CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II: DUE PROCESS OF LAW CASES Page |1 DENNIS ARAN T.

ABRIL JD-410 UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

NATURE OF PROVISIONS MANILA PRINCE HOTEL VS. GSIS Facts: - The shares (31% to 50%) of Manila Hotel Corporation were sold by GSIS through public bidding. - There were two bidders Manila Prince Hotel Corporation (Filipino firm) and Renong Berhad (Malaysian firm) - Renong Berhad bade higher than Manila Prince Hotel Corporation. - Pending the declaration of Renong Berhad as the highest bidder, MPHC sent a managers check amounting to the same bid by RB. - GSIS refused to accept offer. - Petitioner prayed for writ of mandamus and prohibition. Lower court issued a restraining order preventing GSIS and Renong Berhad from consummating the sale. - Invoked by petitioners: Section 10 of Article XII. The Congress shall, upon recommendation of the economic and planning agency, when the national interest dictates, reserve to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens, or such higher percentage as Congress may prescribe, certain areas of investments. The Congress shall enact measures that will encourage the formation and operation of enterprises whose capital is wholly owned by Filipinos. (Thus, any transaction involving 51% of the shares of stock of the MHC is clearly covered by the term national economy, to which Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII, 1987 Constitution, applies.) - The answer of the respondents are the following: 1. Section 10 of Article 12 is not self-executing. For the said provision to operate, there must be existing laws to lay down conditions under which business may be done. 2. Granting the provision is self-executing, the Manila Hotel Corporation is not part of national patrimony. The mandate of the Constitution is addressed to the State, not to respondent GSIS which possesses a personality of its own separate and distinct from the Philippines as a State. 3. The Constitutional provision cannot be invoked because what is sold is only 51% of the total shares of the corporation, not the building or the land where it is built. 4. Submission by petitioner of a matching bid is premature since Renong Berhad could still very well be awarded the block of shares and the condition giving rise to the exercise of the privilege to submit a matching bid had not yet taken place. 5. Submission by petitioner of a matching bid is premature since Renong Berhad could still very well be awarded the block of shares and the condition giving rise to the exercise of the privilege to submit a matching bid had not yet taken place. Issue: Whether or not the GSIS violated Section 10, second paragraph, Article 11 of the 1987 Constitution Held: A constitution is a system of fundamental laws for the governance and administration of a nation. It is supreme, imperious, absolute and unalterable except by the authority from which it emanates. It has been defined as the fundamental and paramount law of the nation. It prescribes the permanent framework of a system of government, assigns to the different departments their respective powers and duties, and establishes certain fixed principles on which government is founded. The fundamental conception in other words is that it is a supreme law to which all other laws must conform and in accordance with which all private rights must be determined and all public authority administered. Under the doctrine of constitutional supremacy, if a law or contract violates any norm of the constitution that law or contract whether promulgated by the legislative or by the executive branch or entered into by private persons for private purposes is null and void and without any force and effect. Thus, since the Constitution is the fundamental, paramount and supreme law of the nation, it is deemed written in every statute and contract. A constitutional provision is self-executing if the nature and extent of the right conferred and the liability imposed are fixed by the constitution itself, so that they can be determined by an examination and construction of its terms, and there is no language indicating that the subject is referred to the legislature for action. Unless it is expressly provided that a legislative act is necessary to enforce a constitutional mandate, the presumption now is that all provisions of the constitution are self-executing. If the constitutional provisions are treated as requiring legislation instead of self-executing, the legislature would have the power to ignore and practically nullify the mandate of the fundamental law. The prevailing view is that: In case of doubt, the Constitution should be considered self-executing rather than non-selfexecuting. Unless the contrary is clearly intended, the provisions of the Constitution should be considered selfexecuting, as a contrary rule would give the legislature discretion to determine when, or whether, they shall be effective. These provisions would be subordinated to the will of the lawmaking body, which could make them entirely meaningless by simply refusing to pass the needed implementing statute. On the other hand, Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII of the 1987 Constitution is a mandatory, positive command which is complete in itself and which needs no further guidelines or implementing laws or rules for its enforcement. From its very words the provision does not require any legislation to put it in operation. It is per se judicially enforceable. When our Constitution mandates that [i]n the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering national economy and patrimony, the State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos, it means just that qualified Filipinos shall be preferred. And when our Constitution declares that a right exists in certain specified circumstances an action may be maintained to enforce such right notwithstanding the absence of any legislation on the subject; consequently, if there is no statute especially enacted to enforce such constitutional right, such right enforces itself by its own inherent potency and puissance, and from which all

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II: DUE PROCESS OF LAW CASES Page |2 DENNIS ARAN T. ABRIL JD-410 UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
legislations must take their bearings. Where there is a right there is a remedy. Ubi jus ibi remedium We agree. In its plain and ordinary meaning, the term patrimony pertains to heritage.[35] When the Constitution speaks of national patrimony, it refers not only to the natural resources of the Philippines, as the Constitution could have very well used the term natural resources, but also to the cultural heritage of the Filipinos. Manila Hotel has become a landmark a living testimonial of Philippine heritage. For more than eight (8) decades Manila Hotel has bore mute witness to the triumphs and failures, loves and frustrations of the Filipinos; its existence is impressed with public interest; its own historicity associated with our struggle for sovereignty, independence and nationhood. Verily, Manila Hotel has become part of our national economy and patrimony. For sure, 51% of the equity of the MHC comes within the purview of the constitutional shelter for it comprises the majority and controlling stock, so that anyone who acquires or owns the 51% will have actual control and management of the hotel. In the granting of economic rights, privileges, and concessions, when a choice has to be made between a qualified foreigner and a qualified Filipino, the latter shall be chosen over the former. The term qualified Filipinos as used in our Constitution also includes corporations at least 60% of which is owned by Filipinos. Since petitioner has already matched the bid price tendered by Renong Berhad pursuant to the bidding rules, respondent GSIS is left with no alternative but to award to petitioner the block of shares of MHC and to execute the necessary agreements and documents to effect the sale in accordance not only with the bidding guidelines and procedures but with the Constitution as well. Therefore, the respondents are ordered to cease and desist from selling 51% of MHC shares to the Malaysian firm. The Php44/shar bid of Manila Prince Hotel shall be accepted by GSIS. The evidence of the prosecution showed that in the morning of March 11, 1982, while Enrico was walking with a classmate along Roque street in the poblacion of Lopez, Quezon, he was approached by a man who requested his assistance in getting his father's signature on a medical certificate. Enrico agreed to help and rode with the man in a tricycle to Calantipayan, where he waited outside while the man went into a building to get the certificate. Enrico became apprehensive and started to cry when, instead of taking him to the hospital, the man flagged a minibus and forced him inside, holding him firmly all the while. The man told him to stop crying or he would not be returned to his father. When they alighted at Gumaca, they took another tricycle, this time bound for the municipal building from where they walked to the market. Here the man talked to a jeepney driver and handed him an envelope addressed to Dr. Enrique Agra, the boy's father. The two then boarded a tricycle headed for San Vicente, with the man still firmly holding Enrico, who continued crying. This aroused the suspicion of the driver, Alexander Grate, who asked the man about his relationship with the boy. The man said he and the boy were brothers, making Grate doubly suspicious because of the physical differences between the two and the wide gap between their ages. Grate immediately reported the matter to two barangay tanods when his passengers alighted from the tricycle. Grate and the tanods went after the two and saw the man dragging the boy. Noticing that they were being pursued, the man told Enrico to run fast as their pursuers might behead them. Somehow, the man managed to escape, leaving Enrico behind. Enrico was on his way home in a passenger jeep when he met his parents, who were riding in the hospital ambulance and already looking for him. 2 At about 1:45 in the afternoon of the same day, after Enrico's return, Agra received an envelope containing a ransom note. The note demanded P1 million for the release of Enrico and warned that otherwise the boy would be killed. Agra thought the handwriting in the note was familiar. After comparing it with some records in the hospital, he gave the note to the police, which referred it to the NBI for examination. 3 The test showed that it bad been written by Dr. Samson Tan. 4 On the other hand, Enrico was shown a folder of pictures in the police station so be could identify the man who had detained him, and he pointed to the picture of Pablito Domasian. 5 Domasian and Tan were subsequently charged with the crime of kidnapping with serious illegal detention in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon. 6 The defense of both accused was denial and alibi. Domasian claimed that at the time of the incident he was watching a mahjong game in a friend's house and later went to an optical clinic with his wife for the refraction of his eyeglasses. 7 Dr. Tan for his part said he was in Manila. 8 After trial Judge Enrico A. Lanzanas found both accused guilty as charged and sentenced them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and all accessory penalties. They were also required to pay P200,000.00 to Dr. and Mrs. Enrique Agra as actual and moral damages and attorney's fees. In the present appeal, the accused-appellants reiterate their denial of any participation in the incident in question. They belittle the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and submit that their own witnesses are more believable. Tan

AGAINST WHOM ENFORCEABLE PEOPLE VS. DOMASIAN. CRUZ, J.: The boy was detained for only about three hours and was released even before his parents received the ransom note. But it spawned a protracted trial spanning all of 8 years and led to the conviction of the two accused. 1 The victim was Enrico Paulo Agra, who was 8 years old at the time of the incident in question. The accused were Pablito Domasian and Samson Tan, the latter then a resident physician in the hospital owned by Enrico's parents. They were represented by separate lawyers at the trial and filed separate briefs in this appeal.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II: DUE PROCESS OF LAW CASES Page |3 DENNIS ARAN T. ABRIL JD-410 UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
specifically challenges the findings of the NBI and offers anew the opposite findings of the PC/INP showing that he was not the writer of the ransom note. He maintains that in any case, the crime alleged is not kidnapping with serious illegal detention as no detention in an enclosure was involved. If at all, it should be denominated and punished only as grave coercion. Finally, both Domasian and Tan insist that there is no basis for the finding of a conspiracy between them to make them criminally liable in equal degree. First, on the credibility of the witnesses. This is assessed in the first instance by the trial judge, whose finding in this regard is received with much respect by the appellate court because of his opportunity to directly observe the demeanor of the witnesses on the stand. In the case at bar, Judge Lanzanas relied heavily on the testimony of the victim himself, who positively identified Domasian as the person who detained him for three hours. The trial court observed that the boy was "straight-forward, natural and consistent" in the narration of his detention. The boy's naivete made him even more believable. Tirso Ferreras, Enrico's classmate and also his age, pointed to Domasian with equal certainty, as the man who approached Enrico when they were walking together that morning of March 11, 1982. Grate, the tricycle driver who suspected Enrico's companion and later chased him, was also positive in identifying Domasian. All these three witnesses did not know Domasian until that same morning and could have no ill motive in testifying against him. By contrast, Eugenia Agtay, who testified for the defense, can hardly be considered a disinterested witness because she admitted she had known Domasian for 3 years. The defense asks why Domasian openly took Enrico to several public places if the intention was to kidnap and detain him. That is for Domasian himself to answer. We do no have to probe the reasons for the irrational conduct of an accused. The more important question, as we see it, is why Domasian detained Enrico in the first place after pretending he needed the boy's help. That is also for Domasian to explain. As for Enrico's alleged willingness to go with Domasian, this was manifested only at the beginning, when he believed the man sincerely needed his assistance. But he was soon disabused. His initial confidence gave way to fear when Domasian, after taking him so far away from the hospital where he was going, restrained and threatened him if he did not stop crying. Domasian's alibi cannot stand against his positive identification by Enrico, Grate and Ferreras, let alone the contradictions made by his corroborating witness, Dr. Irene Argosino, regarding the time he was in the optical clinic and the manner of his payment for the refraction. 9 Tan's alibi is not convincing either. The circumstance that he may have been in Manila at the time of the incident does not prove that he could not have written the ransom note except at that time. Concerning the note, Rule 132, Section 22, of the Rules of Court provides as follows: The handwriting of a person may be proved by any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such person and has seen the person write, or has seen writing purporting to be his upon which the witness has acted or been charged and has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person. Evidence respecting the handwriting may also be given by a comparison, made by the witness or the court with writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge. Two expert witnesses were presented in the case at bar, one from the NBI, 10 who opined that the ransom note and the standard documents were written by one and the same person, and another from the PC/INP 11 who expressed a contrary conclusion. The trial court chose to believe the NBI expert because his examination and analysis "was more comprehensive than the one conducted by the PC/INP handwriting expert, who virtually limited his reliance on the perceived similarities and dissimilarities in the pattern and style of the writing, thereby disregarding the basic principle in handwriting identification that it is not the form alone nor anyone feature but rather a combination of all the qualities that identify." We have held that the value of the opinion of a handwriting expert depends not upon his mere statements of whether a writing is genuine or false, but upon the assistance he may afford in pointing out distinguishing marks, characteristics and discrepancies in and between genuine and false specimens of writing which would ordinarily escape notice or detection from an unpracticed observer. 12 The test of genuineness ought to be the resemblance, not the formation of letters in some other specimens but to the general character of writing, which is impressed on it as the involuntary and unconscious result of constitution, habit or other permanent course, and is, therefore itself permanent. 13 Presented with the conflicting opinions of the witnesses in the case at bar, the Court feels that the scales should tilt in favor of the prosecution. Significantly, the NBI opinion was bolstered by the testimony of Agra, who believed that the ransom note was written by Tan, with whose handwriting he was familiar because they had been working in the hospital for four years and he had seen that handwriting every day in Tan's prescriptions and daily reports.14 Cesar v. Sandiganbayan 15 is not applicable because that case involved a forgery or the deliberate imitation of another person's signature. In the case before us, there was in fact an effort to disguise the ransom note writer's penmanship to prevent his discovery. As for the nature of the crime committed, Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code provides as follows: Art. 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention. Any private individual who shall kidnap or detain another, or in any manner deprive him of his liberty, shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death: 1. If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more than five days.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II: DUE PROCESS OF LAW CASES Page |4 DENNIS ARAN T. ABRIL JD-410 UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
2. If it shall have been committed simulating public authority. 3. If any serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained; of if threats to kill him shall have been made. 4. If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor, female or a public officer. The penalty shall be death where the kidnapping or detention was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or any other person; even if none of the circumstances abovementioned were present in the commission of the offense. Contrary to Tan's submission, this crime may consist not only in placing a person in an enclosure but also in detaining him or depriving him in any manner of his liberty. 16 In the case at bar, it is noted that although the victim was not confined in an enclosure, he was deprived of his liberty when Domasian restrained him from going home and dragged him first into the minibus that took them to the municipal building in Gumaca, thence to the market and then into the tricycle bound for San Vicente. The detention was committed by Domasian, who was a private individual, and Enrico was a minor at that time. The crime clearly comes under Par. 4 of the above-quoted article. Tan claims that the lower court erred in not finding that the sending of the ransom note was an impossible crime which he says is not punishable. His reason is that the second paragraph of Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code provides that criminal liability shall be incurred "by any person performing an act which would be an offense against persons or property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means." As the crime alleged is not against persons or property but against liberty, he argues that it is not covered by the said provision. Tan conveniently forgets the first paragraphs of the same article, which clearly applies to him, thus: Art. 4. Criminal liability. Criminal liability shall be incurred: 1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. xxx xxx xxx Even before the ransom note was received, the crime of kidnapping with serious illegal detention had already been committed. The act cannot be considered an impossible crime because there was no inherent improbability of its accomplishment or the employment of inadequate or ineffective means. The delivery of the ransom note after the rescue of the victim did not extinguish the offense, which had already been consummated when Domasian deprived Enrico of his liberty. The sending of the ransom note would have had the effect only of increasing the penalty to death under the last paragraph of Article 267 although this too would not have been possible under the new Constitution. On the issue of conspiracy, we note first that it exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it, whether they act through physical volition of one or all, proceeding severally or collectively. 17 It is settled that conspiracy can be inferred from and proven by the acts of the accused themselves when said acts point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action and community of interests. 18 In the instant case, the trial court correctly held that conspiracy was proved by the act of Domasian in detaining Enrico; the writing of the ransom note by Tan; and its delivery by Domasian to Agra. These acts were complementary to each other and geared toward the attainment of the common ultimate objective, viz., to extort the ransom of P1 million in exchange for Enrico's life. The motive for the offense is not difficult to discover. According to Agra, Tan approached him six days before the incident happened and requested a loan of at least P15,000.00. Agra said he had no funds at that moment and Tan did not believe him, angrily saying that Agra could even raise a million pesos if he really wanted to help. 19The refusal obviously triggered the plan to kidnap Enrico and demand P1 million for his release. The constitutional issues raised by Domasian do not affect the decision in this case. His claim that he was arrested without warrant and then tortured and held incommunicado to extort a confession from him does not vitiate his conviction. He never gave any confession. As for the allegation that the seizure of the documents used for comparison with the ransom note was made without a search warrant, it suffices to say that such documents were taken by Agra himself and not by the NBI agents or other police authorities. We held in the case of People vs. Andre Marti, 20 that the Bill of Rights cannot be invoked against acts of private individuals, being directed only against the government and its law-enforcement agencies and limitation on official action. We are satisfied that Tan and Domasian, in conspiracy with each other, committed the crime of kidnapping as defined and penalized under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code and so deserve the penalty imposed upon them by the trial court. WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is AFFIRMED, with costs against the accused-appellants. Let a copy of this decision be sent to the Commission on Human Rights for investigation of the alleged violation of the constitutional rights of Pablito Domasian. SO ORDERED. DUE PROCESS OF LAW IN GENERAL U.S. vs. LING SU FAN FACTS: Ling Su Fan was accused of the offense under the Act no. 1411 which is exporting from the Philippine Islands Philippine silver coins. An employee at the Manila custom-house found on board the steamship Taming in the bunk occupied by and in the exclusive use and control of Ling Su Fan, who was the comprador on board (said ship), 20,600 silver coins, each of 1 peso, being coins made and issued by and under the direction of the Government of the Philippine Islands. During

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II: DUE PROCESS OF LAW CASES Page |5 DENNIS ARAN T. ABRIL JD-410 UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
the trial Ling Su Fan in his defense said coins were brought to the Philippine Islands for the purpose of buying other coins. Lower court unable to believe in the credence of testimony found defendant guilty. Thus this case, appealing said complaint is contrary to the provision of the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America and also contrary to paragraph 1 of section 5 of the Act of Congress of the United States of America. ISSUE: WON the complaint is contrary to the provision of the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution of the USA and also contrary to paragraph 1 of section 5 of the Act of Congress of the USA which deprive him of life, liberty, or property HELD: NO. That part of the contention of the appellant which refers to the Constitution of the United States can have no important bearing upon the present case, for the reason that paragraph 1 of section 5 of the said act of Congress dated July 1, 1902, is almost exactly in the same phraseology as a portion of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and therefore, decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States in construing said fourteenth amendment, may be referred to for the purpose of ascertaining what was intended by Congress in enacting said paragraph 1 of section 5, and what laws the Philippine Commission may make under its provisions. Paragraph 1 of section 5 of the said act of Congress is as follows: That no law shall be enacted in said Islands which shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or deny to any person therein the equal protection of the laws. It will be noted that this amendment does not prohibit the enactment of laws by the legislative department of the Philippine Government, depriving persons, of life, liberty, or property. It simply provides that laws shall not be enacted which shall deprive persons of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. [IMPORTANT PART LANG PO ITONG SUMUNOD BAKA SAKALING TANUNGIN EH.. HEHE :P TUNGKOL NA PO SA DUE PROCESS YUNG SUMUNOD. PERO YUNG SA TAAS UNDER SIYA NUNG LIFE, LLIBERTY OR PROPERTY] It will be noted that the Civil Commission expressly relied upon the act of Congress, for its authority in enacting said Act No. 1411. Under the question suggested it becomes important to determine what Congress intended by the phrase "due process of law." "Due process of law" is process or proceedings according to the law of the land. "Due process of law" is not that the law shall be according to the wishes of all the inhabitants of the state, but simply First. That there shall be a law prescribed in harmony with the general powers of the legislative department of the Government; Second. That this law shall be reasonable in its operation; Third. That it shall be enforced according to the regular methods of procedure prescribed; and Fourth. That it shall be applicable alike to all the citizens of the state or to all of a class. In each particular case "due process of law" means such an exercise of the powers of the Government as the settled maxims of law permit and sanction and under such safeguards for the protection of the individual rights as those maxims prescribed have to the class of cases to which the one being dealt with belongs. Thus In the present case the following facts may be noted: First. That the Civil Commission on the 17th day of November, 1905, regularly and under the methods prescribed by law, enacted Act No. 1411, providing for the punishment of all persons who should export or attempt to export from the Philippine Islands Philippine silver coins. Second. That this law had been enacted and published nearly eleven months before the commission of the alleged offense by the defendant. Third. That a complaint was duly presented, in writing, in a court regularly organized, having jurisdiction of the offense under the said law, and the defendant was duly arrested and brought before the court and was given an opportunity to defend himself against the said charges. Fourth. That the defendant was regularly tried, being given the opportunity to hear and see and to cross-examine the witnesses presented against him and to present such witnesses presented against him and to present such witnesses in his own defense as he deemed necessary and advisable. Fifth. That after such trial the said court duly sentenced the defendant, complying with all the prescribed rules of procedure established. Sixth. That said Act No. 1411 was duly enacted by the Philippine Commission in pursuance of express authority given said Commission by the Congress of the United States in an act duly approved March 2, 1903. WHITE LIGHT CORPORATION, TITANIUM CORPORATION and STA. MESA TOURIST & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioners, vs. CITY OF MANILA, represented by DE CASTRO, MAYOR ALFREDO S. LIM, Respondent. DECISION Tinga, J.: With another city ordinance of Manila also principally involving the tourist district as subject, the Court is confronted anew with the incessant clash between government power and individual liberty in tandem with the archetypal tension between law and morality. In City of Manila v. Laguio, Jr.,1 the Court affirmed the nullification of a city ordinance barring the operation of motels and inns, among other establishments, within the Ermita-Malate area. The petition at bar assails a similarlymotivated city ordinance that prohibits those same establishments from offering short-time admission, as well as pro-rated or "wash up" rates for such abbreviated stays. Our earlier decision tested the city ordinance against our sacred constitutional rights to liberty, due process and equal protection of law. The same parameters apply to the present petition. This Petition2 under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules on Civil Procedure, which seeks the reversal of the Decision3 in C.A.G.R. S.P. No. 33316 of the Court of Appeals, challenges the validity of Manila City Ordinance No. 7774 entitled, "An Ordinance Prohibiting Short-Time Admission, Short-Time

