposed by the court
after trial and conviction of the accused. Under
Second Requisite of Substantive Due Process: the challenged measure, significantly, no such
Reasonable Means Necessary for the trial is prescribed, and the property being
Accomplishment of Purpose, not Unduly transported is immediately impounded by the
Oppressive Upon Individuals police and declared, by the measure itself, as
forfeited to the government.
But while conceding that the amendatory
measure has the same lawful subject as the EO 626-A is unconstitutional
original executive order, we cannot say with
equal certainty that it complies with the In the instant case, the carabaos were
second requirement, viz., that there be a arbitrarily confiscated by the police station
lawful method. We note that to strengthen the commander, were returned to the petitioner
original measure, Executive Order No. 626-A only after he had filed a complaint for recovery
imposes an absolute ban not on the slaughter and given a supersedeas bond of P12,000.00,
of the carabaos but on their movement, which was ordered confiscated upon his failure
providing that "no carabao regardless of age, to produce the carabaos when ordered by the
sex, physical condition or purpose (sic) and no trial court. The executive order defined the
carabeef shall be transported from one prohibition, convicted the petitioner and
province to another." The object of the immediately imposed punishment, which was
prohibition escapes us. The reasonable carried out forthright. The measure struck at
connection between the means employed and once and pounced upon the petitioner without
the purpose sought to be achieved by the giving him a chance to be heard, thus denying
questioned measure is missing him the centuries-old guaranty of elementary
We do not see how the prohibition of the inter- fair play.
provincial transport of carabaos can prevent It has already been remarked that there are
their indiscriminate slaughter, considering that occasions when notice and hearing may be
they can be killed anywhere, with no less validly dispensed with notwithstanding the
difficulty in one province than in another. usual requirement for these minimum
Obviously, retaining the carabaos in one guarantees of due process. It is also conceded
province will not prevent their slaughter there, that summary action may be validly taken in
any more than moving them to another administrative proceedings as procedural due
province will make it easier to kill them there. process is not necessarily judicial only. In the
As for the carabeef, the prohibition is made to exceptional cases accepted, however, there is
apply to it as otherwise, so says executive a justification for the omission of the right to a
order, it could be easily circumvented by previous hearing, to wit, the immediacy of the
simply killing the animal. Perhaps so. However, problem sought to be corrected and the
if the movement of the live animals for the urgency of the need to correct it.
To sum up then, we find that the challenged
In the case before us, there was no such measure is an invalid exercise of the police
pressure of time or action calling for the power because the method employed to
petitioner's peremptory treatment. The conserve the carabaos is not reasonably
properties involved were not even inimical per necessary to the purpose of the law and,
se as to require their instant destruction. worse, is unduly oppressive. Due process is
There certainly was no reason why the offense violated because the owner of the property
prohibited by the executive order should not confiscated is denied the right to be heard in
have been proved first in a court of justice, his defense and is immediately condemned
with the accused being accorded all the rights and punished. The conferment on the
safeguarded to him under the Constitution. administrative authorities of the power to
Considering that, as we held in Pesigan v. adjudge the guilt of the supposed offender is a
Angeles, Executive Order No. 626-A is penal in clear encroachment on judicial functions and
nature, the violation thereof should have been militates against the doctrine of separation of
pronounced not by the police only but by a powers. There is, finally, also an invalid
court of justice, which alone would have had delegation of legislative powers to the officers
the authority to impose the prescribed mentioned therein who are granted unlimited
penalty, and only after trial and conviction of discretion in the distribution of the properties
the accused. arbitrarily taken. For these reasons, we hereby
declare Executive Order No. 626-A
We also mark, on top of all this, the unconstitutional.
questionable manner of the disposition of the
confiscated property as prescribed in the YNOT v. IAC
questioned executive order. It is there Police Power – Not Validly Exercised
authorized that the seized property shall "be There had been an existing law which
distributed to charitable institutions and other prohibited the slaughtering of carabaos (EO
similar institutions as the Chairman of the 626). To strengthen the law, Marcos issued EO
National Meat Inspection Commission may see 626-A which not only banned the movement of
fit, in the case of carabeef, and to deserving carabaos from interprovinces but as well as
farmers through dispersal as the Director of the movement of carabeef. On 13 Jan 1984,
Animal Industry may see fit, in the case of Ynot was caught transporting 6 carabaos from
carabaos." (Emphasis supplied.) The phrase Masbate to Iloilo. He was then charged in
"may see fit" is an extremely generous and violation of EO 626-A. Ynot averred EO 626-A
dangerous condition, if condition it is. It is as unconstitutional for it violated his right to
laden with perilous opportunities for partiality be heard or his right to due process. He said
and abuse, and even corruption. One searches that the authority provided by EO 626-A to
in vain for the usual standard and the outrightly confiscate carabaos even without
reasonable guidelines, or better still, the being heard is unconstitutional. The lower
limitations that the said officers must observe court ruled against Ynot ruling that the EO is a
when they make their distribution. There is valid exercise of police power in order to
none. Their options are apparently boundless. promote general welfare so as to curb down
Who shall be the fortunate beneficiaries of the indiscriminate slaughter of carabaos.
their generosity and by what criteria shall they ISSUE: Whether or not the law is valid.
be chosen? Only the officers named can
supply the answer, they and they alone may HELD: The SC ruled that the EO is not valid as
choose the grantee as they see fit, and in their it indeed violates due process. EO 626-A
own exclusive discretion. Definitely, there is ctreated a presumption based on the
here a "roving commission," a wide and judgment of the executive. The movement of
sweeping authority that is not "canalized carabaos from one area to the other does not
within banks that keep it from overflowing," in mean a subsequent slaughter of the same
short, a clearly profligate and therefore invalid would ensue. Ynot should be given to defend
delegation of legislative powers. himself and explain why the carabaos are
being transferred before they can be
confiscated. The SC found that the challenged purposes for which they are authorized to be
measure is an invalid exercise of the police issued, then they must be held to be invalid.
power because the method employed to
conserve the carabaos is not reasonably PRC has no authority to dictate on the
necessary to the purpose of the law and, reviewees as to how they should prepare
worse, is unduly oppressive. Due process is themselves for the licensure examinations, as
violated because the owner of the property this will infringe n the examinees’ right to
confiscated is denied the right to be heard in libery.
his defense and is immediately condemned Such resolution also violates the academic
and punished. The conferment on the freedom of the schools concerned. The
administrative authorities of the power to enforcement of Resolution No. 105 is not a
adjudge the guilt of the supposed offender is a guarantee that the alleged leakages in the
clear encroachment on judicial functions and licensure examinations will be eradicated or at
militates against the doctrine of separation of least minimized. What is needed to be done by
powers. There is, finally, also an invalid the respondent is to find out the source of
delegation of legislative powers to the officers such leakages and stop it right there.
mentioned therein who are granted unlimited
discretion in the distribution of the properties BALACUIT v. CFI
arbitrarily taken.
FACTS:
LUPANGO v. CA At issue in the petition for review before Us is
the validity and constitutionality of Ordinance
FACTS: PRC issued a resolution directing that No. 640 passed by the Municipal Board of the
no examinee for the CPA Board Exam shall City of Butuan on April 21, 1969, the title and
attend any review class, briefing, conference text of which are reproduced below
or the like conducted by, or shall receive any ORDINANCE PENALIZING ANY PERSON, GROUP
hand-out, review material, or any tip from any OF PERSONS, ENTITY OR CORPORATION
school, college or university, or any review ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SELLING
center or the like or any reviewer, lecturer, ADMISSION TICKETS TO ANY MOVIE OR OTHER
instructor official or employee of any of the PUBLIC EXHIBITIONS, GAMES, CONTESTS OR
aforementioned or similars institutions during OTHER PERFORMANCES TO REQUIRE
the 3 days immediately proceeding every CHILDREN BETWEEN SEVEN (7) AND TWELVE
examination day including examination day. (12) YEARS OF AGE TO PAY FULL PAYMENT
FOR TICKETS INTENDED FOR ADULTS BUT
HELD: Such resolution is unreasonable. The SHOULD CHARGE ONLY ONE-HALF OF THE
unreasonableness is more obvious in that one SAID TICKET
who is caught committing the prohibited acts Petitioners are Carlos Balacuit Lamberto Tan,
even without any ill motives will be barred and Sergio Yu Carcel managers of the theaters
from taking future examinations conducted by and they attack the validity and
the respondent PRC. Furthermore, it is constitutionality of Ordinance No. 640 on the
inconceivable how the Commission can grounds that it is ultra vires and an invalid
manage to have a watchful eye on each and exercise of police power.
every examinee during the three days before
the examination period. ISSUE:
Does this power to regulate include the
Administrative authorities should not act authority to interfere in the fixing of prices of
arbitrarily and capriciously in the issuance of admission to these places of exhibition and
rules and regulations. To be valid, such amusement whether under its general grant of
rules and regulations must be reasonable power or under the general welfare clause as
and fairly adapted to the end in view. If invoked by the City?
shown to bear no reasonable relation to the
RULING:
No, the power to regulate and fix the amount
of license fees for theaters and other places of cases:
amusement has been expressly granted to the
City of Butuan under its charter. INT'L. SCHOOL ALLIANCE VS.
However, the ordinance is not justified by any QUISUMBING [333 SCRA 13; G.R. NO.
necessity for the public interest. The police 128845; 1 JUN 2000]
power legislation must be firmly grounded on
public interest and welfare, and a reasonable FACTS:
relation must exist between purposes and Receiving salaries less than their counterparts
means. hired abroad, the local-hires of private
The evident purpose of the ordinance is to respondent School, mostly Filipinos, cry
help ease the burden of cost on the part of discrimination. We agree. That the local-hires
parents who have to shell out the same are paid more than their colleagues in other
amount of money for the admission of their schools is, of course, beside the point. The
children. A reduction in the price of admission point is that employees should be given equal
would mean corresponding savings for the pay for work of equal value.
parents; however, the petitioners are the ones
made to bear the cost of these savings. Private respondent International School, Inc.
The ordinance does not only make the (the School, for short), pursuant to Presidential
petitioners suffer the loss of earnings but it Decree 732, is a domestic educational
likewise penalizes them for failure to comply institution established primarily for
with it. dependents of foreign diplomatic personnel
The ordinance does not provide a safeguard and other temporary residents. To enable the
against this undesirable practice and as such, School to continue carrying out its educational
the respondent City of Butuan now suggests program and improve its standard of
that birth certificates be exhibited by movie instruction, Section 2(c) of the same decree
house patrons to prove the age of children. authorizes the School to employ its own
This is, however, not at all practicable. We can teaching and management personnel selected
see that the ordinance is clearly unreasonable by it either locally or abroad, from Philippine or
if not unduly oppressive upon the business of other nationalities, such personnel being
petitioners. exempt from otherwise applicable laws and
Further, there is no discernible relation regulations attending their employment,
between the ordinance and the promotion of except laws that have been or will be enacted
public health, safety, morals and the general for the protection of employees.
welfare.
Furthermore, there is nothing pernicious in Accordingly, the School hires both foreign and
demanding equal price for both children and local teachers as members of its faculty,
adults. The petitioners are merely conducting classifying the same into two: (1) foreign-hires
their legitimate businesses. The object of and (2) local-hires.
every business entrepreneur is to make a
profit out of his venture. In fact, no person is The School grants foreign-hires certain
under compulsion to purchase a ticket. It is a benefits not accorded local-hires. These
totally voluntary act on the part of the include housing, transportation, shipping
purchaser if he buys a ticket to such costs, taxes, and home leave travel allowance.
performances Foreign-hires are also paid a salary rate
Ordinance No. 640 clearly invades the twenty-five percent (25%) more than local-
personal and property rights of petitioners hires. The School justifies the difference on
WHEREFORE, a new judgment is hereby two "significant economic disadvantages"
rendered declaring Ordinance No. 640 foreign-hires have to endure, namely: (a) the
unconstitutional and, therefore, null and void. "dislocation factor" and (b) limited tenure.

EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE ISSUE:


Whether or Not the grants provided by the the common good. Should such contracts
school to foreign hires and not to local hires contain stipulations that are contrary to public
discriminative of their constitutional right to policy, courts will not hesitate to strike down
the equal protection clause. these stipulations.

RULING: In this case, we find the point-of-hire


The foregoing provisions impregnably classification employed by respondent School
institutionalize in this jurisdiction the long to justify the distinction in the salary rates of
honored legal truism of "equal pay for equal foreign-hires and local hires to be an invalid
work." Persons who work with substantially classification. There is no reasonable
equal qualifications, skill, effort and distinction between the services rendered by
responsibility, under similar conditions, should foreign-hires and local-hires.
be paid similar salaries. This rule applies to the
School, its "international character" Wherefore, the petition is given due course.
notwithstanding. The petition is hereby granted in part. The
orders of the secretary of labor and
The School contends that petitioner has not employment dated June 10, 1996 and march
adduced evidence that local-hires perform 19, 1997, are hereby reversed and set aside
work equal to that of foreign-hires. The Court insofar as they uphold the practice of
finds this argument a little cavalier. If an respondent school of according foreign-hires
employer accords employees the same higher salaries than local-hires.
position and rank, the presumption is that
these employees perform equal work. This
presumption is borne by logic and human
experience. If the employer pays one FARINAS VS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
employee less than the rest, it is not for that GR No.147387
employee to explain why he receives less or December 10,2003
why the others receive more. That would be
adding insult to injury. The employer has FACTS:
discriminated against that employee; it is for Before the court is a petition to declare as
the employer to explain why the employee is unconstitutional Sec.14 of RA 9006 (The fair
treated unfairly. election act) insofar as it expressly repeals
Sec.67 of BP 881 (The Omnibus Election Code)
While we recognize the need of the School to filed by Farinas et al, minority members of the
attract foreign-hires, salaries should not be minority bloc in the HR. Impleaded as
used as an enticement to the prejudice of respondents are the Executive sec, Speaker of
local-hires. The local-hires perform the same the House etal.
services as foreign-hires and they ought to be
paid the same salaries as the latter. For the ISSUE:
same reason, the "dislocation factor" and the 1. WON the effectivity clause which states
foreign-hires' limited tenure also cannot serve “This Act shall take effect upon its approval”
as valid bases for the distinction in salary (Sec.16) is a violation of the due process
rates. clause of the Constitution

The Constitution enjoins the State to "protect RULING:


the rights of workers and promote their 1. An effectivity clause which provides that
welfare," "to afford labor full protection." The the law “shall take immediately upon its
State, therefore, has the right and duty to approval” is defective, but it does not render
regulate the relations between labor and the entire law invalid, the law shall take effect
capital. These relations are not merely fiftten days after its publication in the OG or
contractual but are so impressed with public newspaper of general circulation. In Tanada vs
interest that labor contracts, collective Tuvera, the court laid down the rule: “The
bargaining agreements included, must yield to clause, unless otherwise provided refers to the
date of effectivity and not to the requirement by law, it has constitutional foundations. To
of publication itself”… Publication is allow accused-appellant to attend
indispensable in every case.. congressional sessions and committee
meetings for 5 days or more in a week will
PEOPLE VS. JALOSJOS virtually make him a free man with all the
G.R. NO. 132875-76, FEBRUARY 3, 2000 privileges appurtenant to his position. Such an
FACTS: aberrant situation not only elevates accused-
The accused-appellant, Romeo Jalosjos, is a appellant’s status to that of a special class, it
full-fledged member of Congress who is also would be a mockery of the purposes of
confined at the national penitentiary while his the correction system.
conviction for statutory rape and acts of
lasciviousness is pending appeal. The accused-
appellant filed a motion asking that he be ORMOC SUGAR COMPANY INC. VS ORMOC
allowed to fully discharge the duties of a CITY ET AL
Congressman, including attendance at “Equal Protection”
legislative sessions and committee meetings
despite his having been convicted in the first FACTS:
instance of a non-bailable offense on the basis In 1964, Ormoc City passed a bill which read:
of popular sovereignty and the need for his “There shall be paid to the City Treasurer on
constituents to be represented. any and all productions of centrifugal sugar
milled at the Ormoc Sugar Company
ISSUE: Incorporated, in Ormoc City a municipal tax
Whether or not accused-appellant should be equivalent to one per centum (1%) per export
allowed to discharge mandate as member of sale to the United States of America and other
House of Representatives foreign countries.” Though referred to as a
“production tax”, the imposition actually
RULING: amounts to a tax on the export of centrifugal
Election is the expression of the sovereign sugar produced at Ormoc Sugar Company, Inc.
power of the people. However, inspite of its For production of sugar alone is not taxable;
importance, the privileges and rights arising the only time the tax applies is when the sugar
from having been elected may be enlarged or produced is exported. Ormoc Sugar paid the
restricted by law. tax (P7,087.50) in protest averring that the
same is violative of Sec 2287 of the Revised
The immunity from arrest or detention of Administrative Code which provides: “It shall
Senators and members of the House of not be in the power of the municipal council to
Representatives arises from a provision of the impose a tax in any form whatever, upon
Constitution. The privilege has always been goods and merchandise carried into the
granted in a restrictive sense. The provision municipality, or out of the same, and any
granting an exemption as a special privilege attempt to impose an import or export tax
cannot be extended beyond the ordinary upon such goods in the guise of an
meaning of its terms. It may not be extended unreasonable charge for wharfage, use of
by intendment, implication or equitable bridges or otherwise, shall be void.” And that
considerations. the ordinance is violative to equal protection
as it singled out Ormoc Sugar As being liable
The accused-appellant has not given any for such tax impost for no other sugar mill is
reason why he should be exempted from the found in the city.
operation of Sec. 11, Art. VI of the
Constitution. The members of Congress cannot ISSUE:
compel absent members to attend sessions if Whether or not there has been a violation of
the reason for the absence is a legitimate one. equal protection.
The confinement of a Congressman charged
with a crime punishable by imprisonment of HELD:
more than six years is not merely authorized
The SC held in favor of Ormoc Sugar. The SC
noted that even if Sec 2287 of the RAC had ISSUE:
already been repealed by a latter statute (Sec Whether or not valid classification between
2 RA 2264) which effectively authorized LGUs petitioner and Jalosjos exists
to tax goods and merchandise carried in and
out of their turf, the act of Ormoc City is still RULING:
violative of equal protection. The ordinance is The petition is bereft of merit.
discriminatory for it taxes only centrifugal In attempting to strike a distinction between
sugar produced and exported by the Ormoc his case and that of Jalosjos, petitioner chiefly
Sugar Company, Inc. and none other. At the points out that former Rep. Romeo Jalosjos
time of the taxing ordinance’s enactment, (Jalosjos) was already convicted, albeit his
Ormoc Sugar Company, Inc., it is true, was the conviction was pending appeal, when he filed
only sugar central in the city of Ormoc. Still, a motion similar to petitioner's Omnibus
the classification, to be reasonable, should be Motion, whereas he (petitioner) is a mere
in terms applicable to future conditions as detention prisoner. He asserts that he
well. The taxing ordinance should not be continues to enjoy civil and political rights
singular and exclusive as to exclude any since the presumption of innocence is still in
subsequently established sugar central, of the his favor.
same class as plaintiff, from the coverage of
the tax. As it is now, even if later a similar Further, petitioner illustrates that Jalosjos was
company is set up, it cannot be subject to the charged with crimes involving moral turpitude,
tax because the ordinance expressly points i.e., two counts of statutory rape and six
only to Ormoc Sugar Company, Inc. as the counts of acts of lasciviousness, whereas he is
entity to be levied upon. indicted for coup d'etat which is regarded as a
"political offense."
TRILLANES IV VS. PIMENTEL
Furthermore, petitioner justifies in his favor
G.R. No. 179817, June 27, 2008 the presence of noble causes in expressing
legitimate grievances against the rampant and
Election to Congress is not a reasonable institutionalized practice of graft and
classification in criminal law enforcement as corruption in the AFP.
the functions and duties of the office are not
substantial distinctions which lift one from the A plain reading of Jalosjos suggests otherwise,
class of prisoners interrupted in their freedom however.
and restricted in liberty of movement.
Justification for confinement with its The distinctions cited by petitioner were not
underlying rationale of public self-defense elemental in the pronouncement in Jalosjos
applies equally to detention prisoners like that election to Congress is not a reasonable
petitioner or convicted prisoners-appellants classification in criminal law enforcement as
like Jalosjos. the functions and duties of the office are not
substantial distinctions which lift one from the
FACTS: class of prisoners interrupted in their freedom
and restricted in liberty of movement.
Petitioner Trillanes IV is on trial for coup d’etat
in relation to the “Oakwood Incident.” In the It cannot be gainsaid that a person charged
2007 elections, he won a seat in the Senate with a crime is taken into custody for purposes
with a six-year term commencing at noon on of the administration of justice. No less than
June 30, 2007. Petitioner now asks the Court the Constitution provides:
that he be allowed to attend all official
functions of the Senate, alleging mainly that All persons, except those charged with
his case is distinct from that of Jalosjos as his offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua
case is still pending resolution whereas that in when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before
the Jalosjos case, there was already conviction. conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or
be released on recognizance as may be proves that petitioner's argument bites the
provided by law. The right to bail shall not be dust. The risk that he would escape ceased to
impaired even when the privilege of the writ of be neither remote nor nil as, in fact, the cause
habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail for foreboding became real.
shall not be required. (Underscoring supplied)
Moreover, circumstances indicating probability
The Rules also state that no person charged of flight find relevance as a factor in
with a capital offense, or an offense ascertaining the reasonable amount of bail
punishable by reclusion perpetua or life and in cancelling a discretionary grant of bail.
imprisonment, shall be admitted to bail when In cases involving non-bailable offenses, what
evidence of guilt is strong, regardless of the is controlling is the determination of whether
stage of the criminal action. the evidence of guilt is strong. Once it is
established that it is so, bail shall be denied as
That the cited provisions apply equally to rape it is neither a matter of right nor of discretion.
and coup d'etat cases, both being punishable
by reclusion perpetua, is beyond cavil. Within ART. 3 Sec. 2 RIGHTS OF UNREASONABLE
the class of offenses covered by the stated SEARCHES AND SEIZURE
range of imposable penalties, there is clearly
no distinction as to the political complexion of cases:
or moral turpitude involved in the crime
charged. VALMONTE VS. DE VILLA

