Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
issued
AO
03-85,
which
mandated
that
every
pilot
must
be
holders
of
licenses,
have
trained
as
probationary
pilots
in
outports
for
3
months
and
trained
in
the
manila
ports
for
4
months.
Only
after
they
have
shown
satisfactory
performance
will
they
be
entitled
to
a
regular
and
permanent
appointment
until
the
age
of
70,
unless
otherwise
removed
from
service
earlier
by
the
PPA
due
to
mental
or
physical
conditions.
Therafter,
in
July
1992,
PPA
issued
AO
04-92,
which
aimed
to
improve
pilot
services
and
make
it
safer
for
port
users.
This
issuance
decreed
that
all
existing
regular
appointments
would
be
valid
only
until
December
31,
1992
ony
and
thereafter,
all
appointments
would
be
valid
for
a
period
of
1
year
only,
subject
to
an
annual
review
of
rigid
evaluation
of
performance.
Respondents,
United
Harbor
Pilots,
questioned
the
validity
of
this
issuance
but
the
PPA
said
that
only
its
BOD
had
the
power
to
recall
the
issuance.
When
they
didnt
get
any
further
response,
UHP
went
to
the
OP
and
OP
eventually
ordered
PPA
to
hold
in
abeyance
the
implementation
of
AO
04-92.
PPA
countered
that
it
was
exercising
its
administrative
functions.T
Then,
Assistant
Executive
Secretary
for
Legal
Affairs
of
OP,
Renato
Corona,
dismissed
the
petition
and
lifted
the
restraining
order
on
AO
04-92.
Renato
Corona
:
AO
04-92
does
NOT
constitute
a
wrongful
interference
or
a
wrongful
deprivation
of
the
property
rights
of
those
affected.
Issuance
merely
aims
to
improve
pilot
services.
He
cited
PD
857
(PPAs
Charter)
which
requires
the
PPA
to
consult
with
relevant
government
agencies.
In
this
case,
since
PPAs
BOD
was
already
composed
of
secretaries
from
DOTC,
DPWH,
DOF,
DENR,
NEDA,
MARINA,
and
the
private
sector,
PPA
has
sufficiently
complied
with
this
requirement.
Respondents
filed
a
motion
for
certiorari
with
RTC,
which
declared
the
AO
null
and
void,
explaining
that
piloting,
as
a
profession,
was
a
property
right,
and
that
to
deprive
it
would
require
due
process
in
this
case,
the
proper
public
hearings
with
those
concerned.
OP
filed
motion
with
SC
for
certiorari.
Issue:
W/N
AO
04-92
was
issued
in
stark
disregard
of
respondents
right
to
due
process
of
law
NO
FOR
PROCEDURAL
DUE
PROCESS
Procedural
due
process
refers
to
the
method
or
manner
by
which
the
law
is
forced.
As
long
as
a
party
was
given
an
opportunity
to
defend
his
interests
in
due
course,
he
cannot
be
said
to
have
been
denied
due
process,
for
this
opportunity
to
be
heard
is
the
very
essence
of
due
process.
Respondents
questioned
AO
04-92
four
times
before
the
case
was
brought
to
the
Supreme
Court.
Neither
does
the
fact
that
the
pilots
were
not
notified
taint
the
process.
As
a
general
rule,
notice
and
hearing
(as
fundamental
requirements
of
due
process)
are
required
only
when
an
administrative
body
exercises
its
quasi-judicial
function,
not
when
it
exercises
its
executive
or
legislative
functions,
such
as
issuing
rules
and
regulations.
YES
FOR
SUBSTANTIVE
DUE
PROCESS
Substantive
due
process
requires
that
the
law
itself,
not
merely
the
procedure
by
which
the
law
would
be
enforced,
is
fair,
reasonable
and
just.
In
this
case,
there
is
no
dispute
that
pilotage
as
a
profession
has
taken
on
the
nature
of
a
property
right.
It
may
be
practiced
only
by
licensed
individuals.
A
license
is
a
right
or
permission
granted
by
some
competent
authority
to
carry
on
a
business
or
to
do
an
act
which,
without
such
license,
would
be
illegal.
Their
license
is
granted
in
the
form
of
an
appointment
to
practice
their
profession
until
70
years.
This
is
a
vested
right.
AO
04-92
unduly
restricts
the
right
of
harbor
pilots
to
enjoy
their
profession
before
their
compulsory
retirement.
In
the
past,
they
enjoyed
a
measure
of
security
but
under
the
new
issuance,
they
have
to
contend
with
an
annual
cancellation
of
their
license.
Thus,
AO
04-92
is
unreasonable
and
constitutionally
affirm.