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II: DUE PROCESS OF LAW CASES Page |6 DENNIS ARAN T. ABRIL JD-410 UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
Admission Rates, and Wash-Up Rate Schemes in Hotels, Motels, Inns, Lodging Houses, Pension Houses, and Similar Establishments in the City of Manila" (the Ordinance). I. The facts are as follows: On December 3, 1992, City Mayor Alfredo S. Lim (Mayor Lim) signed into law the Ordinance.4 The Ordinance is reproduced in full, hereunder: SECTION 1. Declaration of Policy. It is hereby the declared policy of the City Government to protect the best interest, health and welfare, and the morality of its constituents in general and the youth in particular. SEC. 2. Title. This ordinance shall be known as "An Ordinance" prohibiting short time admission in hotels, motels, lodging houses, pension houses and similar establishments in the City of Manila. SEC. 3. Pursuant to the above policy, short-time admission and rate [sic], wash-up rate or other similarly concocted terms, are hereby prohibited in hotels, motels, inns, lodging houses, pension houses and similar establishments in the City of Manila. SEC. 4. Definition of Term[s]. Short-time admission shall mean admittance and charging of room rate for less than twelve (12) hours at any given time or the renting out of rooms more than twice a day or any other term that may be concocted by owners or managers of said establishments but would mean the same or would bear the same meaning. SEC. 5. Penalty Clause. Any person or corporation who shall violate any provision of this ordinance shall upon conviction thereof be punished by a fine of Five Thousand (P5,000.00) Pesos or imprisonment for a period of not exceeding one (1) year or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court; Provided, That in case of [a] juridical person, the president, the manager, or the persons in charge of the operation thereof shall be liable: Provided, further, That in case of subsequent conviction for the same offense, the business license of the guilty party shall automatically be cancelled. SEC. 6. Repealing Clause. Any or all provisions of City ordinances not consistent with or contrary to this measure or any portion hereof are hereby deemed repealed. SEC. 7. Effectivity. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon approval. Enacted by the city Council of Manila at its regular session today, November 10, 1992. Approved by His Honor, the Mayor on December 3, 1992. On December 15, 1992, the Malate Tourist and Development Corporation (MTDC) filed a complaint for declaratory relief with prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order ( TRO)5 with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 9 impleading as defendant, herein respondent City of Manila (the City) represented by Mayor Lim.6 MTDC prayed that the Ordinance, insofar as it includes motels and inns as among its prohibited establishments, be declared invalid and unconstitutional. MTDC claimed that as owner and operator of the Victoria Court in Malate, Manila it was authorized by Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 259 to admit customers on a short time basis as well as to charge customers wash up rates for stays of only three hours. On December 21, 1992, petitioners White Light Corporation (WLC), Titanium Corporation (TC) and Sta. Mesa Tourist and Development Corporation (STDC) filed a motion to intervene and to admit attached complaint-in-intervention7 on the ground that the Ordinance directly affects their business interests as operators of drive-in-hotels and motels in Manila.8 The three companies are components of the Anito Group of Companies which owns and operates several hotels and motels in Metro Manila.9 On December 23, 1992, the RTC granted the motion to intervene.10 The RTC also notified the Solicitor General of the proceedings pursuant to then Rule 64, Section 4 of the Rules of Court. On the same date, MTDC moved to withdraw as plaintiff.11 On December 28, 1992, the RTC granted MTDC's motion to withdraw.12 The RTC issued a TRO on January 14, 1993, directing the City to cease and desist from enforcing the Ordinance.13 The City filed an Answer dated January 22, 1993 alleging that the Ordinance is a legitimate exercise of police power.14 On February 8, 1993, the RTC issued a writ of preliminary injunction ordering the city to desist from the enforcement of the Ordinance.15 A month later, on March 8, 1993, the Solicitor General filed his Comment arguing that the Ordinance is constitutional. During the pre-trial conference, the WLC, TC and STDC agreed to submit the case for decision without trial as the case involved a purely legal question.16 On October 20, 1993, the RTC rendered a decision declaring the Ordinance null and void. The dispositive portion of the decision reads: WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, [O]rdinance No. 7774 of the City of Manila is hereby declared null and void. Accordingly, the preliminary injunction heretofor issued is hereby made permanent. SO ORDERED.17 The RTC noted that the ordinance "strikes at the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed and jealously guarded by the Constitution."18 Reference was made to the provisions of the Constitution encouraging private enterprises and the incentive to needed investment, as well as the right to operate economic enterprises. Finally, from the observation that the illicit relationships the Ordinance sought to dissuade could nonetheless be consummated by simply paying for a 12-hour stay, the RTC likened the law to the ordinance annulled in Ynot v. Intermediate Appellate Court,19 where the legitimate purpose of preventing indiscriminate slaughter of carabaos was sought to be effected through an interprovince ban on the transport of carabaos and carabeef. The City later filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court.20 The petition was docketed as G.R. No. 112471. However in a resolution dated January 26, 1994, the Court treated the petition as a petition forcertiorari and referred the petition to the Court of Appeals.21 Before the Court of Appeals, the City asserted that the Ordinance is a valid exercise of police power pursuant to Section 458 (4)(iv) of the Local Government Code which confers on cities, among other local government units, the power: [To] regulate the establishment, operation and maintenance of cafes, restaurants, beerhouses, hotels, motels, inns,

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II: DUE PROCESS OF LAW CASES Page |7 DENNIS ARAN T. ABRIL JD-410 UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
pension houses, lodging houses and other similar establishments, including tourist guides and transports. 22 The Ordinance, it is argued, is also a valid exercise of the power of the City under Article III, Section 18(kk) of the Revised Manila Charter, thus: "to enact all ordinances it may deem necessary and proper for the sanitation and safety, the furtherance of the prosperity and the promotion of the morality, peace, good order, comfort, convenience and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, and such others as be necessary to carry into effect and discharge the powers and duties conferred by this Chapter; and to fix penalties for the violation of ordinances which shall not exceed two hundred pesos fine or six months imprisonment, or both such fine and imprisonment for a single offense.23 Petitioners argued that the Ordinance is unconstitutional and void since it violates the right to privacy and the freedom of movement; it is an invalid exercise of police power; and it is an unreasonable and oppressive interference in their business. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the RTC and affirmed the constitutionality of the Ordinance.24 First, it held that the Ordinance did not violate the right to privacy or the freedom of movement, as it only penalizes the owners or operators of establishments that admit individuals for short time stays. Second, the virtually limitless reach of police power is only constrained by having a lawful object obtained through a lawful method. The lawful objective of the Ordinance is satisfied since it aims to curb immoral activities. There is a lawful method since the establishments are still allowed to operate. Third, the adverse effect on the establishments is justified by the well-being of its constituents in general. Finally, as held in Ermita-Malate Motel Operators Association v. City Mayor of Manila, liberty is regulated by law. TC, WLC and STDC come to this Court via petition for review on certiorari.25 In their petition and Memorandum, petitioners in essence repeat the assertions they made before the Court of Appeals. They contend that the assailed Ordinance is an invalid exercise of police power. II. We must address the threshold issue of petitioners standing. Petitioners allege that as owners of establishments offering "wash-up" rates, their business is being unlawfully interfered with by the Ordinance. However, petitioners also allege that the equal protection rights of their clients are also being interfered with. Thus, the crux of the matter is whether or not these establishments have the requisite standing to plead for protection of their patrons' equal protection rights. Standing or locus standi is the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case. More importantly, the doctrine of standing is built on the principle of separation of powers,26 sparing as it does unnecessary interference or invalidation by the judicial branch of the actions rendered by its co-equal branches of government. The requirement of standing is a core component of the judicial system derived directly from the Constitution.27The constitutional component of standing doctrine incorporates concepts which concededly are not susceptible of precise definition.28 In this jurisdiction, the extancy of "a direct and personal interest" presents the most obvious cause, as well as the standard test for a petitioner's standing.29 In a similar vein, the United States Supreme Court reviewed and elaborated on the meaning of the three constitutional standing requirements of injury, causation, and redressability in Allen v. Wright.30 Nonetheless, the general rules on standing admit of several exceptions such as the overbreadth doctrine, taxpayer suits, third party standing and, especially in the Philippines, the doctrine of transcendental importance.31 For this particular set of facts, the concept of third party standing as an exception and the overbreadth doctrine are appropriate. In Powers v. Ohio,32 the United States Supreme Court wrote that: "We have recognized the right of litigants to bring actions on behalf of third parties, provided three important criteria are satisfied: the litigant must have suffered an injury-in-fact, thus giving him or her a "sufficiently concrete interest" in the outcome of the issue in dispute; the litigant must have a close relation to the third party; and there must exist some hindrance to the third party's ability to protect his or her own interests."33 Herein, it is clear that the business interests of the petitioners are likewise injured by the Ordinance. They rely on the patronage of their customers for their continued viability which appears to be threatened by the enforcement of the Ordinance. The relative silence in constitutional litigation of such special interest groups in our nation such as the American Civil Liberties Union in the United States may also be construed as a hindrance for customers to bring suit. 34 American jurisprudence is replete with examples where parties-in-interest were allowed standing to advocate or invoke the fundamental due process or equal protection claims of other persons or classes of persons injured by state action. In Griswold v. Connecticut,35 the United States Supreme Court held that physicians had standing to challenge a reproductive health statute that would penalize them as accessories as well as to plead the constitutional protections available to their patients. The Court held that: "The rights of husband and wife, pressed here, are likely to be diluted or adversely affected unless those rights are considered in a suit involving those who have this kind of confidential relation to them."36 An even more analogous example may be found in Craig v. Boren,37 wherein the United States Supreme Court held that a licensed beverage vendor has standing to raise the equal protection claim of a male customer challenging a statutory scheme prohibiting the sale of beer to males under the age of 21 and to females under the age of 18. The United States High Court explained that the vendors had standing "by acting as advocates of the rights of third parties who seek access to their market or function."38 Assuming arguendo that petitioners do not have a relationship with their patrons for the former to assert the rights of the latter, the overbreadth doctrine comes into play. In overbreadth analysis, challengers to government actionare in effect permitted to raise the rights of third parties. Generally applied to statutes infringing on the freedom of speech, the overbreadth doctrine applies when a statute needlessly restrains even constitutionally guaranteed rights.39 In this case, the petitioners claim that the Ordinance

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II: DUE PROCESS OF LAW CASES Page |8 DENNIS ARAN T. ABRIL JD-410 UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
makes a sweeping intrusion into the right to liberty of their clients. We can see that based on the allegations in the petition, the Ordinance suffers from overbreadth. We thus recognize that the petitioners have a right to assert the constitutional rights of their clients to patronize their establishments for a "wash-rate" time frame. III. To students of jurisprudence, the facts of this case will recall to mind not only the recent City of Manila ruling, but our 1967 decision in Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operations Association, Inc., v. Hon. City Mayor of Manila.40ErmitaMalate concerned the City ordinance requiring patrons to fill up a prescribed form stating personal information such as name, gender, nationality, age, address and occupation before they could be admitted to a motel, hotel or lodging house. This earlier ordinance was precisely enacted to minimize certain practices deemed harmful to public morals. A purpose similar to the annulled ordinance in City of Manila which sought a blanket ban on motels, inns and similar establishments in the Ermita-Malate area. However, the constitutionality of the ordinance in Ermita-Malate was sustained by the Court. The common thread that runs through those decisions and the case at bar goes beyond the singularity of the localities covered under the respective ordinances. All three ordinances were enacted with a view of regulating public morals including particular illicit activity in transient lodging establishments. This could be described as the middle case, wherein there is no wholesale ban on motels and hotels but the services offered by these establishments have been severely restricted. At its core, this is another case about the extent to which the State can intrude into and regulate the lives of its citizens. The test of a valid ordinance is well established. A long line of decisions including City of Manila has held that for an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the corporate powers of the local government unit to enact and pass according to the procedure prescribed by law, it must also conform to the following substantive requirements: (1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute; (2) must not be unfair or oppressive; (3) must not be partial or discriminatory; (4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade; (5) must be general and consistent with public policy; and (6) must not be unreasonable.41 The Ordinance prohibits two specific and distinct business practices, namely wash rate admissions and renting out a room more than twice a day. The ban is evidently sought to be rooted in the police power as conferred on local government units by the Local Government Code through such implements as the general welfare clause. A. Police power, while incapable of an exact definition, has been purposely veiled in general terms to underscore its comprehensiveness to meet all exigencies and provide enough room for an efficient and flexible response as the conditions warrant.42 Police power is based upon the concept of necessity of the State and its corresponding right to protect itself and its people.43 Police power has been used as justification for numerous and varied actions by the State. These range from the regulation of dance halls,44 movie theaters,45 gas stations46 and cockpits.47 The awesome scope of police power is best demonstrated by the fact that in its hundred or so years of presence in our nations legal system, its use has rarely been denied. The apparent goal of the Ordinance is to minimize if not eliminate the use of the covered establishments for illicit sex, prostitution, drug use and alike. These goals, by themselves, are unimpeachable and certainly fall within the ambit of the police power of the State. Yet the desirability of these ends do not sanctify any and all means for their achievement. Those means must align with the Constitution, and our emerging sophisticated analysis of its guarantees to the people. The Bill of Rights stands as a rebuke to the seductive theory of Macchiavelli, and, sometimes even, the political majorities animated by his cynicism. Even as we design the precedents that establish the framework for analysis of due process or equal protection questions, the courts are naturally inhibited by a due deference to the co-equal branches of government as they exercise their political functions. But when we are compelled to nullify executive or legislative actions, yet another form of caution emerges. If the Court were animated by the same passing fancies or turbulent emotions that motivate many political decisions, judicial integrity is compromised by any perception that the judiciary is merely the third political branch of government. We derive our respect and good standing in the annals of history by acting as judicious and neutral arbiters of the rule of law, and there is no surer way to that end than through the development of rigorous and sophisticated legal standards through which the courts analyze the most fundamental and far-reaching constitutional questions of the day. B. The primary constitutional question that confronts us is one of due process, as guaranteed under Section 1, Article III of the Constitution. Due process evades a precise definition.48 The purpose of the guaranty is to prevent arbitrary governmental encroachment against the life, liberty and property of individuals. The due process guaranty serves as a protection against arbitrary regulation or seizure. Even corporations and partnerships are protected by the guaranty insofar as their property is concerned. The due process guaranty has traditionally been interpreted as imposing two related but distinct restrictions on government, "procedural due process" and "substantive due process." Procedural due process refers to the procedures that the government must follow before it deprives a person of life, liberty, or property.49 Procedural due process concerns itself with government action adhering to the established process when it makes an intrusion into the private sphere. Examples range from the form of notice given to the level of formality of a hearing. If due process were confined solely to its procedural aspects, there would arise absurd situation of arbitrary government action, provided the proper formalities are followed. Substantive due process completes the protection envisioned by the due process clause. It inquires whether the government has sufficient justification for depriving a person of life, liberty, or property.50 The question of substantive due process, moreso than most other fields of law, has reflected dynamism in progressive legal thought tied with the expanded acceptance of

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II: DUE PROCESS OF LAW CASES Page |9 DENNIS ARAN T. ABRIL JD-410 UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
fundamental freedoms. Police power, traditionally awesome as it may be, is now confronted with a more rigorous level of analysis before it can be upheld. The vitality though of constitutional due process has not been predicated on the frequency with which it has been utilized to achieve a liberal result for, after all, the libertarian ends should sometimes yield to the prerogatives of the State. Instead, the due process clause has acquired potency because of the sophisticated methodology that has emerged to determine the proper metes and bounds for its application. C. The general test of the validity of an ordinance on substantive due process grounds is best tested when assessed with the evolved footnote 4 test laid down by the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. Carolene Products.51 Footnote 4 of the Carolene Products case acknowledged that the judiciary would defer to the legislature unless there is a discrimination against a "discrete and insular" minority or infringement of a "fundamental right."52 Consequently, two standards of judicial review were established: strict scrutiny for laws dealing with freedom of the mind or restricting the political process, and the rational basis standard of review for economic legislation. A third standard, denominated as heightened or immediate scrutiny, was later adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court for evaluating classifications based on gender53 and legitimacy.54 Immediate scrutiny was adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court in Craig,55 after the Court declined to do so in Reed v. Reed.56 While the test may have first been articulated in equal protection analysis, it has in the United States since been applied in all substantive due process cases as well. We ourselves have often applied the rational basis test mainly in analysis of equal protection challenges.57 Using the rational basis examination, laws or ordinances are upheld if they rationally further a legitimate governmental interest.58 Under intermediate review, governmental interest is extensively examined and the availability of less restrictive measures is considered.59 Applying strict scrutiny, the focus is on the presence of compelling, rather than substantial, governmental interest and on the absence of less restrictive means for achieving that interest. In terms of judicial review of statutes or ordinances, strict scrutiny refers to the standard for determining the quality and the amount of governmental interest brought to justify the regulation of fundamental freedoms.60 Strict scrutiny is used today to test the validity of laws dealing with the regulation of speech, gender, or race as well as other fundamental rights as expansion from its earlier applications to equal protection.61 The United States Supreme Court has expanded the scope of strict scrutiny to protect fundamental rights such as suffrage,62 judicial access63 and interstate travel.64 If we were to take the myopic view that an Ordinance should be analyzed strictly as to its effect only on the petitioners at bar, then it would seem that the only restraint imposed by the law which we are capacitated to act upon is the injury to property sustained by the petitioners, an injury that would warrant the application of the most deferential standard the rational basis test. Yet as earlier stated, we recognize the capacity of the petitioners to invoke as well the constitutional rights of their patrons those persons who would be deprived of availing short time access or wash-up rates to the lodging establishments in question. Viewed cynically, one might say that the infringed rights of these customers were are trivial since they seem shorn of political consequence. Concededly, these are not the sort of cherished rights that, when proscribed, would impel the people to tear up their cedulas. Still, the Bill of Rights does not shelter gravitas alone. Indeed, it is those "trivial" yet fundamental freedoms which the people reflexively exercise any day without the impairing awareness of their constitutional consequence that accurately reflect the degree of liberty enjoyed by the people. Liberty, as integrally incorporated as a fundamental right in the Constitution, is not a Ten Commandments-style enumeration of what may or what may not be done; but rather an atmosphere of freedom where the people do not feel labored under a Big Brother presence as they interact with each other, their society and nature, in a manner innately understood by them as inherent, without doing harm or injury to others. D. The rights at stake herein fall within the same fundamental rights to liberty which we upheld in City of Manila v. Hon. Laguio, Jr. We expounded on that most primordial of rights, thus: Liberty as guaranteed by the Constitution was defined by Justice Malcolm to include "the right to exist and the right to be free from arbitrary restraint or servitude. The term cannot be dwarfed into mere freedom from physical restraint of the person of the citizen, but is deemed to embrace the right of man to enjoy the facilities with which he has been endowed by his Creator, subject only to such restraint as are necessary for the common welfare."[65] In accordance with this case, the rights of the citizen to be free to use his faculties in all lawful ways; to live and work where he will; to earn his livelihood by any lawful calling; and to pursue any avocation are all deemed embraced in the concept of liberty.[66] The U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Roth v. Board of Regents, sought to clarify the meaning of "liberty." It said: While the Court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty . . . guaranteed [by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments], the term denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized . . . as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. In a Constitution for a free people, there can be no doubt that the meaning of "liberty" must be broad indeed.67[Citations omitted] It cannot be denied that the primary animus behind the ordinance is the curtailment of sexual behavior. The City asserts before this Court that the subject establishments "have gained notoriety as venue of prostitution, adultery and fornications in Manila since they provide the necessary atmosphere for clandestine entry, presence and exit and thus became the ideal haven for prostitutes and thrillseekers."68 Whether or not this depiction of a mise-en-scene of vice is accurate, it cannot be denied that legitimate sexual

C O N S T I T U T I O N A L L A W I I : D U E P R O C E S S O F L A W C A S E S P a g e | 10 DENNIS ARAN T. ABRIL JD-410 UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

behavior among willing married or consenting single adults which is constitutionally protected69 will be curtailed as well, as it was in the City of Manila case. Our holding therein retains significance for our purposes: The concept of liberty compels respect for the individual whose claim to privacy and interference demands respect. As the case of Morfe v. Mutuc, borrowing the words of Laski, so very aptly stated: Man is one among many, obstinately refusing reduction to unity. His separateness, his isolation, are indefeasible; indeed, they are so fundamental that they are the basis on which his civic obligations are built. He cannot abandon the consequences of his isolation, which are, broadly speaking, that his experience is private, and the will built out of that experience personal to himself. If he surrenders his will to others, he surrenders himself. If his will is set by the will of others, he ceases to be a master of himself. I cannot believe that a man no longer a master of himself is in any real sense free. Indeed, the right to privacy as a constitutional right was recognized in Morfe, the invasion of which should be justified by a compelling state interest. Morfe accorded recognition to the right to privacy independently of its identification with liberty; in itself it is fully deserving of constitutional protection. Governmental powers should stop short of certain intrusions into the personal life of the citizen.70 We cannot discount other legitimate activities which the Ordinance would proscribe or impair. There are very legitimate uses for a wash rate or renting the room out for more than twice a day. Entire families are known to choose pass the time in a motel or hotel whilst the power is momentarily out in their homes. In transit passengers who wish to wash up and rest between trips have a legitimate purpose for abbreviated stays in motels or hotels. Indeed any person or groups of persons in need of comfortable private spaces for a span of a few hours with purposes other than having sex or using illegal drugs can legitimately look to staying in a motel or hotel as a convenient alternative. E. That the Ordinance prevents the lawful uses of a wash rate depriving patrons of a product and the petitioners of lucrative business ties in with another constitutional requisite for the legitimacy of the Ordinance as a police power measure. It must appear that the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, require an interference with private rights and the means must be reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive of private rights.71 It must also be evident that no other alternative for the accomplishment of the purpose less intrusive of private rights can work. More importantly, a reasonable relation must exist between the purposes of the measure and the means employed for its accomplishment, for even under the guise of protecting the public interest, personal rights and those pertaining to private property will not be permitted to be arbitrarily invaded.72 Lacking a concurrence of these requisites, the police measure shall be struck down as an arbitrary intrusion into private rights. As held in Morfe v. Mutuc, the exercise of police power is subject to judicial review when life, liberty or property is affected.73 However, this is not in any way meant to take it away from the vastness of State police power whose exercise enjoys the presumption of validity.74 Similar to the Comelec resolution requiring newspapers to donate advertising space to candidates, this Ordinance is a blunt and heavy instrument.75 The Ordinance makes no distinction between places frequented by patrons engaged in illicit activities and patrons engaged in legitimate actions. Thus it prevents legitimate use of places where illicit activities are rare or even unheard of. A plain reading of section 3 of the Ordinance shows it makes no classification of places of lodging, thus deems them all susceptible to illicit patronage and subject them without exception to the unjustified prohibition. The Court has professed its deep sentiment and tenderness of the Ermita-Malate area, its longtime home,76 and it is skeptical of those who wish to depict our capital city the Pearl of the Orient as a modern-day Sodom or Gomorrah for the Third World set. Those still steeped in Nick Joaquindreams of the grandeur of Old Manila will have to accept that Manila like all evolving big cities, will have its problems. Urban decay is a fact of mega cities such as Manila, and vice is a common problem confronted by the modern metropolis wherever in the world. The solution to such perceived decay is not to prevent legitimate businesses from offering a legitimate product. Rather, cities revive themselves by offering incentives for new businesses to sprout up thus attracting the dynamism of individuals that would bring a new grandeur to Manila. The behavior which the Ordinance seeks to curtail is in fact already prohibited and could in fact be diminished simply by applying existing laws. Less intrusive measures such as curbing the proliferation of prostitutes and drug dealers through active police work would be more effective in easing the situation. So would the strict enforcement of existing laws and regulations penalizing prostitution and drug use. These measures would have minimal intrusion on the businesses of the petitioners and other legitimate merchants. Further, it is apparent that the Ordinance can easily be circumvented by merely paying the whole day rate without any hindrance to those engaged in illicit activities. Moreover, drug dealers and prostitutes can in fact collect "wash rates" from their clientele by charging their customers a portion of the rent for motel rooms and even apartments. IV. We reiterate that individual rights may be adversely affected only to the extent that may fairly be required by the legitimate demands of public interest or public welfare. The State is a leviathan that must be restrained from needlessly intruding into the lives of its citizens. However wellintentioned the Ordinance may be, it is in effect an arbitrary and whimsical intrusion into the rights of the establishments as well as their patrons. The Ordinance needlessly restrains the operation of the businesses of the petitioners as well as restricting the rights of their patrons without sufficient justification. The Ordinance rashly equates wash rates and renting out a room more than twice a day with immorality without accommodating innocuous intentions. The promotion of public welfare and a sense of morality among citizens deserves the full endorsement of the judiciary provided that such measures do not trample rights this Court is sworn to protect.77 The notion that the promotion