In the present case, it is uncontroverted that FACTS:


petitioner's application for bail and for release On 20 January 1987, the National Capital
on recognizance was denied. The Region District Command (NCRDC) was
determination that the evidence of guilt is activated pursuant to Letter of Instruction
strong, whether ascertained in a hearing of an 02/87 of the Philippine General Headquarters,
application for bail or imported from a trial AFP, with the mission of conducting security
court's judgment of conviction, justifies the operations within its area of responsibility and
detention of an accused as a valid curtailment peripheral areas, for the purpose of
of his right to provisional liberty. This establishing an effective territorial defense,
accentuates the proviso that the denial of the maintaining peace and order, and providing an
right to bail in such cases is "regardless of the atmosphere conducive to the social, economic
stage of the criminal action." Such justification and political development of the National
for confinement with its underlying rationale of Capital Region. As part of its duty to maintain
public self-defense applies equally to peace and order, the NCRDC installed
detention prisoners like petitioner or convicted checkpoints in various parts of Valenzuela,
prisoners-appellants like Jalosjos. Metro Manila. Petitioners aver that, because of
the installation of said checkpoints, the
Petitioner goes on to allege that unlike Jalosjos residents of Valenzuela are worried of being
who attempted to evade trial, he is not a flight harassed and of their safety being placed at
risk since he voluntarily surrendered to the the arbitrary, capricious and whimsical
proper authorities and such can be proven by disposition of the military manning the
the numerous times he was allowed to travel checkpoints, considering that their cars and
outside his place of detention. vehicles are being subjected to regular
searches and check-ups, especially at night or
Subsequent events reveal the contrary, at dawn, without the benefit of a search
however. The assailed Orders augured well warrant and/or court order. Their alleged fear
when on November 29, 2007 petitioner went for their safety increased when, at dawn of 9
past security detail for some reason and July 1988, Benjamin Parpon, a supply officer of
proceeded from the courtroom to a posh hotel the Municipality of Valenzuela, Bulacan, was
to issue certain statements. The account, gunned down allegedly in cold blood by the
dubbed this time as the "Manila Pen Incident," members of the NCRDC manning the
checkpoint along McArthur Highway at cases:
Malinta, Valenzuela, for ignoring and/or
refusing to submit himself to the checkpoint HUBERT J. P. WEBB, VS. HONORABLE
and for continuing to speed off inspire of RAUL E. DE LEON
warning shots fired in the air.
G.R. No. 121234, August 23, 1995
ISSUE: FACTS:
WON the installation of checkpoints violates On June 19, 1994, the National Bureau of
the right of the people against unreasonable Investigation (NBI) filed with the Department
searches and seizures of Justice a letter-complaint charging
petitioners Hubert Webb, Michael Gatchalian,
RULING: Antonio J. Lejano and six (6) other persons
Petitioner's concern for their safety and with the crime of Rape and Homicide of
apprehension at being harassed by the Carmela N. Vizconde, her mother Estrellita
military manning the checkpoints are not Nicolas-Vizconde, and her sister Anne Marie
sufficient grounds to declare the checkpoints Jennifer in their home at Number 80 W.
per se, illegal. No proof has been presented Vinzons, St., BF Homes Paranaque, Metro
before the Court to show that, in the course of Manila on June 30, 1991.
their routine checks, the military, indeed, Forthwith, the Department of Justice formed a
committed specific violations of petitioners'' panel of prosecutors headed by Assistant Chief
rights against unlawful search and seizure of State Prosecutor Jovencio R. Zuno to conduct
other rights. The constitutional right against the preliminary investigation.
unreasonable searches and seizures is a
personal right invocable only by those whose ARGUMENTS:
rights have been infringed, or threatened to be
infringed. Not all searches and seizures are Petitioners fault the DOJ Panel for its finding of
prohibited. Those which are reasonable are not probable cause. They assail the credibility of
forbidden. The setting up of the questioned Jessica Alfaro as inherently weak and
checkpoints may be considered as a security uncorroborated due to the inconsistencies
measure to enable the NCRDC to pursue its between her April 28, 1995 and May 22, 1995
mission of establishing effective territorial sworn statements. They criticize the procedure
defense and maintaining peace and order for followed by the DOJ Panel when it did not
the benefit of the public. Checkpoints may not examine witnesses to clarify the alleged
also be regarded as measures to thwart plots inconsistencies.
to destabilize the govt, in the interest of public Petitioners charge that respondent Judge Raul
security. Between the inherent right of the de Leon and, later, respondent Judge Amelita
state to protect its existence and promote Tolentino issued warrants of arrest against
public welfare and an individual’s right against them without conducting the required
a warrantless search w/c is, however, preliminary examination.
reasonably conducted, the former should Petitioners complain about the denial of their
prevail. True, the manning of checkpoints by constitutional right to due process and
the military is susceptible of abuse by the violation of their right to an impartial
military in the same manner that all investigation. They also assail the prejudicial
governmental power is susceptible of abuse. publicity that attended their preliminary
But, at the cost of occasional inconvenience, investigation.
discomfort and even irritation to the citizen,
the checkpoints during these abnormal times, ISSUES:
when conducted w/in reasonable limits, are 1. Whether or not the DOJ Panel likewise
part of the price we pay for an orderly society gravely abused its discretion in holding that
and a peaceful community. there is probable cause to charge them with
the crime of rape and homicide
PROBABLE CAUSE: (definition) 2. Whether or not respondent Judges de Leon
and Tolentino gravely abused their discretion
when they failed to conduct a preliminary the prosecution of crimes appertains to the
examination before issuing warrants of arrest executive department of government whose
against them principal power and responsibility is to see
3. Whether or not the DOJ Panel denied them that our laws are faithfully executed. A
their constitutional right to due process during necessary component of this power is the right
their preliminary investigation to prosecute their violators (See R.A. No. 6981
4. Whether or not the DOJ Panel unlawfully and section 9 of Rule 119 for legal basis).
intruded into judicial prerogative when it failed
to charge Jessica Alfaro in the information as With regard to the inconsistencies of the sworn
an accused. statements of Jessica Alfaro, the Court
believes that these have been sufficiently
RULING: explained and there is no showing that the
1. NO. inconsistencies were deliberately made to
2. NO. distort the truth.
3. NO. There is no merit in this contention
because petitioners were given all the With regard to the petitioners’ complaint about
opportunities to be heard. the prejudicial publicity that attended their
4. NO. preliminary investigation, the Court finds
REASONS: nothing in the records that will prove that the
1. The Court ruled that the DOJ Panel did not tone and content of the publicity that attended
gravely abuse its discretion when it found the investigation of petitioners fatally infected
probable cause against the petitioners. A the fairness and impartiality of the DOJ Panel.
probable cause needs only to rest on evidence Petitioners cannot just rely on the subliminal
showing that more likely than not, a crime has effects of publicity on the sense of fairness of
been committed and was committed by the the DOJ Panel, for these are basically
suspects. Probable cause need not be based unbeknown and beyond knowing.
on clear and convincing evidence of guilt,
neither on evidence establishing guilt beyond LIM, SR. VS JUDGE FELIX
reasonable doubt and definitely, not on
evidence establishing absolute certainty of GR NOS. 95954-7 (FEBRUARY 19, 1991)
guilt.
2. The Court ruled that respondent judges did
FACTS:
not gravely abuse their discretion. In arrest
cases, there must be a probable cause that a
-On March 17, 1989, at about 7:30 o'clock in
crime has been committed and that the
the morning, at the vicinity of the airport road
person to be arrested committed it. Section 6
of the Masbate Domestic Airport, located at
of Rule 112 simply provides that “upon filing of
the municipality of Masbate province of
an information, the Regional Trial Court may
Masbate, Congressman Moises Espinosa, Sr.
issue a warrant for the accused. Clearly the,
and his security escorts, namely Provincial
our laws repudiate the submission of
Guards Antonio Cortes, Gaspar Amaro, and
petitioners that respondent judges should
Artemio Fuentes were attacked and killed by a
have conducted “searching examination of
lone assassin. Dante Siblante another security
witnesses” before issuing warrants of arrest
escort of Congressman Espinosa, Sr. survived
against them.
the assassination plot, although, he himself
3. The DOJ Panel precisely ed the parties to
suffered a gunshot wound.
adduce more evidence in their behalf and for
the panel to study the evidence submitted
more fully. -An investigation of the incident then followed.
4. Petitioner’s argument lacks appeal for it lies
on the faulty assumption that the decision -Thereafter, and for the purpose of preliminary
