consti2 due process

8/11/2019 Consti2 Due Process

1/11

DUE PROCESS

1. Ermita-Malate Hotel & Motel Operators Assoc., Inc vs Maor o! Manila

Police Power Due Process Clause

"AC#S$ On 13 June 1963, the Manila Municipal Board enacted Ord 4760 and the same was

approved b then actin! maor "stor!a# Ord 4760 sou!ht to re!ulate hotels and motels# $t

classi%ied them into 1stclass &ta'ed at 6()r* and +ndclass &ta'ed at 4#()r*# $t also compelledhotels)motels to !et the demo!raphics o% anone who chec(s in to their rooms# $t compelled

hotels)motels to have wide open spaces so as not to conceal the identit o% their patrons# -rmita.

Malate impu!ned the validit o% the law averrin! that such is oppressive, arbitrar and a!ainstdue process# /he lower court as well as the appellate court ruled in %avor o% -rmita.Malate#

etitioners assailed the constitutionalit o% Manila Ordinance o# 4760 re!ulatin! the operation

o% hotels, motels and lod!in! houses on the !round that it is unreasonable and hence violative to

the due process clause, wherein it re2uires establishments to provide !uest re!istration %orms onthe lobb open %or public view at all times#

espondentitMaor contends that the challen!ed ordinance was a valid and proper e'ercise o%

police power measure %or the proper purpose o% curbin! immoralit# "n e'planator note %or the

challen!ed ordinance made mention o% the alarmin! increase in the rate o% prostitution, adulterand %ornication inManilatraceable in !reat part to the e'istence o% motels and the li(e#

ISSUE$ 5hether or not Ord 4760 is a!ainst the due process clause#

HE%D$ /he ruled in %avor o% "stor!a# /here is a presumption that the laws enacted b

on!ress &in this case Mun Board* is valid# 5)o a showin! or a stron! %oundation o% invalidit,the presumption stas# "s in this case, there was onl a stipulation o% %acts and such cannot

prevail over the presumption# urther, the ordinance is a valid e'ercise o% olice ower# /here is

no 2uestion but that the challen!ed ordinance was precisel enacted to minimi8e certain practices

hurt%ul to public morals# /his is to minimi8e prostitution# /he increase in ta'es not onldiscoura!es hotels)motels in doin! an business other than le!al but also increases the revenue o%

the l!u concerned# "nd ta'ation is a valid e'ercise o% police power as well# /he due process

contention is li(ewise untenable, due process has no e'act de%inition but has reason as a

standard# $n this case, the precise reason wh the ordinance was enacted was to curb downprostitution in the cit which is reason enou!h and cannot be de%eated b mere sin!lin! out o%

the provisions o% the said ordinance alle!ed to be va!ue#


2/11

. 'I%%E(AS 'S. HIU CHIO)(

"acts$ /he controverted Ordinance no# 637 was passed b the Municipal Board o% Manila on

ebruar ++, 196 and si!ned b Maor :ille!as# $t is an ordinance ma(in! it unlaw%ul %or an

person not a citi8en o% the hilippines to be emploed in an place o% emploment or to be

en!a!ed in an (ind o% trade business or occupation within the cit o% Manila without securin!

an emploment permit %rom the Maor o% Manila and %or other purposes#

;iu hion! /sai ao ;o, who was emploed in Manila %iled a petition prain! %or the writ o%

preliminar in


3/11

accorded due notice and hearin!, hence constitutin! a violation o% the due process principle#

Iss*e$ 5hether or ot due the OM-A- has the power to suspend a proclamation or the

e%%ects thereo% without notice and hearin!#

Hel+$ o# /he OM-A- is without power to partiall or totall annul a proclamation or

suspend the e%%ects o% a proclamation without notice and hearin!# /he proclamation on Ma +0,+001 en


4/11

"nother ob


5/11

;$A;O a!reed to %ile its position paper with the Mediator."rbiter and to consider the case

submitted %or decision on the basis o% the position papers %iled b the parties, there was su%%icient

compliance with the re2uirement o% due process, as petitioner was a%%orded reasonable

opportunit to present its side# Moreover, petitioner could have, i% it so desired, insisted on a

hearin! to con%ront and e'amine the witnesses o% the other part# But it did notH instead it opted

to submit its position paper with the Mediator."rbiter# Besides, petitioner had all the opportunit

to ventilate its ar!uments in its appeal to the ecretar o% Aabor#

. R*2i v Provincial 3oar+ o! Min+oro

"acts$ /he provincial board o% Mindoro adopted resolution o# + wherein non.hristianinhabitants &uncivili8ed tribes* will be directed to ta(e up their habitation on sites on unoccupied

public lands# $t is resolved that under section +077 o% the "dministrative ode, 00 hectares o%public land in the sitio o% /i!bao on au


6/11

his libert o% abode and does not den to him the e2ual protection o% the laws, and that

con%inement in reservations in accordance with said section does not constitute slaver and

involuntar servitude# /he ourt is %urther o% the opinion that section +14 o% the "dministrativeode is a le!itimate e'ertion o% the police power# ection +14 o% the "dministrative ode o%

