DUE PROCESS PART 1

ERMITA-MALATE HOTEL AND MOTEL OPERATORS v. MANILA

FACTS: Petitioners assailed the constitutionality of Manila Ordinance No. 4760 regulating the operation of hotels,
motels and lodging houses on the ground that it is unreasonable and hence violating the due process clause,
wherein it requires establishments to provide guest registration forms on the lobby open for public view at all
times. Respondent City Mayor contends that the challenged ordinance was a valid and proper exercise of police
power measure for the proper purpose of curbing immorality. An explanatory note for the challenged ordinance
made mention of the alarming increase in the rate of prostitution, adultery and fornication in Manila traceable in
great part to the existence of motels and the like.
ISSUE: Whether or not Ordinance No. 4760 is in violation of the due process clause.
RULING: No, the challenged ordinance as an exercise of police power was precisely enacted to minimize certain
practices hurtful to public morals. As a due process requirement, an ordinance must not outrun the bounds of
reason and result in sheer oppression for it to be valid. Thus it would be unreasonable to stigmatize an ordinance
enacted precisely for the well-being of the people, especially if there is no factual foundation being laid to prove its
alleged violation of due process and offset the ordinances presumed validity.
VILLEGAS v. HIU CHONG
FACTS: The Municipal Board of Manila enacted Ordinance 6537 requiring aliens (except those employed in the
diplomatic and consular missions of foreign countries, in technical assistance programs of the government and
another country, and members of religious orders or congregations) to procure the requisite mayors permit so as
to be employed or engage in trade in the City of Manila. The permit fee is P50, and the penalty for the violation of
the ordinance is 3 to 6 months imprisonment or a fine of P100 to P200, or both.
ISSUE: Whether or not the ordinance imposes a regulatory fee or a tax.
RULING: The Ordinance was declared invalid as it is arbitrary, oppressive and unreasonable, being applied only to
aliens who are thus deprived of their rights to life, liberty and property and therefore violates the due process and
equal protection clauses of the Constitution. Further, the ordinance does not lay down any criterion or standard to
guide the Mayor in the exercise of his discretion, thus conferring upon the mayor arbitrary and unrestricted
powers.
PHIL. PHOSPHATE v. TORRES
FACTS: Philphos Movement for Progress, Inc. (PMPI for brevity), filed with the Department of Labor and
Employment a petition forcertification election among the supervisory employees of petitioner, alleging that as a
supervisory union duly registered with the Department of Labor and Employment it was seeking to represent the
supervisory employees of Philippine Phosphate Fertilizer Corporation. Mediator-Arbiter Rodolfo S. Milado issued
an order directing the holding of a certification election among the supervisory employees of petitioner, excluding
therefrom the superintendents and theprofessional and technical employees. However, the PMPI filed an
amended petition with the Mediator-Arbiter wherein it sought to represent not only the supervisory employees of
petitioner but also its professional/technical and confidential employees. The parties therein agreed to submit
their respective position papers and to consider the amended petition submitted for decision on the basis thereof
and related documents. Mediator-Arbiter Milado issued an order granting the petition and directing the holding of
a certification election among the "supervisory, professional (engineers, analysts, mechanics, accountants, nurses,
midwives, etc.), technical, and confidential employees. PHILPHOS appealed the order to the Secretary of Labor and
Employment who rendered a decision through Undersecretary Bienvenido Laguesma dismissing the appeal.
PHILPHOS moved for reconsideration but the same was denied; hence, the instant petitionalleging denial of due
process on the part of the DOLE to which the mediator-arbiter was under.
ISSUE: Whether or not there was denial of due process.
RULING: There was no denial of due process. The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard or,
as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one's side or an opportunity to seek a
reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of petitioner PHILPHOS agreed to file its position paper with the
Mediator-Arbiter and to consider the case submitted for decision on the basis of the position papers filed by the
parties, there was sufficient compliance with the requirement of due process, as petitioner was afforded
reasonable opportunity to present its side. Moreover, petitioner could have, if it so desired, insisted on a hearing
to confront and examine the witnesses of the other party. But it did not; instead it opted to submit its position
paper with the Mediator-Arbiter. Besides, petitioner had all the opportunity to ventilate its arguments in its appeal
to the Secretary of Labor.