whom to prosecute is a judicial function, the investigation, the designated investigator,
sole prerogative of the courts and beyond Harry O. Tantiado, TSg, of the PC Criminal
executive and legislative interference. In truth, Investigation Service at Camp Bagong Ibalon
Legazpi City filed an amended complaint with - It should also be noted that the Lims also
the Municipal Trial Court of Masbate accusing, presented to the respondent Judge documents
among others, Vicente Lim, Sr., Mayor Susana of recantation of witnesses whose testimonies
Lim of Masbate, Jolly T. Fernandez, Florencio T. were used to establish a prima facie case
Fernandez, Jr., Nonilon A. Bagalihog, Mayor against them.
Nestor C. Lim and Mayor Antonio Kho of the
crime of multiple murder and frustrated -On July 5, 1990, the respondent court issued
murder in connection with the airport incident. an order denying for lack of merit the motions
The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. and manifestations and issued warrants of
9211. arrest against the accused including the
petitioners herein. The judge wrote, “In the
-After conducting the preliminary instant cases, the preliminary investigation
investigation, the court issued an order dated was conducted by the Municipal Trial Court of
July 31, 1989 stating therein that: Masbate, Masbate which found the existence
of probable cause that the offense of multiple
“. . . after weighing the affidavits and answers murder was committed and that all the
given by the witnesses for the prosecution accused are probably guilty thereof, which was
during the preliminary examination in affirmed upon review by the Provincial
searching questions and answers, concludes Prosecutor who properly filed with the
that a probable cause has been established for Regional Trial Court four separate informations
the issuance of a warrant of arrest of named for murder. Considering that both the two
accused in the amended complaint, namely, competent officers to whom such duty was
Jimmy Cabarles, Ronnie Fernandez, Nonilon entrusted by law have declared the existence
Bagalihog, Jolly Fernandez, Florencio of probable cause, each information is
Fernandez, Jr., Vicente Lim, Sr., Susana Lim, complete in form and substance, and there is
Nestor Lim, Antonio Kho, Jaime Liwanag, Zaldy no visible defect on its face, this Court finds it
Dumalag and Rene Tualla alias Tidoy.” just and proper to rely on the prosecutor's
certification in each information…”
- Petitioners Vicente Lim, Sr. and Susana Lim
filed with the respondent court several -Petitioners question the judgment of Judge
motions and manifestations which in Felix (statement immediately preceding this
substance prayed that an order be issued paragraph, italicized).
requiring the transmittal of the initial records ISSUE:
of the preliminary inquiry or investigation WON a judge may issue a warrant of arrest
conducted by the Municipal Judge Barsaga of without bail by simply relying on the
Masbate for the best enlightenment regarding prosecution's certification and
the existence of a probable cause or prima recommendation that a probable cause exists.
facie evidence as well as the determination of
the existence of guilt, pursuant to the RULING:
mandatory mandate of the constitution that no The questioned Order of respondent Judge
warrant shall be issued unless the issuing Nemesio S. Felix of Branch 56, Regional Trial
magistrate shall have himself been personally Court of Makati dated July 5, 1990 is declared
convinced of such probable cause. NULL and VOID and SET ASIDE.

- In another manifestation, the Lims reiterated As held in Soliven v. Makasiar, the Judge does
that the court conduct a hearing to determine not have to personally examine the
if there really exists a prima facie case against complainant and his witnesses. The Prosecutor
them in the light of documents which are can perform the same functions as a
recantations of some witnesses in the commissioner for the taking of the evidence.
preliminary investigation. However, there should be necessary
documents and a report supporting the Fiscal's
bare certification. All of these should be before On 20 January 1987, the National Capital
the Judge. Region District Command (NCRDC) was
activated pursuant to Letter of Instruction
We cannot determine beforehand how cursory 02/87 of the Philippine General Headquarters,
or exhaustive the Judge's examination should AFP, with the mission of conducting security
be. Usually, this depends on the circumstances operations within its area of responsibility and
of each case. The Judge has to exercise sound peripheral areas, for the purpose of
discretion; after all, the personal establishing an effective territorial defense,
determination is vested in the Judge by the maintaining peace and order, and providing an
Constitution. However, to be sure, the Judge atmosphere conducive to the social, economic
must go beyond the Prosecutor's certification and political development of the National
and investigation report whenever necessary. Capital Region. As part of its duty to maintain
peace and order, the NCRDC installed
As mentioned in the facts (stated above), the checkpoints in various parts of Valenzuela,
Lims presented documents of recantations of Metro Manila. Petitioners aver that, because of
the witnesses. Although, the general rule is the installation of said checkpoints, the
that recantations are not given much weight in residents of Valenzuela are worried of being
the determination of a case and in the harassed and of their safety being placed at
granting of a new trial the respondent Judge the arbitrary, capricious and whimsical
before issuing his own warrants of arrest disposition of the military manning the
should, at the very least, have gone over the checkpoints, considering that their cars and
records of the preliminary examination vehicles are being subjected to regular
conducted earlier in the light of the evidence searches and check-ups, especially at night or
now presented by the concerned witnesses in at dawn, without the benefit of a search
view of the "political undertones" prevailing in warrant and/or court order. Their alleged fear
the cases. for their safety increased when, at dawn of 9
July 1988, Benjamin Parpon, a supply officer of
In making the required personal the Municipality of Valenzuela, Bulacan, was
determination, a Judge is not precluded from gunned down allegedly in cold blood by the
relying on the evidence earlier gathered by members of the NCRDC manning the
responsible officers. The extent of the reliance checkpoint along McArthur Highway at
depends on the circumstances of each case Malinta, Valenzuela, for ignoring and/or
and is subject to the Judge's sound discretion. refusing to submit himself to the checkpoint
However, the Judge abuses that discretion and for continuing to speed off inspire of
when having no evidence before him, he warning shots fired in the air.
issues a warrant of arrest.
ISSUE:
Indubitably, the respondent Judge (Felix) WON the installation of checkpoints violates
committed a grave error when he relied solely the right of the people against unreasonable
on the Prosecutor's certification and issued the searches and seizures
questioned Order dated July 5, 1990 without
having before him any other basis for his RULING:
personal determination of the existence of a Petitioner's concern for their safety and
probable cause. apprehension at being harassed by the
CONDUCT OF CHECK POINTS: military manning the checkpoints are not
sufficient grounds to declare the checkpoints
cases: per se, illegal. No proof has been presented
before the Court to show that, in the course of
VALMONTE VS. DE VILLA their routine checks, the military, indeed,
committed specific violations of petitioners''
FACTS: rights against unlawful search and seizure of
other rights. The constitutional right against
unreasonable searches and seizures is a
personal right invocable only by those whose therein. The seizure of the firearms was
rights have been infringed, or threatened to be unconstitutional.
infringed. Not all searches and seizures are
prohibited. Those which are reasonable are not Wherefore the decision is reversed and the
forbidden. The setting up of the questioned accused is acquitted.
checkpoints may be considered as a security
measure to enable the NCRDC to pursue its MANALILI V. COURT OF APPEALS
mission of establishing effective territorial 280 SCRA 400
defense and maintaining peace and order for FACTS:
the benefit of the public. Checkpoints may not Narcotics officers were doing surveillance and
also be regarded as measures to thwart plots chanced upon the accused in a cemetery who
to destabilize the govt, in the interest of public seemed to be high on drugs. He tried to resist
security. Between the inherent right of the the police officers and upon inquiry, found
state to protect its existence and promote that the accused was possessing what
public welfare and an individual’s right against seemed to be crushed marijuana leaves.
a warrantless search w/c is, however, HELD:
reasonably conducted, the former should A stop-and-frisk was defined as the vernacular
prevail. True, the manning of checkpoints by designation of the right of a police officer to
the military is susceptible of abuse by the stop a citizen on the street, interrogate him,
military in the same manner that all and pat him for weapons. It has been held as
governmental power is susceptible of abuse. one of the exceptions to the general rule
But, at the cost of occasional inconvenience, against searches without warrant.
discomfort and even irritation to the citizen,
the checkpoints during these abnormal times, PEOPLE VS. ARUTA
when conducted w/in reasonable limits, are 288 SCRA 626
part of the price we pay for an orderly society
and a peaceful community. G.R. NO. 120515; 13 APR 1998