C O N S T I T U T I O N A L L A W I I : D U E P R O C E S S O F L A W C A S E S P a g e | 11 DENNIS ARAN T. ABRIL JD-410 UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

of public morality is a function of the State is as old as Aristotle.78 The advancement of moral relativism as a school of philosophy does not de-legitimize the role of morality in law, even if it may foster wider debate on which particular behavior to penalize. It is conceivable that a society with relatively little shared morality among its citizens could be functional so long as the pursuit of sharply variant moral perspectives yields an adequate accommodation of different interests.79 To be candid about it, the oft-quoted American maxim that "you cannot legislate morality" is ultimately illegitimate as a matter of law, since as explained by Calabresi, that phrase is more accurately interpreted as meaning that efforts to legislate morality will fail if they are widely at variance with public attitudes about right and wrong.80 Our penal laws, for one, are founded on age-old moral traditions, and as long as there are widely accepted distinctions between right and wrong, they will remain so oriented. Yet the continuing progression of the human story has seen not only the acceptance of the right-wrong distinction, but also the advent of fundamental liberties as the key to the enjoyment of life to the fullest. Our democracy is distinguished from non-free societies not with any more extensive elaboration on our part of what is moral and immoral, but from our recognition that the individual liberty to make the choices in our lives is innate, and protected by the State. Independent and fair-minded judges themselves are under a moral duty to uphold the Constitution as the embodiment of the rule of law, by reason of their expression of consent to do so when they take the oath of office, and because they are entrusted by the people to uphold the law.81 Even as the implementation of moral norms remains an indispensable complement to governance, that prerogative is hardly absolute, especially in the face of the norms of due process of liberty. And while the tension may often be left to the courts to relieve, it is possible for the government to avoid the constitutional conflict by employing more judicious, less drastic means to promote morality. WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is REVERSED, and the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 9, is REINSTATED. Ordinance No. 7774 is hereby declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED. PROCEDURAL ASPECT Judicial Proceedings BANCO ESPANOL VS. PALANCA FACTS: Engracio Palanca Tanquinyeng y Limquingco mortgaged various parcels of real property in Manila to El Banco Espanol-Filipino. Afterwards, Engracio returned to China and there he died on January 29, 1810 without returning again to the Philippines. The mortgagor then instituted foreclosure proceeding but since defendant is a non-resident, it was necessary to give notice by publication. The Clerk of Court was also directed to send copy of the summons to the defendants last known address, which is in Amoy, China. It is not shown whether the Clerk complied with this requirement. Nevertheless, after publication in a newspaper of the City of Manila, the cause proceeded and judgment by default was rendered. The decision was likewise published and afterwards sale by public auction was held with the bank as the highest bidder. On August 7, 1908, this sale was confirmed by the court. However, about seven years after the confirmation of this sale, a motion was made by Vicente Palanca, as administrator of the estate of the original defendant, wherein the applicant requested the court to set aside the order of default and the judgment, and to vacate all the proceedings subsequent thereto. The basis of this application was that the order of default and the judgment rendered thereon were void because the court had never acquired jurisdiction over the defendant or over the subject of the action. ISSUE: Whether or not the lower court acquired jurisdiction over the defendant and the subject matter of the action Whether or not due process of law was observed RULING: On Jurisdiction The word jurisdiction is used in several different, though related, senses since it may have reference (1) to the authority of the court to entertain a particular kind of action or to administer a particular kind of relief, or it may refer to the power of the court over the parties, or (2) over the property which is the subject to the litigation. The sovereign authority which organizes a court determines the nature and extent of its powers in general and thus fixes its competency or jurisdiction with reference to the actions which it may entertain and the relief it may grant. How Jurisdiction is Acquired Jurisdiction over the person is acquired by the voluntary appearance of a party in court and his submission to its authority, or it is acquired by the coercive power of legal process exerted over the person. Jurisdiction over the property which is the subject of the litigation may result either from a seizure of the property under legal process, whereby it is brought into the actual custody of the law, or it may result from the institution of legal proceedings wherein, under special provisions of law, the power of the court over the property is recognized and made effective. In the latter case the property, though at all times within the potential power of the court, may never be taken into actual custody at all. An illustration of the jurisdiction acquired by actual seizure is found in attachment proceedings, where the property is seized at the beginning of the action, or some subsequent stage of its progress, and held to abide the final event of the litigation. An illustration of what we term potential jurisdiction over the res, is found in the proceeding to register the title of land under our system for the registration of land. Here the court, without taking

C O N S T I T U T I O N A L L A W I I : D U E P R O C E S S O F L A W C A S E S P a g e | 12 DENNIS ARAN T. ABRIL JD-410 UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

actual physical control over the property assumes, at the instance of some person claiming to be owner, to exercise a jurisdiction in rem over the property and to adjudicate the title in favor of the petitioner against all the world. In the terminology of American law the action to foreclose a mortgage is said to be a proceeding quasi in rem, by which is expressed the idea that while it is not strictly speaking an action in rem yet it partakes of that nature and is substantially such. The expression "action in rem" is, in its narrow application, used only with reference to certainproceedings in courts of admiralty wherein the property alone is treated as responsible for the claim or obligation upon which the proceedings are based. The action quasi rem differs from the true action in rem in the circumstance that in the former an individual is named as defendant, and the purpose of the proceeding is to subject his interest therein to the obligation or lien burdening the property. All proceedings having for their sole object the sale or other disposition of the property of the defendant, whether by attachment, foreclosure, or other form of remedy, are in a general way thus designated. The judgment entered in these proceedings is conclusive only between the parties. xxx It is true that in proceedings of this character, if the defendant for whom publication is made appears, the action becomes as to him a personal action and is conducted as such. This, however, does not affect the proposition that where the defendant fails to appear the action is quasi in rem; and it should therefore be considered with reference to the principles governing actions in rem. On Due Process xxx As applied to a judicial proceeding, however, it may be laid down with certainty that the requirement of due process is satisfied if the following conditions are present, namely; (1) There must be a court or tribunal clothed with judicial power to hear and determine the matter before it; (2) jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person of thedefendant or over the property which is the subject of the proceeding; (3) the defendant must be given an opportunity to be heard; and (4) judgment must be rendered upon lawful hearing. Passing at once to the requisite that the defendant shall have an opportunity to be heard, we observe that in aforeclosure case some notification of the proceedings to the nonresident owner, prescribing the time within which appearance must be made, is everywhere recognized as essential. To answer this necessity the statutes generally provide for publication, and usually in addition thereto, for the mailing of notice to the defendant, if his residence is known. Though commonly called constructive, or substituted service of process in any true sense. It is merely a means provided by law whereby the owner may be admonished that his property is the subject of judicial proceedings and that it is incumbent upon him to take such steps as he sees fit to protect it. It will be observed that this mode of notification does not involve any absolute assurance that the absent owner shall thereby receive actual notice. The periodical containing the publication may never in fact come to his hands, and the chances that he should discover the notice may often be very slight. Even where notice is sent by mail the probability of his receiving it, though much increased, is dependent upon the correctness of the address to which it is forwarded as well as upon the regularity and security of the mail service. It will be noted, furthermore, that the provision of our law relative to the mailing of notice does not absolutely require the mailing of notice unconditionally and in every event, but only in the case where the defendant's residence is known. In the light of all these facts, it is evident that actual notice to the defendant in cases of this kind is not, under the law, to be considered absolutely necessary. The idea upon which the law proceeds in recognizing the efficacy of a means of notification which may fall short of actual notice is apparently this: Property is always assumed to be in the possession of its owner, in person or by agent; and he may be safely held, under certain conditions, to be affected with knowledge that proceedings have been instituted for its condemnation and sale. Did the failure of the clerk to send notice to defendants last known address constitute denial of due process? The observations which have just been made lead to the conclusion that the failure of the clerk to mail the notice, if in fact he did so fail in his duty, is not such an irregularity, as amounts to a denial of due process of law; and hence in our opinion that irregularity, if proved, would not avoid the judgment in this case. Notice was given by publication in a newspaper and this is the only form of notice which the law unconditionally requires. This in our opinion is all that was absolutely necessary to sustain the proceedings. It will be observed that in considering the effect of this irregularity, it makes a difference whether it be viewed as a question involving jurisdiction or as a question involving due process of law. In the matter of jurisdiction there can be no distinction between the much and the little. The court either has jurisdiction or it has not; and if the requirement as to the mailing of notice should be considered as a step antecedent to the acquiring of jurisdiction, there could be no escape from the conclusion that the failure to take that step was fatal to the validity of the judgment. In the application of the idea of due process of law, on the other hand, it is clearly unnecessary to be so rigorous. The jurisdiction being once established, all that due process of law thereafter requires is an opportunity for the defendant to be heard; and as publication was duly made in the newspaper, it would seem highly unreasonable to hold that failure to mail the notice was fatal. We think that in applying the requirement of due process of law, it is permissible to reflect upon the purposes of the provision which is supposed to have been violated and the principle underlying the exercise of judicial power in these proceedings. Judge in the light of these conceptions, we think that the provision of Act of Congress declaring that no person shall be deprived of his property without due process of law has not been infringed.

C O N S T I T U T I O N A L L A W I I : D U E P R O C E S S O F L A W C A S E S P a g e | 13 DENNIS ARAN T. ABRIL JD-410 UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

LORENZANA VS. CAYETANO Appeal by certiorari from the judgment of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 31082-R entitled "Polly Cayetano, Plaintiff-Appellant vs. Anita U. Lorenzana, et al., DefendantsAppellees" and from the resolution of the Court denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration. We find in this case a perfect example that proves the validity of that classic legal dictum that a man's house is his castle where the wind may enter, the rain may enter but neither the King nor the King's men may enter without the consent of the owner. The records show that 'In 1958, petitioner filled n the Municipal Court of Manila ejectment cases for non-payment of rentals against her tenants occupying different stalls in that quonset hut situated in the San Lazaro Estate (corner of C.M. Recto St. and Quezpn Blvd., Manila, adjacent to the Bilibid Compound) with a floor area of 360 square meters. leased by her (which she afterwards purchased) from the Manila Railroad Company and later from the Bureau of Lands together with the use of the land north and wouth of the quonset hut with an area of 340 square meters. The private respondent, on the other hand, occupied the area north of the quonset hut which area was also leased by her from the Manila Railroad Company and subsequently from the Bureau of Lands, and on which her house stood. Hence, the areas occupied by the two principal protagonists are adjacent to each other. The ejectment. cases having been decided by the Municipal Court in favor of the petitioner, the same were appealed to the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch I. The Court affirmed the decision of the municipal court and ordered the defendants-tenants to vacate the premises leased. Upon refusal of the tenants to vacate the premises, the court granted a partial execution of the judgment and on July 20, 1959, a writ of demolition was issued, specifically commanding the Sheriff of Manila "to demolish the premises subject of the above-name cases" (Record on Appeal, p. 4). Thereupon on July 27, 1959, Petitioner together with her counsel, Atty. Nereo Paculdo and Deputy Sheriff Jose L. Cruz proceeded and entered the premises of the respondent and in spite of her protests that she was not a party to the ejectment cases in which the demolition order was secured and that her premises was not subject of said ejectment cases, they destroyed the latter's fence including flower pots trellises and electric installations and carted away the materials thereof and built another fence 5 meters into the premises of the respondent, boring holes into the cemented garden or patio of her house. On August 3, 1959, respondent presented to the court a motion to declare petitioner, her counsel and the sheriff guilty of contempt; that they be punished and held liable in damages to the petitioner. The presiding judge held the motion in abeyance until the decision of the court in the ejectment cases shall have been rendered. Acting upon the petitioner's ex-parte motion and urgent motion for demolition in the two appealed ejectment cases, Civil Case No. 29664 and Civil Case No. 29665, the court on September 28, 1959 ordered that "a writ of demolition be issued ordering the Sheriff of Manila or any of his deputies to demolish any or all improvements erected and existing on the parcel of land subject of the above- entitled cases. which consists of an area of about 700 square meters." (Record on Appeal, p. 55). The writ of demolition was issued by the Sheriff on September 30, 1959. Upon procurement of this order or demolition, petitioner, together with her counsel and the deputy sheriff proceeded once more to respondent's premises on October 1, 1959 and moved the fence where it was illegally placed by them on July 27, 1959. On the same day, October 1, 1959, respondent filed an urgent motion for the suspension of the execution of the writ of demolition, which motion was denied by the court the next day, October 2, 1959. The records further establish that on November 27, 1959, petitioner, her lawyer, Atty. Paculdo, and Sheriff Cruz went back and moved the fence 1 Meter more into the premises of the respondent; that on February 19, 1960, the respondent filed an ex-parte motion to withdraw the petition for contempt on the ground that "conferring with Judge Bayona after this petition was heard, the petitioner was informed that not being a party to the above-numbered cases, she is like an intruder to act on her petition." (Record on Appeal, p. 80). On October 1, 1959, the respondent Polly Cayetano filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila, Civil Case No. 42001 against the petitioner Anita U. Lorenzana, Atty. Nereo J. Paculdo and Deputy Sheriff Jose L. Cruz for damages with mandatory injunction. The defendants therein filed a motion to dismiss, which was opposed by the plaintiff, and the Court, Branch XVII, denied on December 19, 1959 the motion to dismiss and the petition for issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction. The defendants filed their answers. Under date of March 9, 1962, the Court issued the Decision dismissing the complaint of the plaintiff as well as the counterclaim of the defendants Anita U. Lorenzana and Atty. Nereo J. Paculdo for lack of sufficient evidence. A motion for reconsideration was filed by the plaintiff but denied by the Court. Not satisfied with the Decision of the Court, Polly Cayetano appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision appealed from, and ordered "defendant-appellee Lorenzana to restore to appellant the possession of the property invaded and occupied by her as shown in Exh. L-1 to L-4; to put back appellant's fence and other valuable improvements in their place before the writ of demolition was served; ordering defendants, Lorenzana and Cruz, to pay jointly and severally to the plaintiff-appellant the sum of P5,500.00 as actual and moral damages, and pay the costs, except defendant, Paculdo." The above Decision is now sought to be reviewed in the instant petition for certiorari upon the following assignment of errors: 1. That the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the writ of demolition issued by Branch I of the Court of First Instance of Manila presided over by Judge Bayona could not be legally effected against respondent Polly Cayetano; II. That the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the private respondent's failure to pursue her remedy before a higher court did not to amount a waiver of her rights; III. The Court of Appeals erred in holding in effect that a writ of execution and an order of demolition can be collaterally attacked in an action specifically brought for recovery of damages; and IV. The Court of Appeals erred in holding that the issuance of the writ of demolition by Judge Bayona was in violation of Section 14, Rule 39.

C O N S T I T U T I O N A L L A W I I : D U E P R O C E S S O F L A W C A S E S P a g e | 14 DENNIS ARAN T. ABRIL JD-410 UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

This case hinges on the legal effects of the writs of demolition issued in the ejectment cases wherein the respondent was not a party thereto . The writs were issued by virtue of the judgment rendered by the Court of First Instance of Manila (Branch I), the dispositive portion of which states, as follows: "WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered condemning the defendants ... to vacate the premises; ordering herein defendants... to pay rent to plaintiff ... plus attorney's fees and costs." The petitioner contends that the respondent having voluntarily appeared before the court and invoked its jurisdiction seeking affirmative relief by filing on August 3, 1959, a petition to declare Lorenzana, Atty. Paculdo and Sheriff Cruz in contempt and holding them liable in damages, and by filing on October 1, 1959, an urgent petition for the suspension of the execution of the writ of demolition, she could no longer contest the efficacy of the writ. There is no merit to this contention and We find no error in the ruling of the Court of Appeals that the writ of demolition could not be legally effected against the respondent. It must be noted that respondent was not a party to any of the 12 ejectment cases wherein the writs of demolition had been issued; she did not make her appearance in and during the pendency of these ejectment cases. Respondent only went to court to protect her property from demolition after the judgment in the ejectment cases had become final and executory. Hence, with respect to the judgment in said ejectment cases, respondent remains a third person to such judgement, which does not bind her; 1 nor can its writ of execution be enforced against her since she was not afforded her day in court in said ejectment cases. 2 The vital legal point here is that respondent did not derive her right or interest from the defendants-tenants nor from the plaintiff-landlord (the herein petitioner) but from the Bureau of Lands from which she had leased the property. She is neither a party nor successor in interest to any of the litigants in the ejectment cases. We also find no merit in the contention of the petitioner that respondent having been duly heard by the Court, she was not deprived of her day in court and was accorded the due process of law. It cannot be said that the constitutional requirements of due process were sufficiently complied with because the respondent had been duly heard. Indeed, respondent was heard but simply hearing her did not fulfill the basic conditions of procedural due process in courts. When respondent appeared before the court to protect and preserve her property, the Court had not lawfully acquired jurisdiction over the property of the respondent because the premises of the respondent was not included in the ejectment cases and the judgment in said cases could not affect her property, much less demolish the same. In the leading case of El Banco-Espa;ol-Filipino v. Palanca 3 cited in Macabingkil v. Yatco, et al., 4 We laid down the court's constitutional requirements of due process, thus As applied to judicial proceedings. . . it may be laid down with certainty that the requirements of due process is satisfied if the following conditions are present namely: (1) There must be a court or tribunal clothed with judicial power to hear and determine the matter before it; (2) jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person of the defendant or over the property which is the subject of the proceedings: (3) the defendant must be given an opportunity to be heard; and (4) judgment must be rendered upon lawful hearing. Respondent pursued various steps to protect her property from the invasion and encroachment of the petitioner, abetted by her counsel and the deputy Sheriff. She filed a motion for contempt; she protested to the Sheriff of Manila; she appealed to the Director of the Bureau of Lands; she filed an urgent motion to suspend the writ of demolition. Although the motions for contempt and for suspension wer heard by the court, such action s taken af ter the jugdgment had become final and executory did not make the respondent a party litigant in the ejectment cases. The respondent remained a stranger to the case and she cannot be bound by the judgment rendered therein, nor by the writs of execution and demolition issued in pursuance to said judgment. Intervening as a prejudiced owner of improvements being wrongly demolished merely to oppose such order of demolition upon learning that the said order was directed against premises not her own, is not the same as being a party to the suit to the extent of being bound by the judgment in the case where such order of demolition was issued. 5Furthermore, it must be noted that said petitions were filed after the promulgation of the decision in the ejectment cases and while in the process of execution. lt. is not proper to speak of an intention in a case already terminated by final judgment .6 Respondent, not being bound thereby, may avail herself of the proper action afforded by Section 17, Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court which provides the proceedings where property levied upon is claimed by a third person, stating as follows: ...Tile officer is not liable for damages, for the taking or keeping of the property to any third-party claimant unless a claim is made by the latter- and unless an action for damages is brought by him against the officer within one hundred twenty (120) days from the date of the filing of the bond. But nothing herein contained shall prevent such claimant o any third person ffrom windicating his claim to the property by any proper action... (Emphasis supplied) Respondent acted within and exercised her right when she filed the proper action to vindicate her claim afforded to her by Sec. 17, Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court, against the instruders or trespassers before the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XVII, in Civil Case No. 42001 for dam with mandatory injunction. If she did not insist on her motion for contempt which the court held in abeyance and was later withdrawn by her, if she did not appeal from the order of the court denying her motion to suspend the writ of demolition, such failure did not amount to a waiver of her right to pursue the proper action or remedy provided to her by the Rules of Court. It is of no moment that the respondent did not file a motion to quash the writ of execution or file a petition for relief under Rule 38 of the Revised Rules of Court or file a petition for certiorari and prohibition with a

C O N S T I T U T I O N A L L A W I I : D U E P R O C E S S O F L A W C A S E S P a g e | 15 DENNIS ARAN T. ABRIL JD-410 UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

higher court after her petition to suspend the writ of demolition had been denied as suggested by petitioner. The law has specifically given her the remedies to vindicate her claim to the property. When the property of one person is unlawfully taken by another, the former has a right of action against the latter for the recovery of the property or for damages for the taking or retention, and he is entitled to his choice of these two remedies. 7 We find no legal compulsion for respondent to pursue the remedies suggested by the petitioner, for the rights of a third party claimant should not be decided in the action where the third-party claim has been presented, but in a separate action to be instituted by the third person. 8 In Queblar v. Gardu;o 9 this Court held that: Strictly speaking, the appeal interposed by the third-party claimant- appellant is improper, because she was not one of the parties in the action who were exclusively Venancio Queblar as plaintiff and Leonardo Gardu;o as defendant. Considering the provisions of said section 451 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by Act No. 4108, the appealed order was not appealable. The appeal that should have been interposed by her, if the term "appeal" may properly be employed, is a separate reivindicatory action against the execution creditor or the purchaser of her property after the sale at public auction, or a complaint for damages to be charged against the bond filed by the judgment creditor in favor of the sheriff. In Potenciano v. Dineros, 10 We ruled that: We see no merit in the claim that the denial or dismissal of Potenciano's claim in the court below constitutes a bar to the present action. Potenciano, it is true, did not appeal, from the disapproval of his claim. But it should be borne in mind that appeal is not proper in such cases. (Queblar v. Gardu;o supra). As was said in that case, the appeal that should be interposed "if the term 'appeal' may properly be employed, is a separate reivindicatory action against the execution creditor or the purchaser of the property after the sale at public auction, or complaint for damages to be charged against the bond filed by the judgment creditor in favor of the sheriff." Such reivindicatory action is resurged to the third-party claimant by Section 15 (now 17) of Rule 39 despite disapproval of his claim by the court itself. (Planas v. Madrigal & Co., supra; Lara v. Bayona, L-7920, May 10, 1955), and it is the action availed by Potenciano in this case. The petitioner contends that a writ of execution and an order of demolition cannot be collaterally attacked in an action specifically brought for recovery of damages, and that said action for damages and mandatory injunction (Civil Case No. 42001) filed by the respondent with Branch XVII was nothing less than an action to review the validity of the order of demolition issued by Branch I in the ejectment cases which have long become final. We are not in accord with this contention. The civil case filed by the respondent for damages and the restoration of the property destroyed aid her premises taken unlawfully under the writ of demolition was not brought to reverse, impugn or set aside the judgment in the ejectment cases but to declare that the writ of demolition should not have been applied to that portion of the land and the building occupied by her, as correctly stated by the Court of Appeals. To put it succinctly the judgment and the demolition orders were valid and binding to the tenants but not to the respondent and her property. Fundamentally, it is the wrongful execution of the judgment and the writ that is the basis of the claim for damages. If the judgment and the writs of execution and demolition were alleged in the complaint for damages, this was not necessarily a collateral attack on said processes of another branch of the Court but averments to prove the wrongful, illegal and unauthorized exercise of the writs; it is merely a statement of the legal basis which the sheriff exceeded, abetted by the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner that a branch of a Court of First Instance cannot interfere with or nullify decisions, orders or proceedings of another branch of the same court and therefore the writs of execution and demolition cannot be impugned is not exactly on all fours with and hence not applicable to the case at bar. The settled rule has been clearly laid down in Abiera v. Court of Appeals, 11 wherein the Court, after a review of the doctrines inCabigao v. Del Rosario & Lim, 44 Phil. 192; Manila Herald Publishing Co., Inc., v. Ramos, 88 Phil. 94; Hacbang, et al. v. Hon. Clementino Diez, 8 SCRA 103 (May 30,1963) and National Power Corporation v. Hon. Jesus de Veyra 3 SCRA 646 (Dec. 22,1961), held that No court has power to interfere by injunction with the judgments or decrees of a court of concurrent or coordinate jurisdiction having equal power to grant the relief sought by injunction. For this doctrine to apply, the injunction issued by one court must interfere with the judgment or decree issued by another court of equal or coordinate jurisdiction and the relief sought by such injunction must be one which could be granted by the court which rendered the judgment or issued the decree. Under Section 17 of Rule 39 a third person who claims property levied upon on execution may vindicate such claim by action. A judgment rendered in his favor - declaring him to be the owner of' the property would not constitute interference with the powers or processes of the court which rendered the judgment to enforce which the

