INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS requires
legislation.
I. DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL
PROTECTION AS LIMITATIONS ON
POLICE POWER, EMINENT DOMAIN
AND TAXATION
A. Fundamental Principles on
Constitutional Law and the Bill of
Rights
MANILA PRINCE HOTEL v. GSIS
Facts:
Petitioner: MPC, a Filipino
corporation;
Respondent: GSIS
Pursuant to privatization program
of the government, MPC offered
to buy 51% of Manila Hotel
Corporation. Renong Berhad, a
Malaysian firm, won the bid.
Pending the declaration of the
winning bidder, MPC matched the
bid. GSIS disregarded the tender of
matching bid.
Contention of the Petitioner
- Manila Hotel has become a
part of the national patrimony
and national economy as
contemplated in the
Constitution.
- Hence, petitioner should be
preferred after it has matched
the bid offer of Renong Berhad
under the Filipino First policy
enshrined in the Constitution.
Contention of the Respondent
- The provision under the
Constitution is not a self-
executing provision and
an implementing
- Manila Hotel does not fall under
the term national patrimony as
cited in the Constitution
- Granting that the Manila Hotel
forms part of the national
patrimony, the constitutional
provision invoked is still
inapplicable since what is
being sold is only 51% of the
outstanding shares of the
corporation, not the hotel
building nor the land upon
which the building stands
- The reliance of the petitioner on
the bidding rules is misplaced
- Respondent GSIS did not
exercise its discretion in a
capricious, whimsical manner,
and if ever it did abuse its
discretion it was not so patent
and gross as to amount to an
evasion of a positive duty or a
virtual refusal to perform a duty
enjoined by law.
Issue:
(-)
Ruling:
- CONSTITUTION- A constitution is
a system of fundamental laws
for the governance and
administration of a nation. 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.
- DOCTRINE OF CONSTITUTIONAL
SUPREMACY- Since the
 Constitution is the fundamental,
paramount and supreme law of
the nation, it is deemed written
in every statute and contract.
- SELF-EXECUTING- In case of
doubt, the Constitution should
be considered self-executing
rather than non-self-executing
PAMATONG v. COMELEC
Facts:
Petitioner: Elly V. Pamatong
Respondent: COMELEC
Petitioner filed his candidacy for
President, to which the COMELEC
refused to give due course.
Petitioner moved for
reconsideration. The COMELEC
declared petitioner and thirty-five
(35) others nuisance candidates
who could not wage a nationwide
campaign and/or are not
nominated by a political party or
are not supported by a registered
political party with a national
constituency.
Contention of the Petitioner
- The petitioner contends that
COMELEC violated his right to
“equal access to opportunities
for public service”.
- Petitioner argues that the
COMELEC indirectly amended
the constitutional provisions on
the electoral process and
limited the power of the
sovereign people to choose
their leaders
Issue:
-
Ruling:
- There is no constitutional right to
run for or hold public office
and, particularly in his case, to
seek the presidency.
- Provisions under “Declaration of
Principles and State Policies”
are generally considered not
self-executory.
- The privilege of equal access to
opportunities to public office
may be subjected to limitations.
As long as the limitations apply
to everybody equally without
discrimination, however, the
equal access clause is not
violated
Yrasuegi v. PAL
Facts:
Petitioner: Armando Yrasuegi, flight
steward.
Respondent: PAL
Petitioner, an international flight
steward, was dismissed because of
his failure to adhere to the weight
standards of the airline company
Issue:
WON the petitioner was unduly
discriminated against when he
was dismissed while other
overweight cabin attendants were
either given flying duties or
promoted
Ruling:
Petitioner failed to substantiate his
claim that he was discriminated
against by PAL.
Petitioner invokes the equal Respondents: Evangeline Siton and
protection clause guaranty of the Krystel Kate Sagarano
Constitution. However, in the
absence of governmental Respondents were charged for
interference, the liberties vagrancy under the Revised Penal
guaranteed by the Constitution Code willfully, unlawfully and
cannot be invoked. Put differently, feloniously wandered and loitered
the Bill of Rights is not meant to be around the Davao City without
invoked against acts of private any visible means to support
individuals herself nor lawful and justifiable
purpose.