PEOPLE VS. DEL ROSARIO FACTS:


234 SCRA 246; G.R. NO. 109633; 20 JUL 1994 On Dec. 13, 1988, P/Lt. Abello was tipped off
by his informant that a certain “Aling Rosa”
Facts: Accused was charged and convicted by will be arriving from Baguio City with a large
the trial court of illegal possession of firearms volume of marijuana and assembled a team.
and illegal possession and sale of drugs, The next day, at the Victory Liner Bus terminal
particularly methamphetamine or shabu. After they waited for the bus coming from Baguio,
the issuance of the search warrant, which when the informer pointed out who “Aling
authorized the search and seizure of an Rosa” was, the team approached her and
undetermined quantity of methamphetamine introduced themselves as NARCOM agents.
and its paraphernalia’s, an entrapment was When Abello asked “aling Rosa” about the
planned that led to the arrest of del Rosario contents of her bag, the latter handed it out to
and to the seizure of the shabu, its the police. They found dried marijuana leaves
paraphernalia’s and of a .22 caliber pistol with packed in a plastic bag marked “cash
3 live ammunition. katutak”.

Issue: Whether or Not the seizure of the Instead of presenting its evidence, the defense
firearms was proper. filed a demurrer to evidence alleging the
illegality of the search and seizure of the
Held: No. Sec 2 art. III of the constitution items. In her testimony, the accused claimed
specifically provides that a search warrant that she had just come from Choice theatre
must particularly describe the things to be where she watched a movie “Balweg”. While
seized. In herein case, the only objects to be about to cross the road an old woman asked
seized that the warrant determined was the her for help in carrying a shoulder bag, when
methamphetamine and the paraphernalia’s
she was later on arrested by the police. She bag, there was no probable cause and the
has no knowledge of the identity of the old accused was not lawfully arrested.
woman and the woman was nowhere to be
found. Also, no search warrant was presented. The police had more than 24 hours to procure
a search warrant and they did not do so. The
The trial court convicted the accused in seized marijuana was illegal and inadmissible
violation of the dangerous drugs of 1972 evidence.

ISSUE: RULE 113, RULES OF COURT


Whether or Not the police correctly searched
and seized the drugs from the accused. Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful.
— A peace officer or a private person may,
RULING: without a warrant, arrest a person:
The following cases are specifically provided or
allowed by law: (a) When, in his presence, the person to be
arrested has committed, is actually
1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful committing, or is attempting to commit an
arrest recognized under Section 12, Rule 126 offense;
of the Rules of Court 8 and by prevailing (b) When an offense has just been committed,
jurisprudence and he has probable cause to believe based on
2. Seizure of evidence in "plain view," the personal knowledge of facts or circumstances
elements of which are: (a) a prior valid that the person to be arrested has committed
intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest it; and
in which the police are legally present in the (c) When the person to be arrested is a
pursuit of their official duties; (b) the evidence prisoner who has escaped from a penal
was inadvertently discovered by the police establishment or place where he is serving
who had the right to be where they are; (c) the final judgment or is temporarily confined while
evidence must be immediately apparent, and his case is pending, or has escaped while
(d) "plain view" justified mere seizure of being transferred from one confinement to
evidence without further search; another.
3. Search of a moving vehicle. Highly
regulated by the government, the vehicle's In cases falling under paragraph (a) and (b)
inherent mobility reduces expectation of above, the person arrested without a warrant
privacy especially when its transit in public shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest
thoroughfares furnishes a highly reasonable police station or jail and shall be proceeded
suspicion amounting to probable cause that against in accordance with section 7 of Rule
the occupant committed a criminal activity; 112.
4. Consented warrantless search;
5. Customs search; RULE 126, RULES OF COURT
6. Stop and Frisk;
7. Exigent and Emergency Circumstances. Section 2. Court where application for search
warrant shall be filed. — An application for
The essential requisite of probable cause must search warrant shall be filed with the
still be satisfied before a warrantless search following:
and seizure can be lawfully conducted.
a) Any court within whose territorial
The accused cannot be said to be committing jurisdiction a crime was committed.
a crime, she was merely crossing the street b) For compelling reasons stated in the
and was not acting suspiciously for the application, any court within the judicial region
Narcom agents to conclude that she was where the crime was committed if the place of
committing a crime. There was no legal basis the commission of the crime is known, or any
to effect a warrantless arrest of the accused’s court within the judicial region where the
warrant shall be enforced.
saw five men in barong tagalog whom she
However, if the criminal action has already failed to recognize but she was sure were not
been filed, the application shall only be made employees of the hotel, forcibly opening the
in the court where the criminal action is door of the union office. In the morning, as
pending. union officer Soluta was trying in vain to open
the door of the union office, Loida narrated to
Section 7. Right to break door or window to him what she had witnessed at dawn.
effect search. — The officer, if refused Soluta immediately lodged a complaint before
admittance to the place of directed search the Security Officer. And he fetched a
after giving notice of his purpose and locksmith. At that instant, men in barong
authority, may break open any outer or inner tagalog armed with clubs arrived and started
door or window of a house or any part of a hitting Soluta and his companions. Panlilio
house or anything therein to execute the thereupon instructed Villanueva to force open
warrant or liberate himself or any person the door, and the latter did. Once inside,
lawfully aiding him when unlawfully detained Panlilio and his companions began searching
therein. the office, over the objection of Babay who
even asked them if they had a search warrant.
Section 12. Delivery of property and inventory A plastic bag was found containing marijuana
thereof to court; return and proceedings flowering tops.
thereon. As a result of the discovery of the presence of
marijuana in the union office and after the
(a) The officer must forthwith deliver the police conducted an investigation of the
property seized to the judge who issued the incident, a complaint against the 13 union
warrant, together with a true inventory thereof officers was filed before the Fiscal’s Office of
duly verified under oath. Manila. RTC acquitted the accused. On appeal,
(b) Ten (10) days after issuance of the search the CA affirmed with modification the decision
warrant, the issuing judge shall ascertain if the of the trial court.
return has been made, and if none, shall
summon the person to whom the warrant was ISSUE:
issued and require him to explain why no Whether respondent individual can recover
return was made. If the return has been made, damages for violation of constitutional rights.
the judge shall ascertain whether section 11 of
this Rule has been complained with and shall RULING: Article 32, in relation to Article
require that the property seized be delivered 2219(6) and (10) of the Civil Code, allows so.
to him. The judge shall see to it that
subsection (a) hereof has been complied with. ART. 32. Any public officer or employee, or any
(c) The return on the search warrant shall be private individual, who directly or indirectly
filed and kept by the custodian of the log book obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner
on search warrants who shall enter therein the impedes or impairs any of the following rights
date of the return, the result, and other and liberties of another person shall be liable
actions of the judge. to the latter for damages:

A violation of this section shall constitute In the present case, petitioners had, by their
contempt of court own claim, already received reports in late
1987 of illegal activities and Maniego
SILAHIS INTERNATIONAL HOTEL, INC. vs. conducted surveillance. Yet, in the morning of
SOLUTA January 11, 1988, petitioners and their
companions barged into and searched the
FACTS: union office without a search warrant, despite
Loida Somacera (Loida), a laundrywoman of ample time for them to obtain one.
the hotel, stayed overnight at the female
locker room at the basement of the hotel. At The course taken by petitioners and company
dawn, she heard pounding sounds outside, she stinks in illegality. Petitioners’ violation of
individual respondents’ constitutional right Petitioner Pacis, on July 22, 1964 received
against unreasonable search thus furnishes from the Administrator, General Affairs
the basis for the award of damages under Administration of the Department of National
Article 32 of the Civil Code. For respondents, Defense, a letter to the effect that the Land
being the lawful occupants of the office had Transportation Commission reported that such
the right to raise the question of validity of the automobile was a "hot car." By virtue thereof,
search and seizure. petitioner, through his subordinates, looked
into the records of his office and ascertained
Article 32 speaks of an officer or employee or that the amount collectible on said car should
person "directly or indirectly" responsible for be P2,500.00, more or less. Based on such
the violation of the constitutional rights and discrepancy, petitioner instituted seizure
liberties of another. Hence, it is not the actor proceedings and issued a warrant of seizure
alone who must answer for damages under and detention and thus the subject automobile
Article 32; the person indirectly responsible was taken. Respondent requested for the
has also to answer for the damages or injury withdrawal or dissolution of the warrant of
caused to the aggrieved party. Such being the seizure but petitioner denied it.
case, petitioners, together with Maniego and
Villanueva, the ones who orchestrated the Thereafter, respondent Santos filed a criminal
illegal search, are jointly and severally liable complaint for usurpation of judicial functions
for actual, moral and exemplary damages to with the City Fiscal of Manila. As the
herein individual respondents in accordance respondent Fiscal Pamaran was bent on
with the earlier-quoted pertinent provision of proceeding with the charge against petitioner,
Article 32, in relation to Article 2219(6) and an action for prohibition was filed with the
(10) of the Civil Code which provides: Supreme Court.

Art. 2219. Moral damages may be recovered ISSUE:


in the following and analogous cases, among Whether or not the Constitutional provision
others, (6) Illegal search and (10) Acts and which states that only a judge could issue a
action referred to in Articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, search warrant applies to warrants issued in
30, 32, 34 and 35. lieu of violations of customs laws.
DECISION: Denied.
HELD:
PACIS VS. PAMARAN In a recent decision of this Court, Papa v.
G.R. No. L-23996 March 15, 1974 Mago, where the seizure of alleged smuggled
goods was effected by a police officer without
Doctrine: a search warrant, this Court, through Justice
It is a well-settled principle that for violations Zaldivar, stated: "Petitioner Martin Alagao and
of customs laws, a warrant issued by the his companion policemen had authority to
Collector of Customs is conceded. It is not effect the seizure without any search warrant
necessary, in these cases, that the warrants issued by a component court. The Tariff and
be issued by a judge, as what is required in Customs Code does not require said warrant in
the Constitution. the instant case. The Code authorizes persons
having police authority under Section 2203 of
FACTS: the Tariff and Customs Code to enter, pass
through or search any land, inclosure,
Respondent Ricardo Santos is the owner of a warehouse, store or building, not being a
Mercury automobile, model 1957. It was dwelling house and also to inspect, search and
brought into this country without the payment examine any vessel or aircraft and any trunk,
of customs duty and taxes, its original owner package, box or envelope or any person on
Donald James Hatch being tax-exempt. On board, or stop and search and examine any
June 25, 1964, respondent paid P311.00 for vehicle, beast or person suspected of holding
customs duty and taxes. or conveying any dutiable or prohibited article
introduced into the Philippines contrary to law,
without mentioning the need of a search Police District, Metropolitan Police Force of the
warrant in said cases. But in the search of a Integrated National Police, Police Station No. 3,
dwelling house, the Code provides that said Quiapo, Manila, was on foot patrol with three
"dwelling house may be entered and searched other police officers (all of them in uniform)
only upon warrant issued by a judge or justice along Quezon Boulevard, Quiapo, Manila, near
of the peace ... ." It is our considered view, the Mercury Drug store at Plaza Miranda. They
therefore, that except in the case of the chanced upon two groups of Muslim-looking
search of a dwelling house, persons exercising men, with each group, comprised of three to
police authority under the customs law may four men, posted at opposite sides of the
effect search and seizure without a search corner of Quezon Boulevard near the Mercury
warrant in the enforcement of customs laws." Drug Store. These men were acting
suspiciously with “their eyes moving very
The plenitude of the competence vested in fast.” Yu and his companions positioned
customs officials is thus undeniable. No such themselves at strategic points and observed
constitutional question then can possibly arise. both groups for about 30 minutes. The police
So much is implicit from the very language of officers then approached one group of men,
Section 2205 of the Tariff and Customs Code. who then fled in different directions. As the
It speaks for itself. It is not susceptible of any policemen gave chase, Yu caught up with and
misinterpretation. The power of petitioner is apprehended Sammy Malacat y Mandar (who
thus manifest. It being undeniable then that Yu recognized, inasmuch as allegedly the
the sole basis for an alleged criminal act previous Saturday, 25 August 1990, likewise at
performed by him was the performance of a Plaza Miranda, Yu saw Malacat and 2 others
duty according to law, there is not the attempt to detonate a grenade). Upon
slightest justification for respondent Assistant searching Malacat, Yu found a fragmentation
City Fiscal to continue with the preliminary grenade tucked inside the latter’s “front waist
investigation after his attention was duly line.” Yu’s companion, police officer Rogelio
called to the plain and explicit legal provision Malibiran, apprehended Abdul Casan from
that did not suffer at all from any whom a .38 caliber revolver was recovered.
constitutional infirmity. Malacat and Casan were then brought to
Police Station 3 where Yu placed an “X” mark
WHEREFORE, the writ of prohibition prayed for at the bottom of the grenade and thereafter
is granted and the successor of respondent gave it to his commander. Yu did not issue any
Manuel R. Pamaran, now a criminal circuit receipt for the grenade he allegedly recovered
court judge, or any one in the City Fiscal's from Malacat. On 30 August 1990, Malacat
Office of the City of Manila to whom the was charged with violating Section 3 of
complaint against petitioner for usurpation of Presidential Decree 1866. At arraignment on 9
judicial functions arising out of the issuance of October 1990, petitioner, assisted by counsel
the warrant of seizure and detention, subject- de officio, entered a plea of not guilty. Malacat
matter of this litigation, has been assigned, is denied the charges and explained that he only
perpetually restrained from acting thereon recently arrived in Manila. However, several
except to dismiss the same. No costs. other police officers mauled him, hitting him
with benches and guns. Petitioner was once
STOP AND FRISK RULE: again searched, but nothing was found on him.
He saw the grenade only in court when it was
cases: presented. In its decision dated 10 February
Malacat vs. Court of Appeals 1994 but promulgated on 15 February 1994,
GR 123595, 12 December 1997 the trial court ruled that the warrantless
search and seizure of Malacat was akin to a
FACTS: “stop and frisk,” where a “warrant and seizure
On 27 August 1990, at about 6:30 p.m., can be effected without necessarily being
allegedly in response to bomb threats reported preceded by an arrest” and “whose object is
seven days earlier, Rodolfo Yu of the Western either to maintain the status quo momentarily
while the police officer seeks to obtain more
information”; and that the seizure of the in flagrante delicto or hot pursuit arrest
grenade from Malacat was incidental to a preceding the search in light of the lack of
lawful arrest. The trial court thus found personal knowledge on the part of Yu, the