C O N S T I T U T I O N A L L A W I I : D U E P R O C E S S O F L A W C A S E S P a g e | 16 DENNIS ARAN T. ABRIL JD-410 UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

execution was levied. If that be so and it is so because the property, being that of a stranger, is not subject to levy then an interlocutory order, such as injunction, upon a claim and prima facie showing of ownership by the claimant, cannot be considered as such interference either The right of a person who claims to be the owner of property levied upon on execution to file a third-party claim with the sheriff is not exclusive, and he may file an action to vindicate his claim even if the judgment creditor files an indemnity bond in favor of the sheriff to answer for any damages that may be suffered by the third-party claimant. By "action," as stated in the Rule, what is meant is a separate and independent action. With respect to the fourth assignment of error, petitioner's contention appears to be quite tenable in that under See. 14, Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court which the Court of Appeals applied, the notice required before demolition of the improvements on the property subject of the execution, is notice to the judgment debtor, and not to a stranger or third party to the case like the private respondent herein. Nonetheless, the claim that the Court of Appeals misconstrued the aforecited Rule is as immaterial and inconsequential as the application of this legal provision is superflous and unnecessary for the affirmance of the Court's decision. The Manifestation filed by petitioner in the records dated June 1, 1977 with Annexes A, B, C and D, is Noted. IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition herein is dismissed, and the appealed judgment is affirmed, with costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED. Administrative Proceedings ANG TIBAY VS. CIR The Solicitor-General in behalf of the respondent Court of Industrial Relations in the above-entitled case has filed a motion for reconsideration and moves that, for the reasons stated in his motion, we reconsider the following legal conclusions of the majority opinion of this Court: 1. Que un contrato de trabajo, asi individual como colectivo, sin termino fijo de duracion o que no sea para una determinada, termina o bien por voluntad de cualquiera de las partes o cada vez que ilega el plazo fijado para el pago de los salarios segun costumbre en la localidad o cunado se termine la obra; 2. Que los obreros de una empresa fabril, que han celebrado contrato, ya individual ya colectivamente, con ell, sin tiempo fijo, y que se han visto obligados a cesar en sus tarbajos por haberse declarando paro forzoso en la fabrica en la cual tarbajan, dejan de ser empleados u obreros de la misma; 3. Que un patrono o sociedad que ha celebrado un contrato colectivo de trabajo con sus osbreros sin tiempo fijo de duracion y sin ser para una obra determiminada y que se niega a readmitir a dichos obreros que cesaron como consecuencia de un paro forzoso, no es culpable de practica injusta in incurre en la sancion penal del articulo 5 de la Ley No. 213 del Commonwealth, aunque su negativa a readmitir se deba a que dichos obreros pertenecen a un determinado organismo obrero, puesto que tales ya han dejado deser empleados suyos por terminacion del contrato en virtud del paro. The respondent National Labor Union, Inc., on the other hand, prays for the vacation of the judgement rendered by the majority of this Court and the remanding of the case to the Court of Industrial Relations for a new trial, and avers: 1. That Toribio Teodoro's claim that on September 26, 1938, there was shortage of leather soles in ANG TIBAY making it necessary for him to temporarily lay off the members of the National Labor Union Inc., is entirely false and unsupported by the records of the Bureau of Customs and the Books of Accounts of native dealers in leather. 2. That the supposed lack of leather materials claimed by Toribio Teodoro was but a scheme to systematically prevent the forfeiture of this bond despite the breach of his CONTRACT with the Philippine Army. 3. That Toribio Teodoro's letter to the Philippine Army dated September 29, 1938, (re supposed delay of leather soles from the States) was but a scheme to systematically prevent the forfeiture of this bond despite the breach of his CONTRACT with the Philippine Army. 4. That the National Worker's Brotherhood of ANG TIBAY is a company or employer union dominated by Toribio Teodoro, the existence and functions of which are illegal. (281 U.S., 548, petitioner's printed memorandum, p. 25.) 5. That in the exercise by the laborers of their rights to collective bargaining, majority rule and elective representation are highly essential and indispensable. (Sections 2 and 5, Commonwealth Act No. 213.) 6. That the century provisions of the Civil Code which had been (the) principal source of dissensions and continuous civil war in Spain cannot and should not be made applicable in interpreting and applying the salutary provisions of a modern labor legislation of American origin where the industrial peace has always been the rule. 7. That the employer Toribio Teodoro was guilty of unfair labor practice for discriminating against the National Labor Union, Inc., and unjustly favoring the National Workers' Brotherhood. 8. That the exhibits hereto attached are so inaccessible to the respondents that even with the exercise of due diligence they could not be

C O N S T I T U T I O N A L L A W I I : D U E P R O C E S S O F L A W C A S E S P a g e | 17 DENNIS ARAN T. ABRIL JD-410 UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

expected to have obtained them and offered as evidence in the Court of Industrial Relations. 9. That the attached documents and exhibits are of such far-reaching importance and effect that their admission would necessarily mean the modification and reversal of the judgment rendered herein. The petitioner, Ang Tibay, has filed an opposition both to the motion for reconsideration of the respondent National Labor Union, Inc. In view of the conclusion reached by us and to be herein after stead with reference to the motion for a new trial of the respondent National Labor Union, Inc., we are of the opinion that it is not necessary to pass upon the motion for reconsideration of the Solicitor-General. We shall proceed to dispose of the motion for new trial of the respondent labor union. Before doing this, however, we deem it necessary, in the interest of orderly procedure in cases of this nature, in interest of orderly procedure in cases of this nature, to make several observations regarding the nature of the powers of the Court of Industrial Relations and emphasize certain guiding principles which should be observed in the trial of cases brought before it. We have re-examined the entire record of the proceedings had before the Court of Industrial Relations in this case, and we have found no substantial evidence that the exclusion of the 89 laborers here was due to their union affiliation or activity. The whole transcript taken contains what transpired during the hearing and is more of a record of contradictory and conflicting statements of opposing counsel, with sporadic conclusion drawn to suit their own views. It is evident that these statements and expressions of views of counsel have no evidentiary value. The Court of Industrial Relations is a special court whose functions are specifically stated in the law of its creation (Commonwealth Act No. 103). It is more an administrative than a part of the integrated judicial system of the nation. It is not intended to be a mere receptive organ of the Government. Unlike a court of justice which is essentially passive, acting only when its jurisdiction is invoked and deciding only cases that are presented to it by the parties litigant, the function of the Court of Industrial Relations, as will appear from perusal of its organic law, is more active, affirmative and dynamic. It not only exercises judicial or quasi-judicial functions in the determination of disputes between employers and employees but its functions in the determination of disputes between employers and employees but its functions are far more comprehensive and expensive. It has jurisdiction over the entire Philippines, to consider, investigate, decide, and settle any question, matter controversy or dispute arising between, and/or affecting employers and employees or laborers, and regulate the relations between them, subject to, and in accordance with, the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 103 (section 1). It shall take cognizance or purposes of prevention, arbitration, decision and settlement, of any industrial or agricultural dispute causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout, arising from differences as regards wages, shares or compensation, hours of labor or conditions of tenancy or employment, between landlords and tenants or farm-laborers, provided that the number of employees, laborers or tenants of farmlaborers involved exceeds thirty, and such industrial or agricultural dispute is submitted to the Court by the Secretary of Labor or by any or both of the parties to the controversy and certified by the Secretary of labor as existing and proper to be by the Secretary of Labor as existing and proper to be dealth with by the Court for the sake of public interest. (Section 4, ibid.) It shall, before hearing the dispute and in the course of such hearing, endeavor to reconcile the parties and induce them to settle the dispute by amicable agreement. (Paragraph 2, section 4, ibid.) When directed by the President of the Philippines, it shall investigate and study all industries established in a designated locality, with a view to determinating the necessity and fairness of fixing and adopting for such industry or locality a minimum wage or share of laborers or tenants, or a maximum "canon" or rental to be paid by the "inquilinos" or tenants or less to landowners. (Section 5, ibid.) In fine, it may appeal to voluntary arbitration in the settlement of industrial disputes; may employ mediation or conciliation for that purpose, or recur to the more effective system of official investigation and compulsory arbitration in order to determine specific controversies between labor and capital industry and in agriculture. There is in reality here a mingling of executive and judicial functions, which is a departure from the rigid doctrine of the separation of governmental powers. In the case of Goseco vs. Court of Industrial Relations et al., G.R. No. 46673, promulgated September 13, 1939, we had occasion to joint out that the Court of Industrial Relations et al., G. R. No. 46673, promulgated September 13, 1939, we had occasion to point out that the Court of Industrial Relations is not narrowly constrained by technical rules of procedure, and the Act requires it to "act according to justice and equity and substantial merits of the case, without regard to technicalities or legal forms and shall not be bound by any technicalities or legal forms and shall not be bound by any technical rules of legal evidence but may inform its mind in such manner as it may deem just and equitable." (Section 20, Commonwealth Act No. 103.) It shall not be restricted to the specific relief claimed or demands made by the parties to the industrial or agricultural dispute, but may include in the award, order or decision any matter or determination which may be deemed necessary or expedient for the purpose of settling the dispute or of preventing further industrial or agricultural disputes. (section 13, ibid.) And in the light of this legislative policy, appeals to this Court have been especially regulated by the rules recently promulgated by the rules recently promulgated by this Court to carry into the effect the avowed legislative purpose. The fact, however, that the Court of Industrial Relations may be said to be free from the rigidity of certain procedural requirements does not mean that it can, in justifiable cases before it, entirely ignore or disregard the fundamental and essential requirements of due process in trials and investigations of an administrative character. There are primary rights which must be respected even in proceedings of this character: (1) The first of these rights is the right to a hearing, which includes the right of the party interested or affected to present his own case and submit evidence in support thereof. In the language of Chief Hughes, in Morgan v. U.S., 304 U.S. 1, 58 S. Ct. 773, 999, 82 Law. ed. 1129, "the liberty and

C O N S T I T U T I O N A L L A W I I : D U E P R O C E S S O F L A W C A S E S P a g e | 18 DENNIS ARAN T. ABRIL JD-410 UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

property of the citizen shall be protected by the rudimentary requirements of fair play. (2) Not only must the party be given an opportunity to present his case and to adduce evidence tending to establish the rights which he asserts but the tribunal must consider the evidence presented. (Chief Justice Hughes in Morgan v. U.S. 298 U.S. 468, 56 S. Ct. 906, 80 law. ed. 1288.) In the language of this court inEdwards vs. McCoy, 22 Phil., 598, "the right to adduce evidence, without the corresponding duty on the part of the board to consider it, is vain. Such right is conspicuously futile if the person or persons to whom the evidence is presented can thrust it aside without notice or consideration." (3) "While the duty to deliberate does not impose the obligation to decide right, it does imply a necessity which cannot be disregarded, namely, that of having something to support it is a nullity, a place when directly attached." (Edwards vs. McCoy, supra.) This principle emanates from the more fundamental is contrary to the vesting of unlimited power anywhere. Law is both a grant and a limitation upon power. (4) Not only must there be some evidence to support a finding or conclusion (City of Manila vs. Agustin, G.R. No. 45844, promulgated November 29, 1937, XXXVI O. G. 1335), but the evidence must be "substantial." (Washington, Virginia and Maryland Coach Co. v. national labor Relations Board, 301 U.S. 142, 147, 57 S. Ct. 648, 650, 81 Law. ed. 965.) It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind accept as adequate to support a conclusion." (Appalachian Electric Power v. National Labor Relations Board, 4 Cir., 93 F. 2d 985, 989; National Labor Relations Board v. Thompson Products, 6 Cir., 97 F. 2d 13, 15; Ballston-Stillwater Knitting Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 2 Cir., 98 F. 2d 758, 760.) . . . The statute provides that "the rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law and equity shall not be controlling.' The obvious purpose of this and similar provisions is to free administrative boards from the compulsion of technical rules so that the mere admission of matter which would be deemed incompetent inn judicial proceedings would not invalidate the administrative order. (Interstate Commerce Commission v. Baird, 194 U.S. 25, 44, 24 S. Ct. 563, 568, 48 Law. ed. 860; Interstate Commerce Commission v. Louisville and Nashville R. Co., 227 U.S. 88, 93 33 S. Ct. 185, 187, 57 Law. ed. 431; United States v. Abilene and Southern Ry. Co. S. Ct. 220, 225, 74 Law. ed. 624.) But this assurance of a desirable flexibility in administrative procedure does not go far as to justify orders without a basis in evidence having rational probative force. Mere uncorroborated hearsay or rumor does not constitute substantial evidence. (Consolidated Edison Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 59 S. Ct. 206, 83 Law. ed. No. 4, Adv. Op., p. 131.)" (5) The decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected. (Interstate Commence Commission vs. L. & N. R. Co., 227 U.S. 88, 33 S. Ct. 185, 57 Law. ed. 431.) Only by confining the administrative tribunal to the evidence disclosed to the parties, can the latter be protected in their right to know and meet the case against them. It should not, however, detract from their duty actively to see that the law is enforced, and for that purpose, to use the authorized legal methods of securing evidence and informing itself of facts material and relevant to the controversy. Boards of inquiry may be appointed for the purpose of investigating and determining the facts in any given case, but their report and decision are only advisory. (Section 9, Commonwealth Act No. 103.) The Court of Industrial Relations may refer any industrial or agricultural dispute or any matter under its consideration or advisement to a local board of inquiry, a provincial fiscal. a justice of the peace or any public official in any part of the Philippines for investigation, report and recommendation, and may delegate to such board or public official such powers and functions as the said Court of Industrial Relations may deem necessary, but such delegation shall not affect the exercise of the Court itself of any of its powers. (Section 10, ibid.) (6) The Court of Industrial Relations or any of its judges, therefore, must act on its or his own independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy, and not simply accept the views of a subordinate in arriving at a decision. It may be that the volume of work is such that it is literally Relations personally to decide all controversies coming before them. In the United States the difficulty is solved with the enactment of statutory authority authorizing examiners or other subordinates to render final decision, with the right to appeal to board or commission, but in our case there is no such statutory authority. (7) The Court of Industrial Relations should, in all controversial questions, render its decision in such a manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the various issues involved, and the reasons for the decision rendered. The performance of this duty is inseparable from the authority conferred upon it. In the right of the foregoing fundamental principles, it is sufficient to observe here that, except as to the alleged agreement between the Ang Tibay and the National Worker's Brotherhood (appendix A), the record is barren and does not satisfy the thirst for a factual basis upon which to predicate, in a national way, a conclusion of law. This result, however, does not now preclude the concession of a new trial prayed for the by respondent National Labor Union, Inc., it is alleged that "the supposed lack of material claimed by Toribio Teodoro was but a scheme adopted to systematically discharged all the members of the National Labor Union Inc., from work" and this avernment is desired

C O N S T I T U T I O N A L L A W I I : D U E P R O C E S S O F L A W C A S E S P a g e | 19 DENNIS ARAN T. ABRIL JD-410 UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

to be proved by the petitioner with the "records of the Bureau of Customs and the Books of Accounts of native dealers in leather"; that "the National Workers Brotherhood Union of Ang Tibay is a company or employer union dominated by Toribio Teodoro, the existence and functions of which are illegal." Petitioner further alleges under oath that the exhibits attached to the petition to prove his substantial avernments" are so inaccessible to the respondents that even within the exercise of due diligence they could not be expected to have obtained them and offered as evidence in the Court of Industrial Relations", and that the documents attached to the petition "are of such far reaching importance and effect that their admission would necessarily mean the modification and reversal of the judgment rendered herein." We have considered the reply of Ang Tibay and its arguments against the petition. By and large, after considerable discussions, we have come to the conclusion that the interest of justice would be better served if the movant is given opportunity to present at the hearing the documents referred to in his motion and such other evidence as may be relevant to the main issue involved. The legislation which created the Court of Industrial Relations and under which it acts is new. The failure to grasp the fundamental issue involved is not entirely attributable to the parties adversely affected by the result. Accordingly, the motion for a new trial should be and the same is hereby granted, and the entire record of this case shall be remanded to the Court of Industrial Relations, with instruction that it reopen the case, receive all such evidence as may be relevant and otherwise proceed in accordance with the requirements set forth hereinabove. So ordered. Academic Due Process GUZMAN VS. NATIONAL UNIVERSITY Petitioners Diosdado Guzman, Ulysses Urbiztondo and Ariel Ramacula, students of respondent National University, have come to this Court to seek relief from what they describe as their school's "continued and persistent refusal to allow them to enrol." In their petition "for extraordinary legal and equitable remedies with prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction" dated August 7, 1984, they allege: 1) that respondent University's avowed reason for its refusal to re-enroll them in their respective courses is "the latter's participation in peaceful mass actions within the premises of the University. 2) that this "attitude of the (University) is simply a continuation of its cavalier if not hostile attitude to the student's exercise of their basic constitutional and human rights already recorded in Rockie C. San Juan vs. National University, S.C. G.R. No. 65443 (1983) and its utter contempt for the principle of due process of law to the prejudice of petitioners;" and 3) that "in effect petitioners are subjected to the extreme penalty of expulsion without cause or if there be any, without being informed of such cause and without being afforded the opportunity to defend themselves. Berina v. Philippine Maritime Institute (117 SCRA 581 [1983]). In the comment filed on September 24, 1986 for respondent University and its President pursuant to this Court's requirement therefor 1 , respondents make the claim: 1) that "petitioners' failure to enroll for the first semester of the school year 1984-1985 is due to their own fault and not because of their allegedexercise of their constitutional and human rights;" 2) that petitioner Urbiztondo, sought to re-enroll only on July 5, 1986 "when the enrollment period was already closed;" 3) that as regards petitioner Guzman, his "academic showing" was "poor", "due to his activities in leading boycotts of classes"; that when his father was notified of this development sometime in August, 1982, the latter had demanded that his son "reform or else we will recall him to the province"; that Guzman was one of the petitioners in G.R. No. 65443 entitled "Rockie San Juan, et al. vs. National University, et al.," at the hearing of which on November 23, 1983 this Court had admonished "the students involved (to) take advantage and make the most of the opportunity given to them to study;" that Guzman "however continued to lead or actively participate in activities within the university premises, conducted without prior permit from school authorities, that disturbed or disrupted classes therein;" that moreover, Guzman "is facing criminal charges for malicious mischief before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila (Crim. Case No. 066446) in connection with the destruction of properties of respondent University on September 12, 1983 ", and "is also one of the defendants in Civil Case No. 8320483 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila entitled 'National University, Inc. vs. Rockie San Juan et al.' for damages arising from destruction of university properties 4) that as regards petitioner Ramacula, like Guzman "he continued to lead or actively participate, contrary to the spirit of the Resolution dated November 23, 1983 of this ... Court (in G.R. No. 65443 in which he was also one of the petitioners) and to university rules and regulations, within university premises but without permit from university officials in activities that disturbed or disrupted classes;" and 5) that petitioners have "failures in their records, (and) are not of good scholastic standing. " Respondents close their comment with the following assertions, to wit: 1) By their actuations, petitioners must be deemed to have forfeited their privilege, if any, to seek enrollment in respondent university. The rights of respondent university, as an institution of higher learning, must also be respected. It is also beyond comprehension why petitioners, who continually despise and villify respondent university and its officials and faculty members, should persist in seeking enrollment in an institution that they hate. 2) Under the circumstances, and without regard to legal technicalities, it is not to the best interest of all concerned that petitioners be allowed to enroll in respondent university. 3) In any event, petitioners' enrollment being on the semestral basis, respondents cannot be compelled to enroll them after the end of the semester. On October 2, 1984 this Court issued a resolution reading as follows:

C O N S T I T U T I O N A L L A W I I : D U E P R O C E S S O F L A W C A S E S P a g e | 20 DENNIS ARAN T. ABRIL JD-410 UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

... Acting on the Comment submitted by respondent, the Court Resolved to NOTE the same and to require a REPLY to such Comment. The Court further Resolved to ISSUE a MANDATORY INJUNCTION, enjoining respondent to allow the enrolment of petitioners for the coming semester without prejudice to any disciplinary proceeding to which any or all of them may be subjected with their right to lawful defense recognized and respected. As regards petitioner Diosdado Guzman, even if it be a fact that there is a pending criminal charge against him for malicious mischief, the Court nonetheless is of the opinion that, as above-noted, without prejudice to the continuation of any disciplinary proceeding against him, that he be allowed to resume his studies in the meanwhile. As shown in Annex 2 of the petition itself, Mr. Juan P. Guzman, father of said petitioner, is extending full cooperation with petitioners to assure that whatever protest or grievance petitioner Guzman may have would be ventilated in a lawful and peaceful manner. Petitioners' REPLY inter alia 1) denied that Urbiztondo attempted to enroll only on July 5, 1984 (when enrollment was already closed), it being alleged that "while he did try to enroll that day, he also attempted to do so several times before that date, all to no avail, because respondents ... persistently refused to allow him to do so" respondents' ostensible reason being that Urbiztondo (had) participated in mass actions ... within the school premises," although there were no existing disciplinary charge against petitioner Urbiztondo" at the time; 2) asserted that "neither the text nor the context of the resolution 2 justifies the conclusion that "petitioners' right to exercise their constitutional freedoms" had thereby been restricted or limited; and 3) alleged that "the holding of activities (mass action) in the school premises without the permission of the school ... can be explained by the fact that the respondents persistently refused to issue such permit repeatedly sought by the students. " On November 23, 1984, this Court promulgated another resolution, this time reading as follows: ... The Court, after considering the pleadings filed and deliberating on the issues raised in the petition for extraordinary legal and equitable remedies with prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction as well as the respondents' comment on the petition and the reply of counsel for petitioners to the respondents' comment, Resolved to (a) give DUE COURSE to the petition; (b) consider the respondents' comment as ANSWER to the petition; and (c) require the parties to file their respective MEMORANDA within twenty (20) days from notice. ... . Immediately apparent from a reading of respondents' comment and memorandum is the fact that they had never conducted proceedings of any sort to determine whether or not petitioners-students had indeed led or participated "in activities within the university premises, conducted without prior permit from school authorities, that disturbed or disrupted classes therein" 3 or perpetrated acts of "vandalism, coercion and intimidation, slander, noise barrage and other acts showing disdain for and defiance of University authority." 4 Parenthetically, the pendency of a civil case for damages and a criminal case for malicious mischief against petitioner Guzman, cannot, without more, furnish sufficient warrant for his expulsion or debarment from re-enrollment. Also apparent is the omission of respondents to cite this Court to any duly published rule of theirs by which students may be expelled or refused re-enrollment for poor scholastic standing. Under the Education Act of 1982, 5 the petitioners, as students, have the right among others "to freely choose their field of study subject to existing curricula and to continue their course therein up to graduation, except in case of academic deficiency, or violation of disciplinary regulations." 6Petitioners were being denied this right, or being disciplined, without due process, in violation of the admonition in the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools 7 that "(n)o penalty shall be imposed upon any student except for cause as defined in ... (the) Manual and/or in the school rules and regulations as duly promulgated and only after due investigation shall have been conducted." 8 This Court is therefore constrained, as in Berina v. Philippine Maritime Institute, 9 to declare illegal this act of respondents of imposing sanctions on students without due investigation. Educational institutions of course have the power to "adopt and enforce such rules as may be deemed expedient for ... (its) government, ... (this being)" incident to the very object of incorporation, and indispensable to the successful management of the college." 10 The rules may include those governing student discipline. Indeed, the maintenance of "good school discipline" is a duty specifically enjoined on "every private school" by the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools; 11 and in this connection, the Manual further provides that... The school rules governing discipline and the corresponding sanctions therefor must be clearly specified and defined in writing and made known to the students and/or their parents or guardians. Schools shall have the authority and prerogative to promulgate such rules and regulations as they may deem necessary from time to time effective as of the date of their promulgation unless otherwise specified.12 But, to repeat, the imposition of disciplinary sanctions requires observance of procedural due process. And it bears

C O N S T I T U T I O N A L L A W I I : D U E P R O C E S S O F L A W C A S E S P a g e | 21 DENNIS ARAN T. ABRIL JD-410 UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

stressing that due process in disciplinary cases involving students does not entail proceedings and hearings similar to those prescribed for actions and proceedings in courts of justice. The proceedings in student discipline cases may be summary; and cross-examination is not, 'contrary to petitioners' view, an essential part thereof. There are withal minimum standards which must be met to satisfy the demands of procedural due process; and these are, that (1) the students must be informed in writing of the nature and cause of any accusation against them; (2) they shag have the right to answer the charges against them, with the assistance of counsel, if desired; (3) they shall be informed of the evidence against them; (4) they shall have the right to adduce evidence in their own behalf; and (5) the evidence must be duly considered by the investigating committee or official designated by the school authorities to hear and decide the case. WHEREFORE, the petition is granted and the respondents are directed to allow the petitioners to re-enroll or otherwise continue with their respective courses, without prejudice to any disciplinary proceedings to which any or all of them may be subjected in accordance with the standards herein set forth. SO ORDERED. SUBSTANTIVE ASPECT YNOT VS. IAC The essence of due process is distilled in the immortal cry of Themistocles to Alcibiades "Strike but hear me first!" It is this cry that the petitioner in effect repeats here as he challenges the constitutionality of Executive Order No. 626A. The said executive order reads in full as follows: WHEREAS, the President has given orders prohibiting the interprovincial movement of carabaos and the slaughtering of carabaos not complying with the requirements of Executive Order No. 626 particularly with respect to age; WHEREAS, it has been observed that despite such orders the violators still manage to circumvent the prohibition against inter-provincial movement of carabaos by transporting carabeef instead; and WHEREAS, in order to achieve the purposes and objectives of Executive Order No. 626 and the prohibition against interprovincial movement of carabaos, it is necessary to strengthen the said Executive Order and provide for the disposition of the carabaos and carabeef subject of the violation; NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution, do hereby promulgate the following: SECTION 1. Executive Order No. 626 is hereby amended such that henceforth, no carabao regardless of age, sex, physical condition or purpose and no carabeef shall be transported from one province to another. The carabao or carabeef transported in violation of this Executive Order as amended shall be subject to confiscation and forfeiture by the government, to be distributed to charitable institutions and other similar institutions as the Chairman of the National Meat Inspection Commission may ay see fit, in the case of carabeef, and to deserving farmers through dispersal as the Director of Animal Industry may see fit, in the case of carabaos. SECTION 2. This Executive Order shall take effect immediately. Done in the City of Manila, this 25th day of October, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and eighty.