1917 is constitutional#

"ssi!ned as reasons %or the actionE &1* attempts %or the advancement o% the non.hristian people

o% the provinceH and &+* the onl success%ull method %or educatin! the Man!uianes was to

obli!e them to live in a permanent settlement# /he olicitor.Deneral adds the %ollowin!H &3* /heprotection o% the Man!uianesH &4* the protection o% the public %orests in which the roamH &* the

necessit o% introducin! civili8ed customs amon! the Man!uianes#

One cannot hold that the libert o% the citi8en is undul inter%ered without when the de!ree o%civili8ation o% the Man!uianes is considered# /he are restrained %or their own !ood and the

!eneral !ood o% the hilippines#

FAibert re!ulated b lawIE $mplied in the term is restraint b law %or the !ood o% the individualand %or the !reater !ood o% the peace and order o% societ and the !eneral well.bein!# o man

can do e'actl as he pleases#

one o% the ri!hts o% the citi8en can be ta(en awa e'cept b due process o% law#

/here%ore, petitioners are not unlaw%ull imprisoned or restrained o% their libert# ;abeas

corpus can, there%ore, not issue#

4. 5avier v Comelec

"acts$ /he petitioner and the private respondent were candidates in "nti2ue %or the Batasan!

ambansa in the Ma 194 elections# /he %ormer appeared to enBA with all its per2uisites o% power# OnMa 13, 194, the eve o% the elections, the bitter contest between the two came to a head when

several %ollowers o% the petitioner were ambushed and (illed, alle!edl b the latter=s men# even

suspects, includin! respondent aci%icador, are now %acin! trial %or these murders# Owin! towhat he claimed were attempts to railroadthe private respondent=s proclamation, the petitioner

went to theommission on -lections to 2uestion the canvass o% the election returns# ;is

complaints were dismissed and the private respondent was proclaimed winner b the econdivision o% the said bod# /he petitioner thereupon came to this ourt, ar!uin! that the

proclamation was void because made onl b a division and not b the ommissionon -lections

en banc as re2uired b the onstitution# Meanwhile, on the stren!th o% his proclamation, theprivate respondent too( his oath as a member o% the Batasan! ambansa#

Iss*e$ 5hether or ot the econd ivision o% the ommission on -lections authori8ed topromul!ate its decision o% Jul +3, 194, proclaimin! the private respondent the winner in the

election#


7/11

Hel+$ /his ourt has repeatedl and consistentl demanded Ithe cold neutralit o% an impartial


8/11

the court to be le!al# "n e'tensive search without warrant could onl be resorted to i% the o%%icers

conductin! the search had reasonable or probable cause to believe before the search that either

the motorist was a law o%%ender or that the would %ind the instrumentalit or evidence pertainin!to the commission o% a crime in the vehicle to be searched# Because there was no su%%icient

evidence that would impel the policemen to suspect "rellano to


9/11

1;. An #i2a v CIR

"acts$/here was a!reement between "n! /iba and the ational Aabor ?nion, $nc &A?*# /heA? alle!ed that the supposed lac( o% leather material claimed b /oribio /eodoro was but a

scheme adopted to sstematicall dischar!e all the members o% the A?, %rom wor(# "nd this

averment is desired to be proved b the petitioner with the records o% the Bureau o% ustoms andBoo(s o% "ccounts o% native dealers in leather# /hat ational 5or(er=s Brotherhood ?nion o%

"n! /iba is a compan or emploer union dominated b /oribio /eodoro, which was alle!ed b

the A? as an ille!al one# /he $, decided the case and elevated it to the upreme ourt, but amotion %or new trial was raised b the A?# But the "n! /iba %iled a motion %or opposin! the

said motion#

Iss*e$5hether or ot, the motion %or new trial is meritorious to be !ranted#

Hel+$/o be!in with the issue be%ore us is to reali8e the %unctions o% the $# /he $ is a

special court whose %unctions are speci%icall stated in the law o% its creation which is the

ommonwealth "ct o# 103*# $t is more an administrative board than a part o% the inte!rated


10/11

&6* /he tribunal or bod or an o% its


11/11

on the incident# $nstead o% %ilin! a repl, respondent students re2uested throu!h their counsel,

copies o% the char!es# /he nature and cause o% the accusation were ade2uatel spelled out in

petitioners= notices# resent is the twin elements o% notice and hearin!#

espondent students ar!ue that petitioners are not in a position to %ile the instant petition under

ule 6 considerin! that the %ailed to %ile a motion %or reconsideration %irst be%ore the trialcourt, thereb b passin! the latter and the ourt o% "ppeals# $t is accepted le!al doctrine that an

e'ception to the doctrine o% e'haustion o% remedies is when the case involves a 2uestion o% law,

as in this case, where the issue is whether or not respondent students have been a%%ordedprocedural due process prior to their dismissal %rom etitioner ?niversit#

Minimum standards to be satis%ied in the imposition o% disciplinar sanctions in academic

institutions, such as petitioner universit herein, thusE

&1* the students must be in%ormed in writin! o% the nature and cause o% an accusation a!ainst

themH

&+* that the shall have the ri!ht to answer the char!es a!ainst them with the assistance o%counsel, i% desiredE

&3* the shall be in%ormed o% the evidence a!ainst them&4* the shall have the ri!ht to adduce evidence in their own behal%H and

&* the evidence must be dul considered b the investi!atin! committee or o%%icial desi!nated

b the school authorities to hear and decide the case#

consti2 due process

Documents