Malacat guilty of the crime of illegal arresting officer, or an overt physical act, on
possession of explosives under Section 3 of PD the part of Malacat, indicating that a crime had
1866, and sentenced him to suffer the penalty just been committed, was being committed or
of not less than 17 years, 4 months and 1 day was going to be committed. Plainly, the search
of Reclusion Temporal, as minimum, and not conducted on Malacat could not have been
more than 30 years of Reclusion Perpetua, as one incidental to a lawful arrest. On the other
maximum. On 18 February 1994, Malacat filed hand, while probable cause is not required to
a notice of appeal indicating that he was conduct a “stop and frisk,” it nevertheless
appealing to the Supreme Court. However, the holds that mere suspicion or a hunch will not
record of the case was forwarded to the Court validate a “stop and frisk.” A genuine reason
of Appeals (CA-GR CR 15988). In its decision of must exist, in light of the police officer’s
24 January 1996, the Court of Appeals affirmed experience and surrounding conditions, to
the trial court. Manalili filed a petition for warrant the belief that the person detained
review with the Supreme Court. has weapons concealed about him. Finally, a
“stop-and-frisk” serves a two-fold interest: (1)
ISSUE: the general interest of effective crime
Whether the search made on Malacat is valid, prevention and detection, which underlies the
pursuant to the exception of “stop and frisk.” recognition that a police officer may, under
appropriate circumstances and in an
HELD: appropriate manner, approach a person for
The general rule as regards arrests, searches purposes of investigating possible criminal
and seizures is that a warrant is needed in behavior even without probable cause; and (2)
order to validly effect the same. The the more pressing interest of safety and self-
Constitutional prohibition against preservation which permit the police officer to
unreasonable arrests, searches and seizures take steps to assure himself that the person
refers to those effected without a validly with whom he deals is not armed with a deadly
issued warrant, subject to certain exceptions. weapon that could unexpectedly and fatally be
As regards valid warrantless arrests, these are used against the police officer. Here, there are
found in Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of at least three (3) reasons why the “stop-and-
Court. A warrantless arrest under the frisk” was invalid: First, there is grave doubts
circumstances contemplated under Section as to Yu’s claim that Malacat was a member of
5(a) has been denominated as one “in the group which attempted to bomb Plaza
flagrante delicto,” while that under Section Miranda 2 days earlier. This claim is neither
5(b) has been described as a “hot pursuit” supported by any police report or record nor
arrest. Turning to valid warrantless searches, corroborated by any other police officer who
they are limited to the following: (1) customs allegedly chased that group. Second, there
searches; (2) search of moving vehicles; (3) was nothing in Malacat’s behavior or conduct
seizure of evidence in plain view; (4) consent which could have reasonably elicited even
searches; (5) a search incidental to a lawful mere suspicion other than that his eyes were
arrest; and (6) a “stop and frisk.” The concepts “moving very fast” — an observation which
of a “stop-and-frisk” and of a search incidental leaves us incredulous since Yu and his
to a lawful arrest must not be confused. These teammates were nowhere near Malacat and it
two types of warrantless searches differ in was already 6:30 p.m., thus presumably dusk.
terms of the requisite quantum of proof before Malacat and his companions were merely
they may be validly effected and in their standing at the corner and were not creating
allowable scope. In a search incidental to a any commotion or trouble. Third, there was at
lawful arrest, as the precedent arrest all no ground, probable or otherwise, to
determines the validity of the incidental believe that Malacat was armed with a deadly
search. Here, there could have been no valid weapon. None was visible to Yu, for as he
admitted, the alleged grenade was
“discovered” “inside the front waistline” of ESTOPPEL. FOR THE SAME REASON, THE
Malacat, and from all indications as to the COURT CANNOT ACCEPT PETITIONER’S VIEW
distance between Yu and Malacat, any telltale THAT MRS. MARCOS SHOULD HAVE FIRST
bulge, assuming that Malacat was indeed SOUGHT THE LIFTING OF THE SEQUESTRATION
hiding a grenade, could not have been visible ORDER THROUGH A MOTION TO QUASH FILED
to Yu. What is unequivocal then are blatant WITH THE PCGG. BEING VOID, THE
violations of Malacat’s rights solemnly SANDIGANBAYAN HAS THE POWER TO STRIKE
guaranteed in Sections 2 and 12(1) of Article IT DOWN ON SIGHT.
III of the Constitution.
RULING OF THE COURT:
WARRANTLESS ARREST
The Court’s Ruling
cases:
Under Section 26, Article XVIII of the
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. Constitution, an order of sequestration may
SANDIGANBAYAN only issue upon a showing “of a prima facie
case” that the properties are ill-gotten wealth
(SUBJECT: DELEGATION OF QUASI JUDICIAL under Executive Orders 1 and 2.[2][11] When
POWER; ESTOPPEL. a court nullifies an order of sequestration for
FACTS: having been issued without a prima facie case,
ON 18 MARCH 1986, ATTY. RAMIREZ AND the Court does not substitute its judgment for
ATTY. ABELLA, PCGG AGENTS, ISSUED A that of the PCGG but simply applies the law.[3]
SEQUESTRATION ORDER AGAINST THE [12]
RESTHOUS THE SOLE ISSUE PRESENTED IS
WHETHER OR NOT THE MARCH 18, 1986 In Bataan Shipyard & Engineering Co, Inc. v.
SEQUESTRATION ORDER AGAINST PROPERTIES PCGG,[4][13] the Court held that a prima facie
OF IMELDA IN LEYTE INCLUDING THE factual foundation that the properties
RESTHOUSE AT OLOT. THEIR ORDER WAS NOT sequestered are “ill-gotten wealth” is required.
SIGNED BY ANY PCGG COMMISSIONERS. The power to determine the existence of a
prima facie case has been vested in the PCGG
ISSUE: as an incident to its investigatory powers. The
IS THEIR ORDER VALID? two-commissioner rule is obviously intended to
assure a collegial determination of such fact.
RULING: [5][14]
NO. JUDICIAL OR QUASI-JUDICIAL POWERS
MAY NOT BE DELEGATED. IN PCGG V. JUDGE
Here, it is clear that the PCGG did not make a
PEÑA,[1][17] THE COURT HELD THAT THE
prior determination of the existence of a prima
POWERS, FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES OF THE
facie case that would warrant the
PCGG AMOUNT TO THE EXERCISE OF QUASI-
sequestration of the Olot Resthouse. The
JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS, AND THE EXERCISE OF
Republic presented no evidence before the
SUCH FUNCTIONS CANNOT BE DELEGATED BY
Sandiganbayan that shows differently. Nor did
THE COMMISSION TO ITS REPRESENTATIVES
the Republic demonstrate that the two PCGG
OR SUBORDINATES OR TASK FORCES
representatives were given the quasi-judicial
BECAUSE OF THE WELL ESTABLISHED
authority to receive and consider evidence
PRINCIPLE THAT JUDICIAL OR QUASI-JUDICIAL
that would warrant such a prima facie finding.
POWERS MAY NOT BE DELEGATED.
PETITIONER REPUBLIC ARGUES THAT MRS.
Parenthetically, the Republic’s supposed
MARCOS SHOULD BE DEEMED ESTOPPED
evidence does not show how the Marcoses
FROM QUESTIONING THE SEQUESTRATION OF
acquired the sequestered property, what
HER OLOT RESTHOUSE BY HER ACTIONS IN
makes it “ill-gotten wealth,” and how former
REGARD TO THE SAME. BUT A VOID ORDER
President Marcos intervened in its acquisition.
PRODUCES NO EFFECT AND CANNOT BE
Taking the foregoing view, the resolution of
VALIDATED UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF
the issue surrounding the character of the use its own judgment in determining the
property sequestered – whether or not it could existence of a prima facie case.
prima facie be considered ill-gotten – should
be necessary. The absence of a prior determination by the
PCGG of a prima facie basis for the
The issue in this case is not new. The facts sequestration order is, unavoidably, a fatal
are substantially identical to those in the case defect which rendered the sequestration of
of Republic v. Sandiganbayan (Dio Island respondent corporation and its properties void
Resort, Inc.).[6][15] There, the same Atty. ab initio. Being void ab initio, it is deemed
Ramirez issued a sequestration order on April non-existent, as though it had never been
14, 1986 against Dio Island Resort, Inc. and all issued,
its assets and properties which were thought
to be part of the Marcoses’ ill-gotten wealth. The Court is maintaining its above ruling in
Alerted by a challenge to his action, the PCGG this case.
passed a resolution “to confirm, ratify and
adopt as its own all the Writs of Sequestration” Although the two PCGG lawyers issued the
that Attys. Ramirez and Abella issued “to sequestration order in this case on March 18,
remove any doubt as to the validity and 1986, before the passage of Sec. 3 of the
enforceability” of their writs. Still, the Court PCGG Rules, such consideration is immaterial
struck them down as void: following our above ruling.