C O N S T I T U T I O N A L L A W I I : D U E P R O C E S S O F L A W C A S E S P a g e | 22 DENNIS ARAN T. ABRIL JD-410 UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

resolving the same whenever warranted, l subject only to review by the highest tribunal. i6 We have jurisdiction under the Constitution to "review, revise, c reverse, modify or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or rules of court may provide," final judgments and orders o of lower courts in, among others, all cases involving f the constitutionality of certain measures. 7 This simply means that the resolution of such cases may be made in the t first instance by these lower courts. h And while it is true that laws are e presumed to be constitutional, that presumption is not by any means conclusive and in fact may be rebutted. P Indeed, if there be a clear showing of their invalidity, h and of the need to declare them so, then "will be the time ito make the hammer fall, and heavily," 8 to recall Justice Laurel's trenchant warning. Stated l otherwise, courts should not follow i the path of least resistance by simply presuming p the constitutionality of a law when it is questioned. On the contrary, p they should probe the issue more deeply, to relieve the i abscess, paraphrasing another distinguished jurist, 9 and n so heal the wound or excise the affliction. e Judicial power authorizes this; s and when the exercise is demanded, there should be no shirking of the task for fear of retaliation, or loss of favor, or popular censure, or any other similar inhibition unworthy of the bench, especially this Court. The challenged measure is denominated an executive order but it is really presidential decree, promulgating a new rule instead of merely implementing an existing law. It was issued by President Marcos not for the purpose of taking care that the laws were faithfully executed but in the exercise of his legislative authority under Amendment No. 6. It was provided thereunder that whenever in his judgment there existed a grave emergency or a threat or imminence thereof or whenever the legislature failed or was unable to act adequately on any matter that in his judgment required immediate action, he could, in order to meet the exigency, issue decrees, orders or letters of instruction that were to have the force and effect of law. As there is no showing of any exigency to justify the exercise of that extraordinary power then, the petitioner has reason, indeed, to question the validity of the executive order. Nevertheless, since the determination of the grounds was supposed to have been made by the President "in his judgment, " a phrase that will lead to protracted discussion not really necessary at this time, we reserve resolution of this matter until a more appropriate occasion. For the nonce, we confine ourselves to the more fundamental question of due process. It is part of the art of constitution-making that the provisions of the charter be cast in precise and unmistakable language to avoid controversies that might arise on their correct interpretation. That is the Ideal. In the case of the due process clause, however, this rule was deliberately not followed and the wording was purposely kept ambiguous. In fact, a proposal to delineate it more clearly was submitted in the Constitutional Convention of 1934, but it was rejected by Delegate Jose P. Laurel, Chairman of the Committee on the Bill of Rights, who forcefully argued against it. He was sustained by the body. 10 The due process clause was kept intentionally vague so it would remain also conveniently resilient. This was felt

The petitioner had transported six carabaos in a pump boat from Masbate to Iloilo on January 13, 1984, when they were confiscated by the police station commander of Barotac Nuevo, Iloilo, for violation of the above measure. 1The petitioner sued for recovery, and the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City issued a writ of replevin upon his filing of a supersedeas bond of P12,000.00. After considering the merits of the case, the court sustained the confiscation of the carabaos and, since they could no longer be produced, ordered the confiscation of the bond. The court also declined to rule on the constitutionality of the executive order, as raise by the petitioner, for lack of authority and also for its presumed validity. 2 The petitioner appealed the decision to the Intermediate Appellate Court,* 3 which upheld the trial court, ** and he has now come before us in this petition for review on certiorari. The thrust of his petition is that the executive order is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes outright confiscation of the carabao or carabeef being transported across provincial boundaries. His claim is that the penalty is invalid because it is imposed without according the owner a right to be heard before a competent and impartial court as guaranteed by due process. He complains that the measure should not have been presumed, and so sustained, as constitutional. There is also a challenge to the improper exercise of the legislative power by the former President under Amendment No. 6 of the 1973 Constitution. 4 While also involving the same executive order, the case of Pesigan v. Angeles 5 is not applicable here. The question raised there was the necessity of the previous publication of the measure in the Official Gazette before it could be considered enforceable. We imposed the requirement then on the basis of due process of law. In doing so, however, this Court did not, as contended by the Solicitor General, impliedly affirm the constitutionality of Executive Order No. 626-A. That is an entirely different matter. This Court has declared that while lower courts should observe a becoming modesty in examining constitutional questions, they are nonetheless not prevented from

C O N S T I T U T I O N A L L A W I I : D U E P R O C E S S O F L A W C A S E S P a g e | 23 DENNIS ARAN T. ABRIL JD-410 UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

necessary because due process is not, like some provisions of the fundamental law, an "iron rule" laying down an implacable and immutable command for all seasons and all persons. Flexibility must be the best virtue of the guaranty. The very elasticity of the due process clause was meant to make it adapt easily to every situation, enlarging or constricting its protection as the changing times and circumstances may require. Aware of this, the courts have also hesitated to adopt their own specific description of due process lest they confine themselves in a legal straitjacket that will deprive them of the elbow room they may need to vary the meaning of the clause whenever indicated. Instead, they have preferred to leave the import of the protection open-ended, as it were, to be "gradually ascertained by the process of inclusion and exclusion in the course of the decision of cases as they arise." 11 Thus, Justice Felix Frankfurter of the U.S. Supreme Court, for example, would go no farther than to define due process and in so doing sums it all up as nothing more and nothing less than "the embodiment of the sporting Idea of fair play." 12 When the barons of England extracted from their sovereign liege the reluctant promise that that Crown would thenceforth not proceed against the life liberty or property of any of its subjects except by the lawful judgment of his peers or the law of the land, they thereby won for themselves and their progeny that splendid guaranty of fairness that is now the hallmark of the free society. The solemn vow that King John made at Runnymede in 1215 has since then resounded through the ages, as a ringing reminder to all rulers, benevolent or base, that every person, when confronted by the stern visage of the law, is entitled to have his say in a fair and open hearing of his cause. The closed mind has no place in the open society. It is part of the sporting Idea of fair play to hear "the other side" before an opinion is formed or a decision is made by those who sit in judgment. Obviously, one side is only one-half of the question; the other half must also be considered if an impartial verdict is to be reached based on an informed appreciation of the issues in contention. It is indispensable that the two sides complement each other, as unto the bow the arrow, in leading to the correct ruling after examination of the problem not from one or the other perspective only but in its totality. A judgment based on less that this full appraisal, on the pretext that a hearing is unnecessary or useless, is tainted with the vice of bias or intolerance or ignorance, or worst of all, in repressive regimes, the insolence of power. The minimum requirements of due process are notice and hearing 13 which, generally speaking, may not be dispensed with because they are intended as a safeguard against official arbitrariness. It is a gratifying commentary on our judicial system that the jurisprudence of this country is rich with applications of this guaranty as proof of our fealty to the rule of law and the ancient rudiments of fair play. We have consistently declared that every person, faced by the awesome power of the State, is entitled to "the law of the land," which Daniel Webster described almost two hundred years ago in the famous Dartmouth College Case, 14 as "the law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment only after trial." It has to be so if the rights of every person are to be secured beyond the reach of officials who, out of mistaken zeal or plain arrogance, would degrade the due process clause into a worn and empty catchword. This is not to say that notice and hearing are imperative in every case for, to be sure, there are a number of admitted exceptions. The conclusive presumption, for example, bars the admission of contrary evidence as long as such presumption is based on human experience or there is a rational connection between the fact proved and the fact ultimately presumed therefrom. 15 There are instances when the need for expeditions action will justify omission of these requisites, as in the summary abatement of a nuisance per se, like a mad dog on the loose, which may be killed on sight because of the immediate danger it poses to the safety and lives of the people. Pornographic materials, contaminated meat and narcotic drugs are inherently pernicious and may be summarily destroyed. The passport of a person sought for a criminal offense may be cancelled without hearing, to compel his return to the country he has fled. 16 Filthy restaurants may be summarily padlocked in the interest of the public health and bawdy houses to protect the public morals. 17 In such instances, previous judicial hearing may be omitted without violation of due process in view of the nature of the property involved or the urgency of the need to protect the general welfare from a clear and present danger. The protection of the general welfare is the particular function of the police power which both restraints and is restrained by due process. The police power is simply defined as the power inherent in the State to regulate liberty and property for the promotion of the general welfare. 18 By reason of its function, it extends to all the great public needs and is described as the most pervasive, the least limitable and the most demanding of the three inherent powers of the State, far outpacing taxation and eminent domain. The individual, as a member of society, is hemmed in by the police power, which affects him even before he is born and follows him still after he is dead from the womb to beyond the tomb in practically everything he does or owns. Its reach is virtually limitless. It is a ubiquitous and often unwelcome intrusion. Even so, as long as the activity or the property has some relevance to the public welfare, its regulation under the police power is not only proper but necessary. And the justification is found in the venerable Latin maxims, Salus populi est suprema lex and Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas, which call for the subordination of individual interests to the benefit of the greater number. It is this power that is now invoked by the government to justify Executive Order No. 626-A, amending the basic rule in Executive Order No. 626, prohibiting the slaughter of carabaos except under certain conditions. The original measure was issued for the reason, as expressed in one of its Whereases, that "present conditions demand that the carabaos and the buffaloes be conserved for the benefit of the small farmers who rely on them for energy needs." We affirm at the outset the need for such a measure. In the face of the worsening energy crisis and the increased dependence of our farms on these traditional beasts of burden, the government would have been remiss, indeed, if it had not taken steps to protect and preserve them. A similar prohibition was challenged in United States v. Toribio, 19 where a law regulating the registration, branding

C O N S T I T U T I O N A L L A W I I : D U E P R O C E S S O F L A W C A S E S P a g e | 24 DENNIS ARAN T. ABRIL JD-410 UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

and slaughter of large cattle was claimed to be a deprivation of property without due process of law. The defendant had been convicted thereunder for having slaughtered his own carabao without the required permit, and he appealed to the Supreme Court. The conviction was affirmed. The law was sustained as a valid police measure to prevent the indiscriminate killing of carabaos, which were then badly needed by farmers. An epidemic had stricken many of these animals and the reduction of their number had resulted in an acute decline in agricultural output, which in turn had caused an incipient famine. Furthermore, because of the scarcity of the animals and the consequent increase in their price, cattle-rustling had spread alarmingly, necessitating more effective measures for the registration and branding of these animals. The Court held that the questioned statute was a valid exercise of the police power and declared in part as follows: To justify the State in thus interposing its authority in behalf of the public, it must appear, first, that the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, require such interference; and second, that the means are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose, and not unduly oppressive upon individuals. ... From what has been said, we think it is clear that the enactment of the provisions of the statute under consideration was required by "the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class" and that the prohibition of the slaughter of carabaos for human consumption, so long as these animals are fit for agricultural work or draft purposes was a "reasonably necessary" limitation on private ownership, to protect the community from the loss of the services of such animals by their slaughter by improvident owners, tempted either by greed of momentary gain, or by a desire to enjoy the luxury of animal food, even when by so doing the productive power of the community may be measurably and dangerously affected. In the light of the tests mentioned above, we hold with the Toribio Case that the carabao, as the poor man's tractor, so to speak, has a direct relevance to the public welfare and so is a lawful subject of Executive Order No. 626. The method chosen in the basic measure is also reasonably necessary for the purpose sought to be achieved and not unduly oppressive upon individuals, again following the above-cited doctrine. There is no doubt that by banning the slaughter of these animals except where they are at least seven years old if male and eleven years old if female upon issuance of the necessary permit, the executive order will be conserving those still fit for farm work or breeding and preventing their improvident depletion. But while conceding that the amendatory measure has the same lawful subject as the original executive order, we cannot say with equal certainty that it complies with the second requirement, viz., that there be a lawful method. We note that to strengthen the original measure, Executive Order No. 626-A imposes an absolute ban not on theslaughter of the carabaos but on their movement, providing that "no carabao regardless of age, sex, physical condition or purpose (sic) and no carabeef shall be transported from one province to another." The object of the prohibition escapes us. The reasonable connection between the means employed and the purpose sought to be achieved by the questioned measure is missing We do not see how the prohibition of the inter-provincial transport of carabaos can prevent their indiscriminate slaughter, considering that they can be killed anywhere, with no less difficulty in one province than in another. Obviously, retaining the carabaos in one province will not prevent their slaughter there, any more than moving them to another province will make it easier to kill them there. As for the carabeef, the prohibition is made to apply to it as otherwise, so says executive order, it could be easily circumvented by simply killing the animal. Perhaps so. However, if the movement of the live animals for the purpose of preventing their slaughter cannot be prohibited, it should follow that there is no reason either to prohibit their transfer as, not to be flippant dead meat. Even if a reasonable relation between the means and the end were to be assumed, we would still have to reckon with the sanction that the measure applies for violation of the prohibition. The penalty is outright confiscation of the carabao or carabeef being transported, to be meted out by the executive authorities, usually the police only. In the Toribio Case, the statute was sustained because the penalty prescribed was fine and imprisonment, to be imposed by the court after trial and conviction of the accused. Under the challenged measure, significantly, no such trial is prescribed, and the property being transported is immediately impounded by the police and declared, by the measure itself, as forfeited to the government. In the instant case, the carabaos were arbitrarily confiscated by the police station commander, were returned to the petitioner only after he had filed a complaint for recovery and given a supersedeas bond of P12,000.00, which was ordered confiscated upon his failure to produce the carabaos when ordered by the trial court. The executive order defined the prohibition, convicted the petitioner and immediately imposed punishment, which was carried out forthright. The measure struck at once and pounced upon the petitioner without giving him a chance to be heard, thus denying him the centuries-old guaranty of elementary fair play. It has already been remarked that there are occasions when notice and hearing may be validly dispensed with notwithstanding the usual requirement for these minimum guarantees of due process. It is also conceded that summary action may be validly taken in administrative proceedings as procedural due process is not necessarily judicial only. 20 In the exceptional cases accepted, however. there is a justification for the omission of the right to a previous hearing, to wit, the immediacy of the problem

C O N S T I T U T I O N A L L A W I I : D U E P R O C E S S O F L A W C A S E S P a g e | 25 DENNIS ARAN T. ABRIL JD-410 UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

sought to be corrected and the urgency of the need to correct it. In the case before us, there was no such pressure of time or action calling for the petitioner's peremptory treatment. The properties involved were not even inimical per se as to require their instant destruction. There certainly was no reason why the offense prohibited by the executive order should not have been proved first in a court of justice, with the accused being accorded all the rights safeguarded to him under the Constitution. Considering that, as we held in Pesigan v. Angeles, 21 Executive Order No. 626-A is penal in nature, the violation thereof should have been pronounced not by the police only but by a court of justice, which alone would have had the authority to impose the prescribed penalty, and only after trial and conviction of the accused. We also mark, on top of all this, the questionable manner of the disposition of the confiscated property as prescribed in the questioned executive order. It is there authorized that the seized property shall "be distributed to charitable institutions and other similar institutions as the Chairman of the National Meat Inspection Commissionmay see fit, in the case of carabeef, and to deserving farmers through dispersal as the Director of Animal Industrymay see fit, in the case of carabaos." (Emphasis supplied.) The phrase "may see fit" is an extremely generous and dangerous condition, if condition it is. It is laden with perilous opportunities for partiality and abuse, and even corruption. One searches in vain for the usual standard and the reasonable guidelines, or better still, the limitations that the said officers must observe when they make their distribution. There is none. Their options are apparently boundless. Who shall be the fortunate beneficiaries of their generosity and by what criteria shall they be chosen? Only the officers named can supply the answer, they and they alone may choose the grantee as they see fit, and in their own exclusive discretion. Definitely, there is here a "roving commission," a wide and sweeping authority that is not "canalized within banks that keep it from overflowing," in short, a clearly profligate and therefore invalid delegation of legislative powers. To sum up then, we find that the challenged measure is an invalid exercise of the police power because the method employed to conserve the carabaos is not reasonably necessary to the purpose of the law and, worse, is unduly oppressive. Due process is violated because the owner of the property confiscated is denied the right to be heard in his defense and is immediately condemned and punished. The conferment on the administrative authorities of the power to adjudge the guilt of the supposed offender is a clear encroachment on judicial functions and militates against the doctrine of separation of powers. There is, finally, also an invalid delegation of legislative powers to the officers mentioned therein who are granted unlimited discretion in the distribution of the properties arbitrarily taken. For these reasons, we hereby declare Executive Order No. 626-A unconstitutional. We agree with the respondent court, however, that the police station commander who confiscated the petitioner's carabaos is not liable in damages for enforcing the executive order in accordance with its mandate. The law was at that time presumptively valid, and it was his obligation, as a member of the police, to enforce it. It would have been impertinent of him, being a mere subordinate of the President, to declare the executive order unconstitutional and, on his own responsibility alone, refuse to execute it. Even the trial court, in fact, and the Court of Appeals itself did not feel they had the competence, for all their superior authority, to question the order we now annul. The Court notes that if the petitioner had not seen fit to assert and protect his rights as he saw them, this case would never have reached us and the taking of his property under the challenged measure would have become afait accompli despite its invalidity. We commend him for his spirit. Without the present challenge, the matter would have ended in that pump boat in Masbate and another violation of the Constitution, for all its obviousness, would have been perpetrated, allowed without protest, and soon forgotten in the limbo of relinquished rights. The strength of democracy lies not in the rights it guarantees but in the courage of the people to invoke them whenever they are ignored or violated. Rights are but weapons on the wall if, like expensive tapestry, all they do is embellish and impress. Rights, as weapons, must be a promise of protection. They become truly meaningful, and fulfill the role assigned to them in the free society, if they are kept bright and sharp with use by those who are not afraid to assert them. WHEREFORE, Executive Order No. 626-A is hereby declared unconstitutional. Except as affirmed above, the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed. The supersedeas bond is cancelled and the amount thereof is ordered restored to the petitioner. No costs. SO ORDERED. The evidence of record fully sustains the findings of the trial court that the appellant slaughtered or caused to be slaughtered for human consumption, the carabao described in the information, without a permit from the municipal treasure of the municipality wherein it was slaughtered, in violation of the provisions of sections 30 and 33 of Act No. 1147, an Act regulating the registration, branding, and slaughter of large cattle. It appears that in the town of Carmen, in the Province of Bohol, wherein the animal was slaughtered there is no municipal slaughterhouse, and counsel for appellant contends that under such circumstances the provisions of Act No. 1147 do not prohibit nor penalize the slaughter of large cattle without a permit of the municipal treasure. Sections 30, 31, 32, and 33 of the Act are as follows: SEC. 30. No large cattle shall be slaughtered or killed for food at the municipal slaughterhouse except upon permit secured from the municipal treasure. Before issuing the permit for the slaughter of large cattle for human consumption, the municipal treasurer shall require for branded cattle the production of the original certificate of ownership and certificates of transfer showing title in the person applying for the permit, and for unbranded cattle such evidence as may satisfy said treasurer as to the ownership of the animals for which permit to slaughter has been requested. SEC. 31. No permit to slaughter has been carabaos shall be granted by the municipal