Private actions, no matter how
egregious, cannot violate the Contention of the Respondents
equal protection guarantee - Respondent contends that
Article 202 (2) is unconstitutional
for being vague and overbroad
MANILA PRINCE HOTEL v. GSIS - Article 202 (2) violated the
Facts: equal protection clause under
- the Constitution because it
discriminates against the poor
Issue: and unemployed, thus
- permitting an arbitrary and
unreasonable classification.
Ruling:
- Contention of the State
- the overbreadth and
B. Basic Principles on the vagueness doctrines apply only
Fundamental Powers of the State, to free speech cases and not to
their characteristics, similarities penal statutes
and distinctions, and their - Article 202 (2) must be
limitations presumed valid and
constitutional, since the
C. DUE PROCESS IN GENERAL – respondents failed to
Article III, Section 1, 1987 overcome this presumption.
Constitution
Annotation on Due Process – Issue:
627 SCRA 558 - WON the provision is
Procedural and Substantive unconstitutional
Publication of Laws – TAÑADA
RULINGS, E.O. 200 Ruling:
- Void for Vagueness doctrine- "a
PEOPLE v. SITON statute which either forbids or
Facts: requires the doing of an act in
 terms so vague that men of
common intelligence must
necessarily guess at its meaning
and differ as to its application,
violates the first essential of due
process of law
- Thus, as with any other act or
offense, the requirement of
probable cause provides an
acceptable limit on police or
executive authority that may
otherwise be abused in relation
to the search or arrest of
persons found to be violating
Article 202 (2).
- Article 202 (2) does not violate
the equal protection clause;
neither does it discriminate
against the poor and the
unemployed. Offenders of
public order laws are punished
not for their status, as for being
poor or unemployed, but for
conducting themselves under
such circumstances as to
endanger the public peace or
cause alarm and apprehension
in the community.
DLSU v. CA
Facts:
Respondents are members of Tau
Gamma Phi Fraternity who were
expelled because of their
involvement in an offensive action
causing injuries to petitioner,
members of Domino Lux Fraternity.
Issue:
WON respondents were accorded
due process of law
Ruling:
- In administrative cases, such as
investigations of students found
violating school discipline,
"[t]here are withal minimum
standards which must be met
before 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 shall have the right to
answer the charges against
them and with the assistance if
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
- Private respondents were duly
informed in writing of the
charges against them by the
DLSU through petitioner. They
were given the opportunity to
answer the charges against
them as they, in fact, submitted
their respective answers. They
were also informed of the
evidence presented against
them as they attended all the
hearings before the Board.
Moreover, private respondents
were given the right to adduce
evidence on their behalf and
they did. Lastly, the Discipline
Board considered all the pieces
of evidence submitted to it by
all the parties before rendering
 its resolution. the charges that the COMELEC
filed with the RTC
ROMUALDEZ V. COMELEC
Facts:
Respondents contended that they GARCILLANO v. COMMITTEES
did not make any false or Facts:
untruthful statements in their GARCI tapes.
application of registration.
Issue:
Issue: WON the Senate be allowed to
WON COMELEC gravely abused its continue the conduct of legislative
discretion meetings

Ruling: Ruling:
- A facial invalidation of criminal - The Senate cannot be allowed
statutes is not appropriate, it to continue with the conduct of
nonetheless proceeded to the questioned legislative
conduct a vagueness analysis, inquiry without duly published
and concluded that the therein rules of procedure, in clear
subject election offense 53 derogation of the constitutional
under the Voter's Registration requirement.
Act of 1996, with which the - The requisite of publication of
therein petitioners were the rules is intended to satisfy
charged, is couched in precise the basic requirements of due
language process
- Petitioners cannot be said to
have been denied due process
on the claim that the election
offenses charged against them
by private respondent are
entirely different from those for
which they stand to be
accused of before the RTC, as
charged by the COMELEC. The
charges contained in private
respondent's Complaint-
Affidavit and the charges as
directed by the COMELEC to
be filed are based on the same
set of facts. Petitioners cannot
claim that they were not able
to refute or submit
documentary evidence against