It is indubitable that under no circumstances In PCGG v. Judge Peña,[8][17] the Court held
can a sequestration or freeze order be validly that the powers, functions and duties of the
issued by one not a Commissioner of the PCGG amount to the exercise of quasi-judicial
PCGG. functions, and the exercise of such functions
cannot be delegated by the Commission to its
The invalidity of the sequestration order was representatives or subordinates or task forces
made more apparent by the fact that Atty. because of the well established principle that
Ramirez did not even have any specific judicial or quasi-judicial powers may not be
authority to act on behalf of the Commission delegated.
at the time he issued the said sequestration
order. x x x It is the Republic’s theory of course that
Commissioner Daza’s letter, directing Attys.
Even assuming arguendo that Atty. Ramirez Ramirez and Abella to search and sequester all
had been given prior authority by the PCGG to properties, documents, money and other
place Dio Island Resort under sequestration, assets of respondents, should be considered
nevertheless, the sequestration order he as the writ of sequestration while the order
issued is still void since PCGG may not issued by Attys. Ramirez and Abella should be
delegate its authority to sequester to its treated merely as an implementing order.
representatives and subordinates, and any
such delegation is invalid and ineffective. But the letter did not have the tenor of a
sequestration order covering specific
Under Executive Order Nos. 1 and 2, PCGG is properties that the lawyers were ordered to
the sole entity primarily charged with the seize and hold for the PCGG. Actually, that
responsibility of recovering ill-gotten wealth. x letter is of the same kind issued to Attys.
x x The power to sequester, therefore, carries Ramirez and Abella in Dio Island Resort.
with it the corollary duty to make a preliminary Consequently, there is no reason to depart
determination of whether there is a reasonable from the Court’s ruling in the latter case where
basis for sequestering a property alleged to be it said:
ill-gotten. After a careful evaluation of the
evidence adduced, the PCGG clearly has to The invalidity of the sequestration order was
made more apparent by the fact that Atty.
Ramirez did not even have any specific Republic of the Philippines’ claim over the
authority to act on behalf of the Commission same in Civil Case 0002 of the Sandiganbayan.
at the time he issued the said sequestration
order. Thus, the respondent Court noted: No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Contrary to plaintiff’s representation, nothing
exists to support its contention that the Task PADILLA V. CA
Force had been given prior authority to place 129 S 558 (1990)
DIO under PCGG control. On the contrary, as
the text of the above letters clearly show, Where in the complaint for Grave Coercion
Attys. Jose Tan Ramirez and Ben Abella, had against the mayor and policemen, they were
acted on broad and non-specific powers: ‘By acquitted on the ground that their guilt has not
authority of the commission and the powers been proven beyond reasonable doubt, such
vested in it. x x x.’”[9][18] acquittal will not bar a civil case for damages
arising from the demolition of petition¬er's
Petitioner Republic argues that Mrs. Marcos market stalls. The acquittal on the ground that
should be deemed estopped from questioning their guilt has not been proven beyond
the sequestration of her Olot Resthouse by her reasona¬ble doubt refers to the element of
actions in regard to the same. But a void Grave Coercion and not to the fact of that the
order produces no effect and cannot be stalls were not demolished.
validated under the doctrine of estoppel. For Under the Rules of Court, the extinction of
the same reason, the Court cannot accept penal action carries with it the extinction of
petitioner’s view that Mrs. Marcos should have civil only if there is a declaration that facts
first sought the lifting of the sequestration from which civil may arise did not exist. Also,
order through a motion to quash filed with the Art. 29 of the Civil Code does not state that
PCGG. Being void, the Sandiganbayan has the civil liability can be recovered only in a
power to strike it down on sight. separate civil action. The civil liability can be
recovered either in the same or a separate
Besides, the lifting of the sequestration order action. The purpose of recovering in the same
will not necessarily be fatal to the main case action is to dispense with the filing of another
since it does not follow from such lifting that civil action where the same evidence is to be
the sequestered properties are not ill-gotten presented, and the unsettling implications of
wealth. Such lifting simply means that the permitting reinsti¬tuttion of a separate civil
government may not act as conservator or action. However, a separate civil action is
may not exercise administrative or warranted when (1) addition¬al facts are to be
housekeeping powers over the property.[10] established; (2) there is more evidence to be
[19] Indeed, the Republic can be protected by adduced; (3) there is full termina¬tion of the
a notice of lis pendens. criminal case and a separate complaint would
be more efficacious than a remand. Hence, CA
WHEREFORE, the Court DISMISSES the petition did not err in awarding damages despite the
for lack of merit and AFFIRMS the challenged acquittal.
resolutions of the Fourth Division of the
Sandiganbayan dated February 28, 2002 and PEOPLE VS. DEL ROSARIO
August 28, 2002 in Civil Case 0002, which 234 SCRA 246; G.R. NO. 109633; 20 JUL 1994
granted respondent Imelda R. Marcos’ Motion
to Quash the March 18, 1986 Sequestration Facts: Accused was charged and convicted by
Order covering the Olot Resthouse. the trial court of illegal possession of firearms
and illegal possession and sale of drugs,
Further, the Court DIRECTS the Register of particularly methamphetamine or shabu. After
Deeds of Leyte to immediately annotate a the issuance of the search warrant, which
notice of lis pendens on the certificate of title authorized the search and seizure of an
of the Olot Resthouse with respect to the undetermined quantity of methamphetamine
and its paraphernalia’s, an entrapment was violated. It held that the Speedy Trial Act of
planned that led to the arrest of del Rosario 1998 provides that the trial period for the
and to the seizure of the shabu, its criminal cases should be in general 180 days.
paraphernalia’s and of a .22 caliber pistol with However, in determining the right of an
3 live ammunition. accused to speedy trial, courts should do more
than a mathematical computation of the
Issue: Whether or Not the seizure of the number of postponements of the scheduled
firearms was proper. hearings of the case.The right to a speedy trial
is deemed violated only when: (1) the
Held: No. Sec 2 art. III of the constitution proceedings are attended by vexatious,
specifically provides that a search warrant capricious, and oppressive delays; or (2) when
must particularly describe the things to be unjustified postponements are asked for and
seized. In herein case, the only objects to be secured; or (3) when without cause or
seized that the warrant determined was the justifiable motive a long period of time is
methamphetamine and the paraphernalia’s allowed to elapse without the party having his
therein. The seizure of the firearms was case tried.
unconstitutional.
It was shown by the records that the
Wherefore the decision is reversed and the prosecution exerted efforts in obtaining a
accused is acquitted. warrant to compel the witness to testify. The
concept of speedy trial is necessarily relative
VALIDITY OF A WARRANT ISSUED BY THE where several factors are weighed such as the
JUDGE length of time of delay, the reason of such
delay, and conduct of prosecution and the
cases: accused and the prejudice and damaged
caused to the accused of such delay. The court
PEOPLE v. TEE did not find the 20 days of delayed hearing
unreasonable length of time as to constitute
"rights of the accused to speedy trial" deprivation of the constitutional rights of the
FACTS: accused for a speedy trial in addition to the
The case involves an automatic review of fact that court trial may be always subjected
judgment made against Tee who was to postponement for reasonable cause of
convicted for illegal possession of marijuana delay. In the absence of showing that the
and sentenced to death. The defense assailed reason for delay was capricious or oppressive,
the decision of the court for taking admissible the State must not be deprived of reasonable
as evidence the marijuana seized from the opportunity in prosecuting the accused.
accused by virtue of allegedly general search
warrant. They further contend that the PANGANDAMAN V. CASAR
accused was deprived of his right to speedy
trial by failure of the prosecution to produce FACTS:
their witness who failed to appear during the The case originated in Lanao. The offended
20 hearing dates thereby slowing down the party was ambushed in Lanao, but he
trial procedure. survived. Based on his description, there were
around 50 persons who staged the ambush
ISSUE: from both sides of the hill. However, he could
Whether or not the substantive right of the not recognize anyone of the 50. But he filed a
accused for a speedy trial prejudiced during case against all 50 ambushers, all “JOHN
the hearing of the case. DOES”. So the court issued a warrant of arrest
against the 50 John Does.
RULING:
The court ruled that the substantive right of ISSUE:
the accused for a fair and speedy trial was not
W/N the warrant of arrest is valid? Can a court is that section 8 of the Anti-Graft Law is
issue a warrant of arrest against an unknown intended to amend section 2 of Republic Act
accused? No. 1405 by providing additional exception to
the rule against the disclosure of bank
HELD: deposits.
NO it is not valid. It is of the nature of a
general warrant, one of a call of writs long W]hile section 2 of Republic Act 1405 declares
prescribed as unconstitutional and once bank deposits to be "absolutely confidential,"
anathematized as totally subversive of the it nevertheless allows such disclosure in the
liberty of the subject. Clearly violative of the following instances:
constitutional injunction that warrants of arrest (1) Upon written permission of the depositor;
should particularly describe the person or (2) In cases of impeachment;
persons to be seized. The warrant as against (3) Upon order of a competent court in cases
unidentified subjects will be considered as null of bribery or dereliction of duty of public
and void. officials;
(4) In cases where the money deposited is the
EXAMINATION OF BANK ACCOUNTS/ subject matter of the litigation. Cases of
DEPOSITS unexplained wealth are similar to cases of
bribery or dereliction of duty.
cases:
PNB VS. GANCAYCO MARQUEZ VS. DISIERTO
G.R. No. L-18343 September 30, 1965 G.R. No. 135882 June 27, 2001
FACTS:
FACTS: Respondent Ombudsman Desierto ordered
Defendants Emilio Gancayco and Florentino petitioner Marquez to produce several bank
Flor, as special prosecutors of the Department documents for purposes of inspection in
of Justice, required the plaintiff Philippine camera relative to various accounts
National Bank to produce at a hearing the maintained at Union Bank of the Philippines,
records of the bank deposits of Ernesto Julia Vargas Branch, where petitioner is the
Jimenez, former administrator of the branch manager.
Agricultural Credit and Cooperative
Administration, who was then under The order is based on a pending investigation
investigation for unexplained wealth. In at the Office of the Ombudsman against
declining to reveal its records, the plaintiff Amado Lagdameo, et. al. for violation of R.A.
bank invoked Section 2 of Republic Act No. No. 3019, Sec. 3 (e) and (g) relative to the
1405. Joint Venture Agreement between the Public
Estates Authority and AMARI.
On the other hand, the defendants cited
Section 8 of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Petitioner wanted to be clarified first as to how
Practices Act (Republic Act No. 3019) in she would comply with the orders without her
support of their claim of authority,which breaking any law, particularly RA. No. 1405.
allegedly provides an additional ground for the
examination of bank deposits. ISSUE:
Whether the order of the Ombudsman to have
ISSUE: an in camera inspection of the questioned
Whether Section 8 of Republic Act No. 3019 account is allowed as an exception to the law
provides an additional ground for the on secrecy of bank deposits (R.A. No.1405).
examination of bank deposits.
HELD: No.
HELD: We rule that before an in camera inspection
Yes. The truth is that these laws are so may be allowed, there must be a pending case
repugnant to each other than no reconciliation before a court of competent jurisdiction.
is possible. x x x. The only conclusion possible Further, the account must be clearly identified,
the inspection limited to the subject matter of
the pending case before the court of
competent jurisdiction. The bank personnel
and the account holder must be notified to be
present during the inspection, and such
inspection may cover only the account
identified in the pending case