C O N S T I T U T I O N A L L A W I I : D U E P R O C E S S O F L A W C A S E S P a g e | 26 DENNIS ARAN T. ABRIL JD-410 UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

treasurer unless such animals are unfit for agricultural work or for draft purposes, and in no event shall a permit be given to slaughter for food any animal of any kind which is not fit for human consumption. SEC. 32. The municipal treasurer shall keep a record of all permits for slaughter issued by him, and such record shall show the name and residence of the owner, and the class, sex, age, brands, knots of radiated hair commonly know as remolinos or cowlicks, and other marks of identification of the animal for the slaughter of which permit is issued and the date on which such permit is issued. Names of owners shall be alphabetically arranged in the record, together with date of permit. A copy of the record of permits granted for slaughter shall be forwarded monthly to the provincial treasurer, who shall file and properly index the same under the name of the owner, together with date of permit. SEC. 33. Any person slaughtering or causing to be slaughtered for human consumption or killing for food at the municipal slaughterhouse any large cattle except upon permit duly secured from the municipal treasurer, shall be punished by a fine of not less than ten nor more than five hundred pesos, Philippine currency, or by imprisonment for not less than one month nor more than six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court. It is contended that the proper construction of the language of these provisions limits the prohibition contained in section 30 and the penalty imposed in section 33 to cases (1) of slaughter of large cattle for human consumptionin a municipal slaughter without a permit duly secured from the municipal treasurer, and (2) cases of killing of large cattle for food in a municipal slaughterhouse without a permit duly secured from the municipal treasurer; and it is urged that the municipality of Carmen not being provided with a municipal slaughterhouse, neither the prohibition nor the penalty is applicable to cases of slaughter of large cattle without a permit in that municipality. We are of opinion, however, that the prohibition contained in section 30 refers (1) to the slaughter of large cattle for human consumption, anywhere, without a permit duly secured from the municipal treasurer, and (2) expressly and specifically to the killing for food of large cattle at a municipal slaughterhouse without such permit; and that the penalty provided in section 33 applies generally to the slaughter of large cattle for human consumption, anywhere, without a permit duly secured from the municipal treasurer, and specifically to the killing for food of large cattle at a municipal slaughterhouse without such permit. It may be admitted at once, that the pertinent language of those sections taken by itself and examined apart from the context fairly admits of two constructions: one whereby the phrase "at the municipal slaughterhouse" may be taken as limiting and restricting both the word "slaughtered" and the words "killed for food" in section 30, and the words "slaughtering or causing to be slaughtered for human consumption" and the words "killing for food" in section 33; and the other whereby the phrase "at the municipal slaughterhouse" may be taken as limiting and restricting merely the words "killed for food" and "killing for food" as used in those sections. But upon a reading of the whole Act, and keeping in mind the manifest and expressed purpose and object of its enactment, it is very clear that the latter construction is that which should be adopted. The Act primarily seeks to protect the "large cattle" of the Philippine Islands against theft and to make easy the recovery and return of such cattle to their proper owners when lost, strayed, or stolen. To this end it provides an elaborate and compulsory system for the separate branding and registry of ownership of all such cattle throughout the Islands, whereby owners are enabled readily and easily to establish their title; it prohibits and invalidates all transfers of large cattle unaccompanied by certificates of transfer issued by the proper officer in the municipality where the contract of sale is made; and it provides also for the disposition of thieves or persons unlawfully in possession, so as to protect the rights of the true owners. All this, manifestly, in order to make it difficult for any one but the rightful owner of such cattle to retain them in his possession or to dispose of them to others. But the usefulness of this elaborate and compulsory system of identification, resting as it does on the official registry of the brands and marks on each separate animal throughout the Islands, would be largely impaired, if not totally destroyed, if such animals were requiring proof of ownership and the production of certificates of registry by the person slaughtering or causing them to be slaughtered, and this especially if the animals were slaughtered privately or in a clandestine manner outside of a municipal slaughterhouse. Hence, as it would appear, sections 30 and 33 prohibit and penalize the slaughter for human consumption or killing for food at a municipal slaughterhouse of such animals without a permit issued by the municipal treasurer, and section 32 provides for the keeping of detailed records of all such permits in the office of the municipal and also of the provincial treasurer. If, however, the construction be placed on these sections which is contended for by the appellant, it will readily be seen that all these carefully worked out provisions for the registry and record of the brands and marks of identification of all large cattle in the Islands would prove in large part abortion, since thieves and persons unlawfully in possession of such cattle, and naturally would, evade the provisions of the law by slaughtering them outside of municipal slaughterhouses, and thus enjoy the fruits of their wrongdoing without exposing themselves to the danger of detection incident to the bringing of the animals to the public slaughterhouse, where the brands and other identification marks might be scrutinized and proof of ownership required. Where the language of a statute is fairly susceptible of two or more constructions, that construction should be adopted which will most tend to give effect to the manifest intent of the lawmaker and promote the object for which the statute was enacted, and a construction should be rejected which would tend to render abortive other provisions of the statute and to defeat the object which the legislator sought to attain by its enactment. We are of opinion, therefore, that sections 30 and 33 of the Act prohibit and penalize the slaughtering

C O N S T I T U T I O N A L L A W I I : D U E P R O C E S S O F L A W C A S E S P a g e | 27 DENNIS ARAN T. ABRIL JD-410 UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

or causing to be slaughtered for human consumption of large cattle at any place without the permit provided for in section 30. It is not essential that an explanation be found for the express prohibition in these sections of the "killing for food at a municipal slaughterhouse" of such animals, despite the fact that this prohibition is clearly included in the general prohibition of the slaughter of such animals for human consumption anywhere; but it is not improbable that the requirement for the issue of a permit in such cases was expressly and specifically mentioned out of superabundance of precaution, and to avoid all possibility of misunderstanding in the event that some of the municipalities should be disposed to modify or vary the general provisions of the law by the passage of local ordinances or regulations for the control of municipal slaughterhouse. Similar reasoning applied to the specific provisions of section 31 of the Act leads to the same conclusion. One of the secondary purposes of the law, as set out in that section, is to prevent the slaughter for food of carabaos fit for agricultural and draft purposes, and of all animals unfit for human consumption. A construction which would limit the prohibitions and penalties prescribed in the statute to the killing of such animals in municipal slaughterhouses, leaving unprohibited and unpenalized their slaughter outside of such establishments, so manifestly tends to defeat the purpose and object of the legislator, that unless imperatively demanded by the language of the statute it should be rejected; and, as we have already indicated, the language of the statute is clearly susceptible of the construction which we have placed upon it, which tends to make effective the provisions of this as well as all the other sections of the Act. It appears that the defendant did in fact apply for a permit to slaughter his carabao, and that it was denied him on the ground that the animal was not unfit "for agricultural work or for draft purposes." Counsel for appellant contends that the statute, in so far as it undertakes to penalize the slaughter of carabaos for human consumption as food, without first obtaining a permit which can not be procured in the event that the animal is not unfit "for agricultural work or draft purposes," is unconstitutional and in violation of the terms of section 5 of the Philippine Bill (Act of Congress, July 1, 1902), which provides that "no law shall be enacted which shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." It is not quite clear from the argument of counsel whether his contention is that this provision of the statute constitutes a taking of property for public use in the exercise of the right of eminent domain without providing for the compensation of the owners, or that it is an undue and unauthorized exercise of the police power of the State. But whatever may be the basis of his contention, we are of opinion, appropriating, with necessary modifications understood, the language of that great jurist, Chief Justice Shaw (in the case of Com. vs. Tewksbury, 11 Met., 55, where the question involved was the constitutionality of a statute prohibiting and penalizing the taking or carrying away by any person, including the owner, of any stones, gravel, or sand, from any of the beaches in the town of Chesea,) that the law in question "is not a taking of the property for public use, within the meaning of the constitution, but is a just and legitimate exercise of the power of the legislature to regulate and restrain such particular use of the property as would be inconsistent with or injurious to the rights of the public. All property is acquired and held under the tacit condition that it shall not be so used as to injure the equal rights of others or greatly impair the public rights and interest of the community." It may be conceded that the benificial use and exclusive enjoyment of the property of all carabao owners in these Islands is to a greater or less degree interfered with by the provisions of the statute; and that, without inquiring what quantum of interest thus passes from the owners of such cattle, it is an interest the deprivation of which detracts from their right and authority, and in some degree interferes with their exclusive possession and control of their property, so that if the regulations in question were enacted for purely private purpose, the statute, in so far as these regulations are concerned, would be a violation of the provisions of the Philippine Bill relied on be appellant; but we are satisfied that it is not such a taking, such an interference with the right and title of the owners, as is involved in the exercise by the State of the right of eminent domain, so as to entitle these owners to compensation, and that it is no more than "a just restrain of an injurious private use of the property, which the legislature had authority to impose." In the case of Com. vs. Alger (7 Cush., 53, 84), wherein the doctrine laid down in Com. vs. Tewksbury (supra) was reviewed and affirmed, the same eminent jurist who wrote the former opinion, in distinguishing the exercise of the right of eminent domain from the exercise of the sovereign police powers of the State, said: We think it is settled principle, growing out of the nature of well-ordered civil society, that every holder of property, however absolute and unqualified may be his title, holds it under the implied liability that his use of it may be so regulated that is shall not be injurious to the equal enjoyment of others having an equal right to the enjoyment of their property, nor injurious to the rights of the community. . . . Rights of property, like all other social and conventional rights, are subject to such reasonable limitations in their enjoyment as shall prevent them from being injurious, and to such reasonable restrain and regulations establish by law, as the legislature, under the governing and controlling power vested in them by the constitution, may think necessary and expedient. This is very different from the right of eminent domain, the right of a government to take and appropriate private property to public use, whenever the public exigency requires it; which can be done only on condition of providing a reasonable compensation therefor. The power we allude to is rather the police power, the power vested in the legislature by the constitution, to make, ordain, and establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws, statutes, and ordinances, either with penalties or without, not repugnant to the constitution, as they shall judge

C O N S T I T U T I O N A L L A W I I : D U E P R O C E S S O F L A W C A S E S P a g e | 28 DENNIS ARAN T. ABRIL JD-410 UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

to be for the good and welfare of the commonwealth, and of the subjects of the same. It is much easier to perceive and realize the existence and sources of this power than to mark its boundaries or prescribe limits to its exercise. Applying these principles, we are opinion that the restrain placed by the law on the slaughter for human consumption of carabaos fit for agricultural work and draft purpose is not an appropriation of property interests to a "public use," and is not, therefore, within the principle of the exercise by the State of the right of eminent domain. It is fact a mere restriction or limitation upon a private use, which the legislature deemed to be determental to the public welfare. And we think that an examination of the general provisions of the statute in relation to the public interest which it seeks to safeguard and the public necessities for which it provides, leaves no room for doubt that the limitations and restraints imposed upon the exercise of rights of ownership by the particular provisions of the statute under consideration were imposed not for private purposes but, strictly, in the promotion of the "general welfare" and "the public interest" in the exercise of the sovereign police power which every State possesses for the general public welfare and which "reaches to every species of property within the commonwealth." For several years prior to the enactment of the statute a virulent contagious or infectious disease had threatened the total extinction of carabaos in these Islands, in many sections sweeping away seventy, eighty, and in some cases as much as ninety and even one hundred per cent of these animals. Agriculture being the principal occupation of the people, and the carabao being the work animal almost exclusively in use in the fields as well as for draft purposes, the ravages of the disease with which they were infected struck an almost vital blow at the material welfare of the country. large areas of productive land lay waste for years, and the production of rice, the staple food of the inhabitants of the Islands, fell off to such an extent that the impoverished people were compelled to spend many millions of pesos in its importation, notwithstanding the fact that with sufficient work animals to cultivate the fields the arable rice lands of the country could easily be made to produce a supply more that sufficient for its own needs. The drain upon the resources of the Islands was such that famine soon began to make itself felt, hope sank in the breast of the people, and in many provinces the energies of the breadwinners seemed to be paralyzed by the apparently hopeless struggle for existence with which they were confronted. To meet these conditions, large sums of money were expended by the Government in relieving the immediate needs of the starving people, three millions of dollars were voted by the Congress of the United States as a relief or famine fund, public works were undertaken to furnish employment in the provinces where the need was most pressing, and every effort made to alleviate the suffering incident to the widespread failure of the crops throughout the Islands, due in large measure to the lack of animals fit for agricultural work and draft purposes. Such measures, however, could only temporarily relieve the situation, because in an agricultural community material progress and permanent prosperity could hardly be hoped for in the absence of the work animals upon which such a community must necessarily rely for the cultivation of the fields and the transportation of the products of the fields to market. Accordingly efforts were made by the Government to increase the supply of these animals by importation, but, as appears from the official reports on this subject, hope for the future depended largely on the conservation of those animals which had been spared from the ravages of the diseased, and their redistribution throughout the Islands where the need for them was greatest. At large expense, the services of experts were employed, with a view to the discovery and applications of preventive and curative remedies, and it is hoped that these measures have proved in some degree successful in protecting the present inadequate supply of large cattle, and that the gradual increase and redistribution of these animals throughout the Archipelago, in response to the operation of the laws of supply and demand, will ultimately results in practically relieving those sections which suffered most by the loss of their work animals. As was to be expected under such conditions, the price of carabaos rapidly increase from the three to five fold or more, and it may fairly be presumed that even if the conservative measures now adopted prove entirely successful, the scant supply will keep the price of these animals at a high figure until the natural increase shall have more nearly equalized the supply to the demand. Coincident with and probably intimately connected with this sudden rise in the price of cattle, the crime of cattle stealing became extremely prevalent throughout the Islands, necessitating the enactment of a special law penalizing with the severest penalties the theft of carabaos and other personal property by roving bands; and it must be assumed from the legislative authority found that the general welfare of the Islands necessitated the enactment of special and somewhat burdensome provisions for the branding and registration of large cattle, and supervision and restriction of their slaughter for food. It will hardly be questioned that the provisions of the statute touching the branding and registration of such cattle, and prohibiting and penalizing the slaughter of diseased cattle for food were enacted in the due and proper exercise of the police power of the State; and we are of opinion that, under all the circumstances, the provision of the statute prohibiting and penalizing the slaughter for human consumption of carabaos fit for work were in like manner enacted in the due and proper exercise of that power, justified by the exigent necessities of existing conditions, and the right of the State to protect itself against the overwhelming disaster incident to the further reduction of the supply of animals fit for agricultural work or draft purposes. It is, we think, a fact of common knowledge in these Islands, and disclosed by the official reports and records of the administrative and legislative departments of the Government, that not merely the material welfare and future prosperity of this agricultural community were threatened by the ravages of the disease which swept away the work animals during the years prior to the enactment of the law under consideration, but that the very life and existence of the inhabitants of these Islands as a civilized people would be more or less imperiled by the continued destruction of large cattle by disease or otherwise. Confronted by such

C O N S T I T U T I O N A L L A W I I : D U E P R O C E S S O F L A W C A S E S P a g e | 29 DENNIS ARAN T. ABRIL JD-410 UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

conditions, there can be no doubt of the right of the Legislature to adopt reasonable measures for the preservation of work animals, even to the extent of prohibiting and penalizing what would, under ordinary conditions, be a perfectly legitimate and proper exercise of rights of ownership and control of the private property of the citizen. The police power rests upon necessity and the right of self-protection and if ever the invasion of private property by police regulation can be justified, we think that the reasonable restriction placed upon the use of carabaos by the provision of the law under discussion must be held to be authorized as a reasonable and proper exercise of that power. As stated by Mr. Justice Brown in his opinion in the case of Lawton vs. Steele (152 U.S., 133, 136): The extent and limits of what is known as the police power have been a fruitful subject of discussion in the appellate courts of nearly every State in the Union. It is universally conceded to include everything essential to the public safely, health, and morals, and to justify the destruction or abatement, by summary proceedings, of whatever may be regarded as a public nuisance. Under this power it has been held that the State may order the destruction of a house falling to decay or otherwise endangering the lives of passers-by; the demolition of such as are in the path of a conflagration; the slaughter of diseased cattle; the destruction of decayed or unwholesome food; the prohibition of wooden buildings in cities; the regulation of railways and other means of public conveyance, and of interments in burial grounds; the restriction of objectionable trades to certain localities; the compulsary vaccination of children; the confinement of the insane or those afficted with contagious deceases; the restraint of vagrants, beggars, and habitual drunkards; the suppression of obscene publications and houses of ill fame; and the prohibition of gambling houses and places where intoxicating liquors are sold. Beyond this, however, the State may interfere wherever the public interests demand it, and in this particular a large discretion is necessarily vested in the legislature to determine, not only what the interests of the public require, but what measures are necessary for the protection of such interests. (Barbier vs. Connolly, 113 U. S., 27; Kidd vs. Pearson, 128 U. S., 1.) To justify the State in thus interposing its authority in behalf of the public, it must appear, first, that the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, require such interference; and, second, that the means are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose, and not unduly oppressive upon individuals. The legislature may not, under the guise of protecting the public interests, arbitrarily interfere with private business, or impose unusual and unnecessary restrictions upon lawful occupations. In other words, its determination as to what is a proper exercise of its police powers is not final or conclusive, but is subject to the supervision of the court. From what has been said, we think it is clear that the enactment of the provisions of the statute under consideration was required by "the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class;" and that the prohibition of the slaughter of carabaos for human consumption, so long as these animals are fit for agricultural work or draft purposes was a "reasonably necessary" limitation on private ownership, to protect the community from the loss of the services of such animals by their slaughter by improvident owners, tempted either by greed of momentary gain, or by a desire to enjoy the luxury of animal food, even when by so doing the productive power of the community may be measurably and dangerously affected. Chief Justice Redfield, in Thorpe vs. Rutland & Burlington R. R. Co. (27 Vt., 140), said (p. 149) that by this "general police power of the State, persons and property are subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens, in order to secure the general comfort, health, and prosperity of the State; of the perfect right in the legislature to do which no question ever was, or, upon acknowledge and general principles, ever can be made, so far as natural persons are concerned." And Cooley in his "Constitutional Limitations" (6th ed., p. 738) says: It would be quite impossible to enumerate all the instances in which the police power is or may be exercised, because the various cases in which the exercise by one individual of his rights may conflict with a similar exercise by others, or may be detrimental to the public order or safety, are infinite in number and in variety. And there are other cases where it becomes necessary for the public authorities to interfere with the control by individuals of their property, and even to destroy it, where the owners themselves have fully observed all their duties to their fellows and to the State, but where, nevertheless, some controlling public necessity demands the interference or destruction. A strong instance of this description is where it becomes necessary to take, use, or destroy the private property of individuals to prevent the spreading of a fire, the ravages of a pestilence, the advance of a hostile army, or any other great public calamity. Here the individual is in no degree in fault, but his interest must yield to that "necessity" which "knows no law." The establishment of limits within the denser portions of cities and villages within which buildings constructed of inflammable materials shall not be erected or repaired may also, in some cases, be equivalent to a destruction of private property; but regulations for this purpose have been sustained notwithstanding this result. Wharf lines may also be established for the general good, even though they prevent the owners of water-fronts from building out on soil which constitutes private property. And, whenever the legislature deem it necessary to the protection of a harbor to forbid the removal of stones, gravel, or sand from the

C O N S T I T U T I O N A L L A W I I : D U E P R O C E S S O F L A W C A S E S P a g e | 30 DENNIS ARAN T. ABRIL JD-410 UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

beach, they may establish regulations to that effect under penalties, and make them applicable to the owners of the soil equally with other persons. Such regulations are only "a just restraint of an injurious use of property, which the legislature have authority" to impose. So a particular use of property may sometimes be forbidden, where, by a change of circumstances, and without the fault of the power, that which was once lawful, proper, and unobjectionable has now become a public nuisance, endangering the public health or the public safety. Milldams are sometimes destroyed upon this grounds; and churchyards which prove, in the advance of urban population, to be detrimental to the public health, or in danger of becoming so, are liable to be closed against further use for cemetery purposes. These citations from some of the highest judicial and textbook authorities in the United States clearly indicate the wide scope and extent which has there been given to the doctrine us in our opinion that the provision of the statute in question being a proper exercise of that power is not in violation of the terms of section 5 of the Philippine Bill, which provide that "no law shall be enacted which shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law," a provision which itself is adopted from the Constitution of the United States, and is found in substance in the constitution of most if not all of the States of the Union. The judgment of conviction and the sentence imposed by the trial court should be affirmed with the costs of this instance against the appellant. So ordered. TANADA VS. TUVERA The respondents, through the Solicitor General, would have this case dismissed outright on the ground that petitioners have no legal personality or standing to bring the instant petition. The view is submitted that in the absence of any showing that petitioners are personally and directly affected or prejudiced by the alleged non-publication of the presidential issuances in question 2 said petitioners are without the requisite legal personality to institute this mandamus proceeding, they are not being "aggrieved parties" within the meaning of Section 3, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, which we quote: SEC. 3. Petition for Mandamus.When any tribunal, corporation, board or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes another from the use a rd enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled, and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the defendant, immediately or at some other specified time, to do the act required to be done to Protect the rights of the petitioner, and to pay the damages sustained by the petitioner by reason of the wrongful acts of the defendant. Upon the other hand, petitioners maintain that since the subject of the petition concerns a public right and its object is to compel the performance of a public duty, they need not show any specific interest for their petition to be given due course. The issue posed is not one of first impression. As early as the 1910 case of Severino vs. Governor General, 3 this Court held that while the general rule is that "a writ of mandamus would be granted to a private individual only in those cases where he has some private or particular interest to be subserved, or some particular right to be protected, independent of that which he holds with the public at large," and "it is for the public officers exclusively to apply for the writ when public rights are to be subserved [Mithchell vs. Boardmen, 79 M.e., 469]," nevertheless, "when the question is one of public right and the object of the mandamus is to procure the enforcement of a public duty, the people are regarded as the real party in interest and the relator at whose instigation the proceedings are instituted need not show that he has any legal or special interest in the result, it being sufficient to show that he is a citizen and as such interested in the execution of the laws [High, Extraordinary Legal Remedies, 3rd ed., sec. 431]. Thus, in said case, this Court recognized the relator Lope Severino, a private individual, as a proper party to the mandamus proceedings brought to compel the Governor General to call a special election for the position of municipal president in the town of Silay, Negros Occidental. Speaking for this Court, Mr. Justice Grant T. Trent said: We are therefore of the opinion that the weight of authority supports the proposition that the relator is a proper party to proceedings of this character when a public right is sought to be enforced. If the general rule in America were otherwise, we think that it would not be applicable to the case at bar for the reason 'that it is always dangerous to apply a general rule to a particular case without keeping in mind the reason for the rule, because, if under the particular circumstances the reason for the rule does not exist, the rule itself is not applicable and reliance upon the rule may well lead to error' No reason exists in the case at bar for applying the general rule insisted upon by counsel for the respondent. The circumstances which surround this case are different from those in the United States, inasmuch as if the relator is not a proper party to these proceedings no other person could be, as we have seen that it is not the duty of the law officer of the Government to appear and

C O N S T I T U T I O N A L L A W I I : D U E P R O C E S S O F L A W C A S E S P a g e | 31 DENNIS ARAN T. ABRIL JD-410 UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

represent the people in cases of this character. The reasons given by the Court in recognizing a private citizen's legal personality in the aforementioned case apply squarely to the present petition. Clearly, the right sought to be enforced by petitioners herein is a public right recognized by no less than the fundamental law of the land. If petitioners were not allowed to institute this proceeding, it would indeed be difficult to conceive of any other person to initiate the same, considering that the Solicitor General, the government officer generally empowered to represent the people, has entered his appearance for respondents in this case. Respondents further contend that publication in the Official Gazette is not a sine qua non requirement for the effectivity of laws where the laws themselves provide for their own effectivity dates. It is thus submitted that since the presidential issuances in question contain special provisions as to the date they are to take effect, publication in the Official Gazette is not indispensable for their effectivity. The point stressed is anchored on Article 2 of the Civil Code: Art. 2. Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the completion of their publication in the Official Gazette, unless it is otherwise provided, ... The interpretation given by respondent is in accord with this Court's construction of said article. In a long line of decisions, 4 this Court has ruled that publication in the Official Gazette is necessary in those cases where the legislation itself does not provide for its effectivity date-for then the date of publication is material for determining its date of effectivity, which is the fifteenth day following its publicationbut not when the law itself provides for the date when it goes into effect. Respondents' argument, however, is logically correct only insofar as it equates the effectivity of laws with the fact of publication. Considered in the light of other statutes applicable to the issue at hand, the conclusion is easily reached that said Article 2 does not preclude the requirement of publication in the Official Gazette, even if the law itself provides for the date of its effectivity. Thus, Section 1 of Commonwealth Act 638 provides as follows: Section 1. There shall be published in the Official Gazette [1] all important legisiative acts and resolutions of a public nature of the, Congress of the Philippines; [2] all executive and administrative orders and proclamations, except such as have no general applicability; [3] decisions or abstracts of decisions of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals as may be deemed by said courts of sufficient importance to be so published; [4] such documents or classes of documents as may be required so to be published by law; and [5] such documents or classes of documents as the President of the Philippines shall determine from time to time to have general applicability and legal effect, or which he may authorize so to be published. ... The clear object of the above-quoted provision is to give the general public adequate notice of the various laws which are to regulate their actions and conduct as citizens. Without such notice and publication, there would be no basis for the application of the maxim "ignorantia legis non excusat." It would be the height of injustice to punish or otherwise burden a citizen for the transgression of a law of which he had no notice whatsoever, not even a constructive one. Perhaps at no time since the establishment of the Philippine Republic has the publication of laws taken so vital significance that at this time when the people have bestowed upon the President a power heretofore enjoyed solely by the legislature. While the people are kept abreast by the mass media of the debates and deliberations in the Batasan Pambansaand for the diligent ones, ready access to the legislative recordsno such publicity accompanies the lawmaking process of the President. Thus, without publication, the people have no means of knowing what presidential decrees have actually been promulgated, much less a definite way of informing themselves of the specific contents and texts of such decrees. As the Supreme Court of Spain ruled: "Bajo la denominacion generica de leyes, se comprenden tambien los reglamentos, Reales decretos, Instrucciones, Circulares y Reales ordines dictadas de conformidad con las mismas por el Gobierno en uso de su potestad. 5 The very first clause of Section I of Commonwealth Act 638 reads: "There shall be published in the Official Gazette ... ." The word "shall" used therein imposes upon respondent officials an imperative duty. That duty must be enforced if the Constitutional right of the people to be informed on matters of public concern is to be given substance and reality. The law itself makes a list of what should be published in the Official Gazette. Such listing, to our mind, leaves respondents with no discretion whatsoever as to what must be included or excluded from such publication. The publication of all presidential issuances "of a public nature" or "of general applicability" is mandated by law. Obviously, presidential decrees that provide for fines, forfeitures or penalties for their violation or otherwise impose a burden or. the people, such as tax and revenue measures, fall within this category. Other presidential issuances which apply only to particular persons or class of persons such as administrative and executive orders need not be published on the assumption that they have been circularized to all concerned. 6 It is needless to add that the publication of presidential issuances "of a public nature" or "of general applicability" is a requirement of due process. It is a rule of law that before a person may be bound by law, he must first be officially and specifically informed of its contents. As Justice Claudio Teehankee said in Peralta vs. COMELEC 7: In a time of proliferating decrees, orders and letters of instructions which all form part of the law of the land, the requirement of due process and the Rule of Law demand that the Official Gazette as the official government repository promulgate and publish the texts of all such decrees, orders and instructions so that the people may

C O N S T I T U T I O N A L L A W I I : D U E P R O C E S S O F L A W C A S E S P a g e | 32 DENNIS ARAN T. ABRIL JD-410 UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

know where to obtain their official and specific contents. The Court therefore declares that presidential issuances of general application, which have not been published, shall have no force and effect. Some members of the Court, quite apprehensive about the possible unsettling effect this decision might have on acts done in reliance of the validity of those presidential decrees which were published only during the pendency of this petition, have put the question as to whether the Court's declaration of invalidity apply to P.D.s which had been enforced or implemented prior to their publication. The answer is all too familiar. In similar situations in the past this Court had taken the pragmatic and realistic course set forth in Chicot County Drainage District vs. Baxter Bank 8 to wit: The courts below have proceeded on the theory that the Act of Congress, having been found to be unconstitutional, was not a law; that it was inoperative, conferring no rights and imposing no duties, and hence affording no basis for the challenged decree. Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 442; Chicago, 1. & L. Ry. Co. v. Hackett, 228 U.S. 559, 566. It is quite clear, however, that such broad statements as to the effect of a determination of unconstitutionality must be taken with qualifications. The actual existence of a statute, prior to such a determination, is an operative fact and may have consequences which cannot justly be ignored. The past cannot always be erased by a new judicial declaration. The effect of the subsequent ruling as to invalidity may have to be considered in various aspects-with respect to particular conduct, private and official. Questions of rights claimed to have become vested, of status, of prior determinations deemed to have finality and acted upon accordingly, of public policy in the light of the nature both of the statute and of its previous application, demand examination. These questions are among the most difficult of those which have engaged the attention of courts, state and federal and it is manifest from numerous decisions that an all-inclusive statement of a principle of absolute retroactive invalidity cannot be justified. Consistently with the above principle, this Court in Rutter vs. Esteban 9 sustained the right of a party under the Moratorium Law, albeit said right had accrued in his favor before said law was declared unconstitutional by this Court. Similarly, the implementation/enforcement of presidential decrees prior to their publication in the Official Gazette is "an operative fact which may have consequences which cannot be justly ignored. The past cannot always be erased by a new judicial declaration ... that an all-inclusive statement of a principle of absolute retroactive invalidity cannot be justified." From the report submitted to the Court by the Clerk of Court, it appears that of the presidential decrees sought by petitioners to be published in the Official Gazette, only Presidential Decrees Nos. 1019 to 1030, inclusive, 1278, and 1937 to 1939, inclusive, have not been so published. 10 Neither the subject matters nor the texts of these PDs can be ascertained since no copies thereof are available. But whatever their subject matter may be, it is undisputed that none of these unpublished PDs has ever been implemented or enforced by the government. InPesigan vs. Angeles, 11 the Court, through Justice Ramon Aquino, ruled that "publication is necessary to apprise the public of the contents of [penal] regulations and make the said penalties binding on the persons affected thereby. " The cogency of this holding is apparently recognized by respondent officials considering the manifestation in their comment that "the government, as a matter of policy, refrains from prosecuting violations of criminal laws until the same shall have been published in the Official Gazette or in some other publication, even though some criminal laws provide that they shall take effect immediately. WHEREFORE, the Court hereby orders respondents to publish in the Official Gazette all unpublished presidential issuances which are of general application, and unless so published, they shall have no binding force and effect. SO ORDERED. SCOPE OF GUARANTY; PERSONS PROTECTED HALILI VS. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION This is petition for writ of certiorari seeking the revocation and annulment of an order dated July 3, 1952, of the respondent Public Service Commission issued in cases Nos. 36450 and 36855, changing part of the route of the bus service established by the respondent CAM Transit Co., Inc., between Balara and City Hall, Manila. Petitioner herein is the holder of various certificates of public convenience to operate auto-truck services between Balara and various points in the city of Manila and its suburbs. Some were granted previous to the last war. The last one was granted in a decision of the respondent Commission in case No. 52272 dated February 13, 1951. The route fixed in petitioner's certificate of public convenience for Sagandaan-Balara, Pandacan-Balara, Bonifacio Monument-Balara, and BalaraPiers pass through Silagan Avenue and end at Balara. Respondent CAM Transit Co., Inc., also holds a certificate of public convenience to operate a line of trucks between Balara and City Hall, Manila. This certificate was obtained by it through assignment, with the approval of the Public Service Commission, from Benjamin Encarnacion. One of the original lines granted to Benjamin Encarnacion. now operated by the respondent CAM Transit Co., Inc., is the Balara-City Hall (Manila), via Kamuning line, starting at Balara fifter plant, passing through Barangka road, MarikinaSan Juan road, Highway 54, Kamuning road, etc. (Appendix C.)chanrobles virtual law library On July 2, 1952, CAM Transit Co., Inc., filed a petition with the respondent Commission, alleging that the route authorized in its City Hall (Manila)-Balara line, and passing along the Marikina-Barangka road, Marikina-San Juan road,

C O N S T I T U T I O N A L L A W I I : D U E P R O C E S S O F L A W C A S E S P a g e | 33 DENNIS ARAN T. ABRIL JD-410 UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

and Highway 54, is entirely different from that supported by the evidence presented in the hearing, and praying that the certificate be amended so that the route authorized should be along Highway 54, Silagan Avenue, U.P. site, ending at Balara, instead of Highway 54, Marikina San Juan road, Barangka road, ending at Balara. Acting upon this petition, the respondent Commission on the following day, July 3, 1952, and without a previous notice to the petitioner or a previous hearing thereon, ordered the modification of the line in accordance with the petition.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library The question now squarely presented to us for decision is whether the order for each amendment if the route, without notice to the petitioner and other interested parties, or hearing in which the latter may be given opportunity to be present, was lawfully and validly issued by the Commission. It will be noted that the Public Service Act (Commonwealth Act No. 146) expressly defines the powers of the respondent Commission which may be exercised by it "upon proper notice and hearing," or without previous hearing. (Section 16 and 17.) The act of the Commission in issuing the order of July 3, 1952, does not fall under any of the powers enumerated in the above sections of the law, and consequently the question at issue must be resolved in accordance with fundamental principles of law and justice.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library A cursory perusal of the existing routes between the Balara Filter and the Kamuning Avenue, or the University of the Philippines and Kamuning Avenue (see Annex A),which route are the subject of controversy, readily discloses that the change or amendment ordered by the respondent Commission in the route of respondent operator is one of substance, not nominal or innocent change. It does not seem to us to be a correction a mere clerical, innocent mistake or error. To us the grant of the route along the Barangka and the Marikina roads to respondent operator was for the purpose of giving service to people living along these roads and at Balara. On the other hand, petitioner herein Halili, then oppositor to the application of respondent operator's predecessor in interest, was already given the University of the Philippines, Silagan Avenue, to Kamuning line, to serve students of the University and people living along this route. Inasmuch as the terminal of respondent operator's line is Balara, not the University, it could not have been the purpose and intention of the original certificate issued to allow it to serve students of the University of the Philippines. The supposed justification for the issuance of the disputed order therefore, is not borne out by the original decision granting the certificate of respondent operator's predecessor.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library But assuming, for the sake of argument, that the respondent Commission committed an error, in the appreciation of the supposed evidence offered (which was not mentioned), it appears that the change in the route authorized in the order clearly affects the right and privilege granted the petitioner in his certificate of public convenience to pass from Kamuning road through Silagan Avenue, to the University of the Philippines, who without a change in the respondent operator's line, could not ride in the latter's buses because these operate only up to Balara, without reaching the University of the Philippines,and pass only through Barangka and Marikina roads. The amendment , therefore of the respondent operator's lines affect the rights granted and guaranteed by the certificate of public convenience of the petitioner. To allow the respondent Commission to authorize the amendment, without giving the petitioner opportunity to be heard and express his objections thereto, is clearly a deprivation of a precious right and privilege without due process of law.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library Respondent operator cites the decisions of this Court in the case of Ablaza Transportation Co., Inc., vs. Feliciano Ocampo, 1 et al., G.R. No. L-3563, and the case of Eliseo Silva vs. Hon. Feliciano Ocampo, 2 et al., G.R. No. L-5162, which decisions hold that the Commission may issue provisional permits without hearing for new services, and argues that if this can be done, with more reason may the said Commission be authorized to correct errors that it has committed; that the Commission is not bound in matters of procedure by technical rules established for judicial proceedings, etc. In the first place, the power to issues provisional permits is expressly authorized. In the second place, the change ordered is not provisional merely, like that granted in a provisional permit, but final and permanent in character. In the third place, even if the Commission is not bound by the rules in judicial proceedings, it must bow its head to he constitutional mandate that no person shall be deprived of a right without due process of law. The "due process of law" clause of the Constitution binds not only the Government of the Republic of the Philippines, but also each and everyone of its branches, agencies, etc. (16 C.J.S., 1149.)"Due process of law, or, in the mean accord with the procedure outlines in the law, or, in the absence of express procedure, under such safeguards for the protection of individual rights as the settled maxims of law permit and sanction for the particular class of cases to which the one in question belongs," (16 C.J.S., 1141.) In the case at bar, the Public Service Act does not included the amendment made in the disputed order among those may be ordered without notice or hearing in accordance with Section 17 of the Act. Is the amendment, without notice or hearing, permitted by the well settled maxims of law? We declare it is not, because due process of law guarantees notice and opportunity to be heard to persons who would be affectd by the order or act contemplated. In a General sense it means the right to be heard before some tribunal having jurisdiction to determine the question in dispute.(Albin vs. Consolidated School District No. 14 of Richardson Country, 184 NW 141, 106 Neb. 719, cited in 16 C.J. S., 1143, footnote.)chanrobles virtual law library By "due process of law" is meant orderly proceeding adopted to the nature of the case, before a tribunal having jurisdiction, which proceeds upon notice, with an opportunity to bee heard, with full power to grant relief. (Endnotes:), 16 C.J.S., 1144.)chanrobles virtual law library Some legal procedure in which the person proceeded against, if he is to be concluded thereby, shall have an opportunity to defend himself. (Doyle, Petitioner, 16 R.I.,

C O N S T I T U T I O N A L L A W I I : D U E P R O C E S S O F L A W C A S E S P a g e | 34 DENNIS ARAN T. ABRIL JD-410 UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

537, 538, 21 Am. Jur., 759,5 L.R.A., 309, cited in 12 C.J., 1193.)chanrobles virtual law library A course of proceeding according to these rules and principles which have been established in our system of jurisprudence for the protection and enforcement of private rights. (12 C.J., 1191-1192.) We, therefore, hold that the amendment authorized by the order of the respondent Commission of July 3,1952, is not authorized by the facts contained in the decision granting the certificate of public convenience in favor of the predecessor in interest of the respondent operator, and that even if there was really an error in the original decision fixing the route , in that the said routes were not in accordance with the evidence submitted, the issuance of the order without proper notice to the petitioner and opportunity on the part of the latter to be heard in relation to the petition, is a violation of the petitioner's right not be deprived of his property without due process of law.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library The order of July 3, 1952, is hereby declared null and void and ordered revoked, with costs against the respondent CAM Transit Co., Inc.chanroblesvirtualawlibra underpayment of wages, and nonpayment of salary and overtime pay.4 The parties were required to submit their position papers, on the basis of which the Labor Arbiter defined the issues as follows:5 Whether or not there is a valid ground for the dismissal of the complainant. Whether or not complainant is entitled to his monetary claims for underpayment of wages, nonpayment of salaries, 13th month pay for 1991 and overtime pay. Whether or not Respondent is guilty of unfair labor practice. Thereafter, the case was heard. On April 30, 1993, the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision finding petitioner to have been illegally dismissed. He ruled that private respondent failed to establish that it had retrenched its security section to prevent or minimize losses to its business; that private respondent failed to accord due process to petitioner; that private respondent failed to use reasonable standards in selecting employees whose employment would be terminated; that private respondent had not shown that petitioner and other employees in the security section were so inefficient so as to justify their replacement by a security agency, or that "costsaving devices [such as] secret video cameras (to monitor and prevent shoplifting) and secret code tags on the merchandise" could not have been employed; instead, the day after petitioner's dismissal, private respondent employed a safety and security supervisor with duties and functions similar to those of petitioner.1wphi1.nt Accordingly, the Labor Arbiter ordered:6 WHEREFORE, above premises considered, judgment is hereby decreed: (a) Finding the dismissal of the complainant to be illegal and concomitantly, Respondent is ordered to pay complainant full backwages without qualification or deduction in the amount of P74,740.00 from the time of his dismissal until reinstatement. (computed till promulgation only) based on his monthly salary of P4,040.00/month at the time of his termination but limited to (3) three years; (b) Ordering the Respondent to immediately reinstate the complainant to his former position as security section head or to a reasonably equivalent supervisorial position in charges of security without loss of seniority rights, privileges and benefits. This order is immediately executory even pending appeal; (c) Ordering the Respondent to pay complainant unpaid wages in the amount of P2,020.73 and proportionate 13th month pay in the amount of P3,198.30; (d) Ordering the Respondent to pay complainant the amount of P7,995.91, representing 10% attorney's fees based on the total judgment award of P79,959.12. All other claims of the complainant whether monetary or otherwise is hereby dismissed for lack of merit. SO ORDERED.

SERRANO VS. NLRC This is a Petition seeking review of the resolutions, dated March 30, 1994 and August 26, 1994, of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) which reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter and dismissed petitioner Ruben Serrano's complaint for illegal dismissal and denied his motion for reconsideration. The facts are as follows: Petitioner was hired by private respondent Isetann Department Store as a security checker to apprehend shoplifters and prevent pilferage of merchandise.1 Initially hired on October 4, 1984 on contractual basis, petitioner eventually became a regular employee on April 4, 1985. In 1988, he became head of the Security Checkers Section of private respondent.2 Sometime in 1991, as a cost-cutting measure, private respondent decided to phase out its entire security section and engage the services of an independent security agency. For this reason, it wrote petitioner the following memorandum:3 October 11, 1991 MR. RUBEN SERRANO PRESENT Dear Mr. Seranno, In view of the retrenchment program of the company, we hereby reiterate our verbal notice to you of your termination as Security Section Head effective October 11, 1991. Please secure your clearance from this office. Very truly yours, [Sgd.] TERESITA A. VILLANUEVA Human Resources Division Manager The loss of his employment prompted petitioner to file a complaint on December 3, 1991 for illegal dismissal, illegal layoff, unfair labor practice,

C O N S T I T U T I O N A L L A W I I : D U E P R O C E S S O F L A W C A S E S P a g e | 35 DENNIS ARAN T. ABRIL JD-410 UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

Private respondent appealed to the NLRC which, in its resolution of March 30, 1994; reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter and ordered petitioner to be given separation pay equivalent to one month pay for every year of service, unpaid salary, and proportionate 13th month pay. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but his motion was denied. The NLRC held that the phase-out of private respondent's security section and the hiring of an independent security agency constituted an exercise by private respondent of "[a] legitimate business decision whose wisdom we do not intend to inquire into and for which we cannot substitute our judgment"; that the distinction made by the Labor Arbiter between "retrenchment" and the employment of cost-saving devices" under Art. 283 of the Labor Code was insignificant because the company official who wrote the dismissal letter apparently used the term "retrenchment" in its "plain and ordinary sense: to layoff or remove from one's job, regardless of the reason therefor"; that the rule of "reasonable criteria" in the selection of the employees to be retrenched did not apply because all positions in the security section had been abolished; and that the appointment of a safety and security supervisor referred to by petitioner to prove bad faith on private respondent's part was of no moment because the position had long been in existence and was separate from petitioner's position as head of the Security Checkers Section. Hence this petition. Petitioner raises the following issue: IS THE HIRING OF AN INDEPENDENT SECURITY AGENCY BY THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT TO REPLACE ITS CURRENT SECURITY SECTION A VALID GROUND FOR THE DISMISSAL OF THE EMPLOYEES CLASSED UNDER THE LATTER?7 Petitioner contends that abolition of private respondent's Security Checkers Section and the employment of an independent security agency do not fall under any of the authorized causes for dismissal under Art. 283 of the Labor Code. Petitioner Laid Off for Cause Petitioner's contention has no merit. Art. 283 provides: Closure of establishment and reduction of personnel. The employer may also terminate the employment of any employee due to the installation of labor-saving devices, redundancy, retrenchment to prevent losses or the closing or cessation of operations of the establishment or undertaking unless the closing is for the purpose of circumventing the provisions of this Title, by serving a written notice on the, workers and the Department of Labor and Employment at least one (1) month before the intended date thereof. In case of termination due to the installation of labor-saving devices or redundancy, the worker affected thereby shall be entitled to a separation pay equivalent to at least one (1) month pay or to at least one (1) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. In case of retrenchment to prevent losses and in cases of closure or cessation of operations of establishment or undertaking not due to serious business losses or financial reverses, the separation pay shall be equivalent to at least one (1) month pay or at least one-half (1/2) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. A fraction of at least six (6) months shall be considered as one (1) whole year. In De Ocampo v. National Labor Relations Commission,8 this Court upheld the termination of employment of three mechanics in a transportation company and their replacement by a company rendering maintenance and repair services. It held: In contracting the services of Gemac Machineries, as part of the company's cost-saving program, the services rendered by the mechanics became redundant and superfluous, and therefore properly terminable. The company merely exercised its business judgment or management prerogative. And in the absence of any proof that the management abused its discretion or acted in a malicious or arbitrary manner, the court will not interfere with the exercise of such prerogative.9 In Asian Alcohol Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission,10 the Court likewise upheld the termination of employment of water pump tenders and their replacement by independent contractors. It ruled that an employer's good faith in implementing a redundancy program is not necessarily put in doubt by the availment of the services of an independent contractor to replace the services of the terminated employees to promote economy and efficiency. Indeed, as we pointed out in another case, the "[management of a company] cannot be denied the faculty of promoting efficiency and attaining economy by a study of what units are essential for its operation. To it belongs the ultimate determination of whether services should be performed by its personnel or contracted to outside agencies . . . [While there] should be mutual consultation, eventually deference is to be paid to what management decides."11 Consequently, absent proof that management acted in a malicious or arbitrary manner, the Court will not interfere with the exercise of judgment by an employer.12 In the case at bar, we have only the bare assertion of petitioner that, in abolishing the security section, private respondent's real purpose was to avoid payment to the security checkers of the wage increases provided in the collective bargaining agreement approved in 1990.13 Such an assertion is not sufficient basis for concluding that the termination of petitioner's employment was not a bona fide decision of management to obtain reasonable return from its investment, which is a right guaranteed to employers under the Constitution.14 Indeed, that the phase-out of the security section constituted a "legitimate business decision" is a factual finding of an administrative agency which must be accorded respect and even finality by this Court since nothing can be found in the record which fairly detracts from such finding.15 Accordingly, we hold that the termination of petitioner's services was for an authorized cause, i.e., redundancy. Hence, pursuant to Art. 283 of the Labor Code, petitioner should be given separation pay at the rate of one month pay for every year of service. Sanctions for Violations of the Notice Requirement Art. 283 also provides that to terminate the employment of an employee for any of the authorized causes the employer must serve "a written notice on the workers and the Department of Labor and Employment at least one (1) month before the intended date thereof." In the case at bar, petitioner was given a notice of termination on October 11,

C O N S T I T U T I O N A L L A W I I : D U E P R O C E S S O F L A W C A S E S P a g e | 36 DENNIS ARAN T. ABRIL JD-410 UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

1991. On the same day, his services were terminated. He was thus denied his right to be given written notice before the termination of his employment, and the question is the appropriate sanction for the violation of petitioner's right. To be sure, this is not the first time this question has arisen. In Subuguero v. NLRC,16 workers in a garment factory were temporarily laid off due to the cancellation of orders and a garment embargo. The Labor Arbiter found that the workers had been illegally dismissed and ordered the company to pay separation pay and backwages. The NLRC, on the other hand, found that this was a case of retrenchment due to business losses and ordered the payment of separation pay without backwages. This Court sustained the NLRC's finding. However, as the company did not comply with the 30-day written notice in Art. 283 of the Labor Code, the Court ordered the employer to pay the workers P2,000.00 each as indemnity. The decision followed the ruling in several cases involving dismissals which, although based on any of the just causes under Art. 282,17 were effected without notice and hearing to the employee as required by the implementing rules.18 As this Court said: "It is now settled that where the dismissal of one employee is in fact for a just and valid cause and is so proven to be but he is not accorded his right to due process, i.e., he was not furnished the twin requirements of notice and opportunity to be heard, the dismissal shall be upheld but the employer must be sanctioned for noncompliance with the requirements of, or for failure to observe, due process."19 The rule reversed a long standing policy theretofore followed that even though the dismissal is based on a just cause or the termination of employment is for an authorized cause, the dismissal or termination is illegal if effected without notice to the employee. The shift in doctrine took place in 1989 in Wenphil Corp. v. NLRC.20 In announcing the change, this Court said:21 The Court holds that the policy of ordering the reinstatement to the service of an employee without loss of seniority and the payment of his wages during the period of his separation until his actual reinstatement but not exceeding three (3) years without qualification or deduction, when it appears he was not afforded due process, although his dismissal was found to be for just and authorized cause in an appropriate proceeding in the Ministry of Labor and Employment, should be re-examined. It will be highly prejudicial to the interests of the employer to impose on him the services of an employee who has been shown to be guilty of the charges that warranted his dismissal from employment. Indeed, it will demoralize the rank and file if the undeserving, if not undesirable, remains in the service. xxx xxx xxx However, the petitioner must nevertheless be held to account for failure to extend to private respondent his right to an investigation before causing his dismissal. The rule is explicit as above discussed. The dismissal of an employee must be for just or authorized cause and after due process. Petitioner committed an infraction of the second requirement. Thus, it must be imposed a sanction for its failure to give a formal notice and conduct an investigation as required by law before dismissing petitioner from employment. Considering the circumstances of this case petitioner must indemnify the private respondent the amount of P1,000.00. The measure of this award depends on the facts of each case and the gravity of the omission committed by the employer. The fines imposed for violations of the notice requirement have varied from P1,000.0022 to P2,000.0023 to P5,000.0024 to P10,000.00.25 Need for Reexamining the Wenphil Doctrine Today, we once again consider the question of appropriate sanctions for violations of the notice experience during the last decade or so with the Wenphil doctrine. The number of cases involving dismissals without the requisite notice to the employee, although effected for just or authorized causes, suggest that the imposition of fine for violation of the notice requirement has not been effective in deterring violations of the notice requirement. Justice Panganiban finds the monetary sanctions "too insignificant, too niggardly, and sometimes even too late." On the other hand, Justice Puno says there has in effect been fostered a policy of "dismiss now; pay later" which moneyed employers find more convenient to comply with than the requirement to serve a 30-day written notice (in the case of termination of employment for an authorized cause under Arts. 283-284) or to give notice and hearing (in the case of dismissals for just causes under Art. 282). For this reason, they regard any dismissal or layoff without the requisite notice to be null and void even though there are just or authorized cause for such dismissal or layoff. Consequently, in their view, the employee concerned should be reinstated and paid backwages. Validity of Petitioner's Layoff Not Affected by Lack of Notice We agree with our esteemed colleagues, Justices Puno and Panganiban, that we should rethink the sanction of fine for an employer's disregard of the notice requirement. We do not agree, however, that disregard of this requirement by an employer renders the dismissal or termination of employment null and void. Such a stance is actually a reversion to the discredited pre-Wenphil rule of ordering an employee to be reinstated and paid backwages when it is shown that he has not been given notice and hearing although his dismissal or layoff is later found to be for a just or authorized cause. Such rule was abandoned in Wenphil because it is really unjust to require an employer to keep in his service one who is guilty, for example, of an attempt on the life of the employer or the latter's family, or when the employer is precisely retrenching in order to prevent losses. The need is for a rule which, while recognizing the employee's right to notice before he is dismissed or laid off, at the same time acknowledges the right of the employer to dismiss for any of the just causes enumerated in Art. 282 or to terminate employment for any of the authorized causes mentioned in Arts. 283-284. If the Wenphil rule imposing a fine on an employer who is found to have dismissed an employee for cause without prior notice is deemed ineffective in deterring employer violations of the notice

C O N S T I T U T I O N A L L A W I I : D U E P R O C E S S O F L A W C A S E S P a g e | 37 DENNIS ARAN T. ABRIL JD-410 UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

requirement, the remedy is not to declare the dismissal void if there are just or valid grounds for such dismissal or if the termination is for an authorized cause. That would be to uphold the right of the employee but deny the right of the employer to dismiss for cause. Rather, the remedy is to order the payment to the employee of full backwages from the time of his dismissal until the court finds that the dismissal was for a just cause. But, otherwise, his dismissal must be upheld and he should not be reinstated. This is because his dismissal is ineffectual. For the same reason, if an employee is laid off for any of the causes in Arts. 283-284, i.e., installation of a labor-saving device, but the employer did not give him and the DOLE a 30-day written notice of termination in advance, then the termination of his employment should be considered ineffectual and he should be paid backwages. However, the termination of his employment should not be considered void but he should simply be paid separation pay as provided in Art. 283 in addition to backwages. Justice Puno argues that an employer's failure to comply with the notice requirement constitutes a denial of the employee's right to due process. Prescinding from this premise, he quotes the statement of Chief Justice Concepcion Vda. de Cuaycong v. Vda. de Sengbengco26 that "acts of Congress, as well as of the Executive, can deny due process only under the pain of nullity, and judicial proceedings suffering from the same flaw are subject to the same sanction, any statutory provision to the contrary notwithstanding." Justice Puno concludes that the dismissal of an employee without notice and hearing, even if for a just cause, as provided in Art. 282, or for an authorized cause, as provided in Arts. 283-284, is a nullity. Hence, even if just or authorized cause exist, the employee should be reinstated with full back pay. On the other hand, Justice Panganiban quotes from the statement in People v. Bocar27 that "[w]here the denial of the fundamental right of due process is apparent, a decision rendered in disregard of that right is void for lack of jurisdiction." Violation of Notice Requirement Not a Denial of Due Process The cases cited by both Justices Puno and Panganiban refer, however, to the denial of due process by the State, which is not the case here. There are three reasons why, on the other hand, violation by the employer of the notice requirement cannot be considered a denial of due process resulting in the nullity of the employee's dismissal or layoff. The first is that the Due Process Clause of the Constitution is a limitation on governmental powers. It does not apply to the exercise of private power, such as the termination of employment under the Labor Code. This is plain from the text of Art. III, 1 of the Constitution, viz.: "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. . . ." The reason is simple: Only the State has authority to take the life, liberty, or property of the individual. The purpose of the Due Process Clause is to ensure that the exercise of this power is consistent with what are considered civilized methods. The second reason is that notice and hearing are required under the Due Process Clause before the power of organized society are brought to bear upon the individual. This is obviously not the case of termination of employment under Art. 283. Here the employee is not faced with an aspect of the adversary system. The purpose for requiring a 30-day written notice before an employee is laid off is not to afford him an opportunity to be heard on any charge against him, for there is none. The purpose rather is to give him time to prepare for the eventual loss of his job and the DOLE an opportunity to determine whether economic causes do exist justifying the termination of his employment. Even in cases of dismissal under Art. 282, the purpose for the requirement of notice and hearing is not to comply with Due Process Clause of the Constitution. The time for notice and hearing is at the trial stage. Then that is the time we speak of notice and hearing as the essence of procedural due process. Thus, compliance by the employer with the notice requirement before he dismisses an employee does not foreclose the right of the latter to question the legality of his dismissal. As Art. 277(b) provides, "Any decision taken by the employer shall be without prejudice to the right of the worker to contest the validity or legality of his dismissal by filing a complaint with the regional branch of the National Labor Relations Commission." Indeed, to contend that the notice requirement in the Labor Code is an aspect of due process is to overlook the fact that Art. 283 had its origin in Art. 302 of the Spanish Code of Commerce of 1882 which gave either party to the employeremployee relationship the right to terminate their relationship by giving notice to the other one month in advance. In lieu of notice, an employee could be laid off by paying him a mesada equivalent to his salary for one month.28 This provision was repealed by Art. 2270 of the Civil Code, which took effect on August 30, 1950. But on June 12, 1954, R.A. No. 1052, otherwise known as the Termination Pay Law, was enacted reviving the mesada. On June 21, 1957, the law was amended by R.A. No. 1787 providing for the giving of advance notice or the payment of compensation at the rate of one-half month for every year of service.29 The Termination Pay Law was held not to be a substantive law but a regulatory measure, the purpose of which was to give the employer the opportunity to find a replacement or substitute, and the employee the equal opportunity to look for another job or source of employment. Where the termination of employment was for a just cause, no notice was required to be given to the, employee.30 It was only on September 4, 1981 that notice was required to be given even where the dismissal or termination of an employee was for cause. This was made in the rules issued by the then Minister of Labor and Employment to implement B.P. Blg. 130 which amended the Labor Code. And it was still much later when the notice requirement was embodied in the law with the amendment of Art. 277(b) by R.A. No. 6715 on March 2, 1989. It cannot be that the former regime denied due process to the employee. Otherwise, there should now likewise be a rule that, in case an employee leaves his job without cause and without prior notice to his employer, his act should be void instead of simply making him liable for damages. The third reason why the notice requirement under Art. 283 can not be considered a requirement of the Due Process Clause is that the employer cannot really be expected to be entirely an impartial judge of his own cause. This is also the case in termination of employment for a just cause under Art. 282 (i.e., serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the

C O N S T I T U T I O N A L L A W I I : D U E P R O C E S S O F L A W C A S E S P a g e | 38 DENNIS ARAN T. ABRIL JD-410 UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

employee of the lawful orders of the employer, gross and habitual neglect of duties, fraud or willful breach of trust of the employer, commission of crime against the employer or the latter's immediate family or duly authorized representatives, or other analogous cases). Justice Puno disputes this. He says that "statistics in the DOLE will prove that many cases have been won by employees before the grievance committees manned by impartial judges of the company." The grievance machinery is, however, different because it is established by agreement of the employer and the employees and composed of representatives from both sides. That is why, in Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Co. v. Court of Appeals,31 which Justice Puno cites, it was held that "Since the right of [an employee] to his labor is in itself a property and that the labor agreement between him and [his employer] is the law between the parties, his summary and arbitrary dismissal amounted to deprivation of his property without due process of law." But here we are dealing with dismissals and layoffs by employers alone, without the intervention of any grievance machinery. Accordingly in Montemayor v. Araneta University Foundation,32 although a professor was dismissed without a hearing by his university, his dismissal for having made homosexual advances on a student was sustained, it appearing that in the NLRC, the employee was fully heard in his defense. Lack of Notice Only Makes Termination Ineffectual Not all notice requirements are requirements of due process. Some are simply part of a procedure to be followed before a right granted to a party can be exercised. Others are simply an application of the Justinian precept, embodied in the Civil Code,33 to act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith toward one's fellowmen. Such is the notice requirement in Arts. 282-283. The consequence of the failure either of the employer or the employee to live up to this precept is to make him liable in damages, not to render his act (dismissal or resignation, as the case may be) void. The measure of damages is the amount of wages the employee should have received were it not for the termination of his employment without prior notice. If warranted, nominal and moral damages may also be awarded. We hold, therefore, that, with respect to Art. 283 of the Labor Code, the employer's failure to comply with the notice requirement does not constitute a denial of due process but a mere failure to observe a procedure for the termination of employment which makes the termination of employment merely ineffectual. It is similar to the failure to observe the provisions of Art. 1592, in relation to Art. 1191, of the Civil Code34 in rescinding a contract for the sale of immovable property. Under these provisions, while the power of a party to rescind a contract is implied in reciprocal obligations, nonetheless, in cases involving the sale of immovable property, the vendor cannot exercise this power even though the vendee defaults in the payment of the price, except by bringing an action in court or giving notice of rescission by means of a notarial demand.35 Consequently, a notice of rescission given in the letter of an attorney has no legal effect, and the vendee can make payment even after the due date since no valid notice of rescission has been given.36 Indeed, under the Labor Code, only the absence of a just cause for the termination of employment can make the dismissal of an employee illegal. This is clear from Art. 279 which provides: Security of Tenure. In cases of regular employment, the employer shall not terminate the services of an employee except for a just cause or when authorized by this Title. An employee who is unjustly dismissedfrom work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement.37 Thus, only if the termination of employment is not for any of the causes provided by law is it illegal and, therefore, the employee should be reinstated and paid backwages. To contend, as Justices Puno and Panganiban do, that even if the termination is for a just or authorized cause the employee concerned should be reinstated and paid backwages would be to amend Art. 279 by adding another ground for considering a dismissal illegal. What is more, it would ignore the fact that under Art. 285, if it is the employee who fails to give a written notice to the employer that he is leaving the service of the latter, at least one month in advance, his failure to comply with the legal requirement does not result in making his resignation void but only in making him liable for damages.38 This disparity in legal treatment, which would result from the adoption of the theory of the minority cannot simply be explained by invoking resident Ramon Magsaysay's motto that "he who has less in life should have more in law." That would be a misapplication of this noble phrase originally from Professor Thomas Reed Powell of the Harvard Law School. Justice Panganiban cites Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. v. NLRC,39 in support of his view that an illegal dismissal results not only from want of legal cause but also from the failure to observe "due process." The Pepsi-Cola case actually involved a dismissal for an alleged loss of trust and confidence which, as found by the Court, was not proven. The dismissal was, therefore, illegal, not because there was a denial of due process, but because the dismissal was without cause. The statement that the failure of management to comply with the notice requirement "taints the dismissal with illegality" was merely a dictum thrown in as additional grounds for holding the dismissal to be illegal. Given the nature of the violation, therefore, the appropriate sanction for the failure to give notice is the payment of backwages for the period when the employee is considered not to have been effectively dismissed or his employment terminated. The sanction is not the payment alone of nominal damages as Justice Vitug contends. Unjust Results of Considering Dismissals/Layoffs Without Prior Notice As Illegal The refusal to look beyond the validity of the initial action taken by the employer to terminate employment either for an authorized or just cause can result in an injustice to the employer. For not giving notice and hearing before dismissing an employee, who is otherwise guilty of, say, theft, or even of an attempt against the life of the employer,

C O N S T I T U T I O N A L L A W I I : D U E P R O C E S S O F L A W C A S E S P a g e | 39 DENNIS ARAN T. ABRIL JD-410 UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

an employer will be forced to keep in his employ such guilty employee. This is unjust. It is true the Constitution regards labor as "a primary social economic force."40 But so does it declare that it "recognizes the indispensable role of the private sector, encourages private enterprise, and provides incentives to needed investment."41 The Constitution bids the State to "afford full protection to labor."42 But it is equally true that "the law, in protecting the right's of the laborer, authorizes neither oppression nor self-destruction of the employer."43 And it is oppression to compel the employer to continue in employment one who is guilty or to force the employer to remain in operation when it is not economically in his interest to do so. In sum, we hold that if in proceedings for reinstatement under Art. 283, it is shown that the termination of employment was due to an authorized cause, then the employee concerned should not be ordered reinstated even though there is failure to comply with the 30-day notice requirement. Instead, he must be granted separation pay in accordance with Art. 283, to wit: In case of termination due to the installation of labor-saving devices or redundancy, the worker affected thereby shall be entitled to a separation pay equivalent to at least his one (1) month pay or to at least one month for every year of service, whichever is higher. In case of retrenchment to prevent losses and in cases of closures or cessation of operations of establishment or undertaking not due to serious business losses or financial reverses, the separation pay shall be equivalent to one (1) month pay or at least onehalf (1/2) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. A fraction of at least six months shall be considered one (1) whole year. If the employee's separation is without cause, instead of being given separation pay, he should be reinstated. In either case, whether he is reinstated or only granted separation pay, he should be paid full backwages if he has been laid off without written notice at least 30 days in advance. On the other hand, with respect to dismissals for cause under Art. 282, if it is shown that the employee was dismissed for any of the just causes mentioned in said Art. 282, then, in accordance with that article, he should not be reinstated. However, he must be paid backwages from the time his employment was terminated until it is determined that the termination of employment is for a just cause because the failure to hear him before he is dismissed renders the termination of his employment without legal effect. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission is MODIFIED by ordering private respondent Isetann Department Store, Inc. to pay petitioner separation pay equivalent to one (1) month pay for every year of service, his unpaid salary, and his proportionate 13th month pay and, in addition, full backwages from the time his employment was terminated on October 11, 1991 up to the time the decision herein becomes final. For this purpose, this case is REMANDED to the Labor Arbiter for computation of the separation pay, backwages, and other monetary awards to petitioner. SO ORDERED. LAO GI VS. CA On September 3, 1958 the Secretary of Justice rendered Opinion No. 191, series of 1958 finding Filomeno Chia, Jr., alias Sia Pieng Hui to be a Filipino citizen as it appears that his father Filomeno Chia, Sr. is a Filipino citizen born on November 28, 1899 being the legitimate son of Inocencio Chia and Maria Layug of Guagua, Pampanga. However on October 3, 1980 the Minister of Justice rendered Opinion No. 147, series of 1980 cancelling Opinion No. 191, series of 1958 and setting aside the citizenship of Filomeno Chia, Sr. on the ground that it was founded on fraud and misrepresentation. A motion for reconsideration of said Opinion was denied by the Minister of Justice on February 13, 1981. On March 9, 1981 a charge for deportation was filed with the Commission on Immigration and Deportation (CID) against Lao Gi alias Filomeno Chia, Sr., his wife and children. An amended charge was filed with the CID on March 19,1981 alleging that said respondents refused to register as aliens having been required to do so and continued to refuse to register as such. On August 31, 1981 another amended charge was filed alleging that Manuel Chia committed acts of undesirability. On September 4, 1981 said respondents filed a motion to dismiss the amended charges on the ground that the CID has no authority to reopen a matter long settled under Opinion No. 191, series of 1958. The motion to dismiss was opposed by the private prosecutor. The CID special prosecutor also filed an opposition on the ground that the citizenship may be threshed out as the occasion may demand and that due process was accorded to respondents. The respondents filed a reply thereto. The motion to dismiss was denied by the CID and a motion for reconsideration of said denial was also denied in a resolution dated December 10, 1981. Said respondents then filed with this Court on February 11, 1982 a petition for certiorari and prohibition with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and restraining order docketed as G.R. No. 59619. After requiring a comment thereon, on April 28, 1982 this court en banc resolved to dismiss the petition for lack of merit. Earlier, Manuel Chia was charged with falsification of public documents in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila in Criminal Case No. 60172 for alleging that he was a Filipino citizen in the execution of a Deed of Absolute Sale of certain real property. He was acquitted by the trial court in an order dated May 5, 1982 on the ground that Opinion No. 191, series of 1958 of the Secretary of Justice may be equated as res judicata and that revocation thereof by Opinion No. 147, series of 1980 cannot be considered just, fair and reasonable. On June 1, 1982 respondents filed a motion for reconsideration of the aforesaid resolution of this Court dismissing the petition but this was denied by another resolution of this Court dated August 17, 1982. A second motion for reconsideration thereof was also denied by this Court on September 16, 1982.

C O N S T I T U T I O N A L L A W I I : D U E P R O C E S S O F L A W C A S E S P a g e | 40 DENNIS ARAN T. ABRIL JD-410 UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

On September 23, 1982 the CID set the deportation case against respondents for hearing and Acting Commissioner Victor G. Nituda gave respondents three (3) days to move for reconsideration of the order directing them to register as aliens and to oppose the motion for their arrest. On September 27, 1982 respondents filed said motion for reconsideration and opposition but this was denied by Acting Commissioner Nituda on September 28, 1982. The latter directed respondents to register as aliens within two (2) days from notice thereof. The deportation case was set for hearing on October 5, 1 982 but on the same day respondents filed the petition for certiorari and prohibition with a prayer for injunctive relief in the Court of First Instance of Manila docketed as Civil Case No. 82- 12935 whereby a writ of preliminary injunction was issued. On April 17,1985 a decision was rendered by the trial court dismissing the petition for lack of legal basis and for want of supervisory jurisdiction on the part of the trial court on the particular subject involved. The writ of preliminary injunction previously issued was dissolved. An appeal therefrom was interposed to the Court of Appeals. In due course a decision was rendered on August 19, 1987 dismissing the appeal with costs against petitioners. A motion for reconsideration of the decision filed by petitioners was also denied in a resolution dated January 7, 1988. Hence, the herein petition for certiorari filed by petitioners wherein they seek to set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals and ask that a new one be rendered setting aside the order of the CID dated September 28, 1982 and directing it to proceed with the reception of the evidence in support of the charges against the petitioners. The issues raised in the petition are as follows: 1. The issues raised in G.R. No. 59619 before the Honorable Supreme Court were different from the issues raised in Civil Case No. 82-12935-CV. 2. The minute resolution of the Honorable Supreme Court in G.R. No. 59619 did not make a categorical ruling that petitioner entered and remained in the Philippines by false pretenses. 3. The issue of whether or not petitioners' citizenship was secured by fraud is precisely the subject matter of the proceedings before the Commission on Immigration and Deportation, in which no evidence had been presented yet in support of the charge of fraud in the acquisition of petitioners' citizenship. 4. Petitioners are not subject to immediate deportation. 5. The order for the arrest of petitioners in case of failure to register as aliens was premature since there was no competent determination yet that their citizenship was indeed procured by fraud. 6. The Honorable Court of Appeals overstepped its appellate jurisdiction, when it ruled on matters not covered by the Decision of the lower court. There can be no question that the CID has the authority and jurisdiction to hear and determine the deportation case against petitioners and in the process determine also the question of citizenship raised by the petitioners. Section 37(a) (1) of the Immigration Act provides as follows: SEC. 37. (a) The following aliens shall be arrested upon the warrant of the Commissioner of Immigration or of any other officer designated by him for the purpose and deported upon the warrant of the Commissioner of Immigration after a determination by the Board of Commissioners of the existence of the ground for deportation as charged against the alien: (1) Any alien who enters the Philippines after the effective date of this Act by means of false and misleading statements or without inspection and admission by the immigration authorities at a designated port of entry or at any place other than at a designated port of entry. (As amended by Sec. 13, Rep. Act No. 503.) ... From the foregoing provision it is clear that before any alien may be deported upon a warrant of the Commissioner of Immigration, there should be a prior determination by the Board of Commissioners of the existence of the ground as charged against the alien. In this case it appears that petitioners are charged with having entered the Philippines by means of false and misleading statements or without inspection or admission by the immigration authorities at a designated port of entry. After appropriate charges are filed in the CID the specific grounds of which he should be duly informed of, a hearing should be conducted, and it is only after such a hearing by the CID that the alien may be ordered deported. In such a hearing, Opinion No. 191, Series of 1958 of the Secretary of Justice and Opinion No. 147, Series of 1980 of the Minister of Justice will bear much weight in the determination by the CID of the citizenship of said petitioners. The petitioners question the Order of Acting Commissioner Nituda that they register as aliens as required by the Immigration Act. While it is not disputed that it is also within the power and authority of the Commissioner to require an alien to so register, such a requirement must be predicated on a positive finding that the person who is so required is an alien. In this case where the very citizenship of the petitioners is in issue there should be a previous determination by the CID that they are aliens before the petitioners may be directed and required to register as aliens. The power to deport an alien is an act of the State. It is an act by or under the authority of the sovereign power. 1It is a police measure against undesirable aliens whose presence in the country is found to be injurious to the public good and domestic tranquility of the people. 2 Although a deportation proceeding does not partake of the nature of a criminal action, however, considering that it is a harsh and extraordinary administrative proceeding affecting the freedom and liberty of a person, the constitutional right of such person to due process should not be denied. Thus, the provisions of the Rules of Court of the Philippines particularly on criminal procedure are applicable to deportation proceedings. Under Section 37(c) of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940 as amended, it is provided: c No alien shall be deported without being informed of the specific grounds

C O N S T I T U T I O N A L L A W I I : D U E P R O C E S S O F L A W C A S E S P a g e | 41 DENNIS ARAN T. ABRIL JD-410 UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

for deportation nor without being given a hearing under rules of procedure to be prescribed by the Commissioner of Immigration. Hence, the charge against an alien must specify the acts or omissions complained of which must be stated in ordinary and concise language to enable a person of common understanding to know on what ground he is intended to be deported and enable the CID to pronounce a proper judgment. 3 Before any charge should be filed in the CID a preliminary investigation must be conducted to determine if there is a sufficient cause to charge the respondent for deportation. 4 The issuance of warrants of arrest, arrests without warrant and service of warrants should be in accordance likewise with Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure; 5 search warrants issued by the CID shall be governed by Rule 126 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure; 6 and so the matter of bail, motion to quash, and trial, 7 among others. Fealty to the prescribed rules of procedure in deportation cases shall insure a speedy, fair and just dispensation of justice. The Court takes note of the fact that a private prosecutor is assisting in the prosecution of the case by the special prosecutor of the CID. The Court sees no reason why a private prosecutor should be allowed to participate in a deportation case. Under the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, particularly Section 16, Rule 110 thereof, an offended party may intervene in a criminal prosecution when there is civil liability arising from the criminal action claimed by said party. In such case he may intervene by counsel. In deportation cases, the Court cannot conceive of any justification for a private party to have any right to intervene. Even if such party can establish any damages due him arising from the deportation charge against the alien, such relief cannot be afforded him in the deportation proceeding. His recourse if at all is in the ordinary courts. Thus the Court rules that the intervention of a private prosecutor should not be allowed in deportation cases. The possibility of oppression, harrassment and persecution cannot be discounted. The deportation of an alien is the sole concern of the State. This is the reason why there are special prosecutors and fiscals tasked to prosecute such cases. WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED and the questioned order of the respondent Commission on Immigration and Deportation dated September 28, 1982 is hereby set aside. The respondent Commission on Immigration and Deportation is hereby directed to continue hearing the deportation case against petitioners and thereafter, based on the evidence before it, to resolve the issue of citizenship of petitioners, and if found to be aliens, to determine whether or not the petitioners should be deported and/or otherwise ordered to register as aliens. No costs. SO ORDERED.