Mullane vs Central Hanover Trust Co
LaChance vs Erickson
Civil Service vs Luca
CSC vs Ledesma
Anonymous vs Radam
Pefianco vs Moral
Ylaya vs Gacott
Macias vs Macias
Office of Court Administrator vs Indar
Ingraham vs Wright
 Concerning the use of corporal punishment in public
schools
 Issues:
o Whether the paddling of students as a
means of maintaining school discipline
constitutes cruel and unusual punishment
(8th Amendment)
o Paddling is constitutionally permissible
whether the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment requires prior
notice and an opportunity to be heard
 Petitioners: James Ingraham, Roosevelt Andrews
 Florida (R. Drew Junior High School)
 Statute  authorized limited corporal punishment
by negative inference proscribing punishment which
was degrading or unduly severe
o After the teacher had consulted with the
principal or teacher in charge of school
 Dade School policy  contained explicit directions
and limitations
o Authorized:
 Paddling on the buttocks with flat
wooden paddle measuring less than
2 feet long, three to four inches wide
and about ½ inch thick
 No apparent physical injury to the
student
o Less drastic than suspension or expulsion
 Contrary to the procedural requirements of the
statute and regulation, teachers often paddled
students on their own authority without first
consulting the principal
 Ingraham  hematoma
 Andrews  infractions (1 time, he was not able to
use his arms)
Held
 Traced the history of corporal punishment
 Common law: Teachers to impose reasonable but
not excessive force to discipline a child
 Eighth Amendment: cruel and unusual punishments
are not allowed
o Does not apply to paddling of children as a
means of maintaining discipline in public
schools
o Applicable only on criminal proceedings
(based on the preamble)
o Intent: legislative definition of crimes and
punishments
o Prisoner and schoolchild  different
circumstances
 Prisoner’s conviction  criminal,
deprivation of liberty
 Schoolchildren  will go home at
the end of the day
 When the public school teachers or
administrators impose disciplinary
corporal punishment, the Eighth
amendment is inapplicable.
 Due Process
o Protection against governmental power
o It is fundamental that the state cannot hold
and physically punish an individual except in
accordance with due process of law
o due process' is compounded of history,
reason, the past course of decisions, and
stout confidence in the strength of the
democratic faith which we profess. . .
o The analysis requires consideration of three
distinct factors: "First, the private interest
that will be affected . . .; second, the risk of
an erroneous deprivation of such interest . .
. and the probable value, if any, of additional
or substitute procedural safeguards; and
finally, the [state] interest
 In any deliberate infliction of corporal punishment
on a child who is restrained for that purpose, there is
some risk that the intrusion on the child’s liberty will
be unjustified and therefore unlawful  strong
interest in procedural safeguards
 If the punishment inflicted is later found to have
been excessive - not reasonably believed at the time
to be necessary for the child's discipline or training -
the school authorities inflicting it may be held liable
in damages to the child and, if malice is shown, they
may be subject to criminal penalties.
 In this case, the petitioners aver that before corporal
punishment is inflicted to the student, there must be
due process which requires notice and an
opportunity to be heard.
 The US Supreme Court did not agree with the
statement of the petitioner because
o The statute or the scheme being followed in
Florida affords significant protection against
 unjustified corporal punishment of
schoolchildren.
o This constitutional requirement would
significantly burden the use of corporal
punishment as a disciplinary measure as it
will require time, personnel, and a diversion
of attention from normal school pursuits. It
may lead the teacher to rely on other
disciplinary measures
o Furthermore, the Court pointed out that
assessment of school disciplinary measures
is under the discretion of school authorities
and the State  would intrude into an area
of primary educational responsibility.
Guzman vs NU
Facts:
 Petitioners: Diosdao Guzman, Ulysses Urbiztondo
and Ariel Ramacula
 Reason for petition: continued and persistent refusal
to allow them to enroll
 Petitioners
o Reason of university for not allowing them to
enroll  participation in peaceful mass
actions within the premises of the University
o Violates their due process
 Without being informed of such
cause
 Without being afforded the
opportunity to defend
 Respondents
o Due to their own fault
o Urbiztondo: enrolled when the enrollment is
already closed
o Guzman
 Poor academic standing
 Boycott classes by attending
activities
 These activities without permit
 Malicious mischief (MetC of Manila)
o Ramacula
 Activities without permit
o Not good scholastic standing
Held: violated due process
 NU never conducted proceedings of any sort to
determine whether or not petitioners-students had
indeed led or participated in said activities without
prior permit within campus or perpetrated acts of
vandalism, coercion etc.
 Manual of regulations for private schools: school
rules must be clearly specified and defined in writing
and made known to the students and/or their
parents or guardians
 Imposition of disciplinary sanctions requires
observance of due process
o Students must be informed in writing of the
nature and cause of any accusation against
them
o Right to answer the charges
o Informed of the evidence against them
o Right to adduce evidence in their own behalf
o Evidence must be duly considered by the
investigating committee
DLSU vs CA
 Private respondents: expelled members of Tau
Gamma Phi (DLSU and CSB)
o Alvin Aguilar
o James Bungubung
o Richard Reverente
o Roberto Valdes
 Cause of expulsion: causing injuries to petitioner
James Yap and other members of Domino Lux
Fraternity
 Tau Gamma badmouthing Domino
 Domino confronted, No physical violence
 Later, Tau Gamma asked for apology but no apology
was made
 DLSU Discipline Office sent separate notices to
private respondents informing them of the
complaints and requiring them to answer
o They filed their respective answers
 DLSU CSB board sent notice of hearing
 Respondents attended and presented alibi
 DLSU: guilty and they were expelled
 Board: respondents are guilty
 Despite order of RTC and CHED, DLSU prevented
enrollment and/or attending class by the
respondents
 CHED: exclusion and not expulsion
Held
 The respondents were accorded due process of law
 Notice and hearing is the bulwark of administrative
due process, the right to which is among the primary
rights that must be respected even in administrative
proceedings.
 An opportunity to be heard
 A formal trial-type hearing is not, at all times and in
all instances, essential to due process – it is enough
that the parties are given a fair and reasonable
opportunity to explain their respective sides of the
controversy and to present supporting evidence on
which a fair decision can be based.
 Private respondents cannot claim that they were
denied due process when they were not allowed to
cross-examine the witnesses against them.
 Penalty is disproportionate to the misdeed, agree
with CHED (exclusion and not expulsion)
TUMEY vs OHIO
 Whether the trial by the mayor of a village of an
accused deprive the accused of due process of law
 Tumey
o Brought before Mayor Pugh (village: North
College Hill)
o Unlawfully possessing intoxicating liquor
o moved to dismiss the case because mayor is
disqualified to try the case
 Mayor dismissed the motion and proceeded the trial,
convicted Tumey and charged him with $100 as a
fine
 Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton County: Mayor
is disqualified to try the case
 State law on prohibition: ½ of the fines collected
would go to the village
 Mayor passed an ordinance for the implementation
of the State law
o Mayor would receive a part of the fines
collected for hearing the case
o Thus, he may only collect this amount if the
accused is convicted
 If the village was in need of finances, he was in favor
of and would carry on 'the liquor court,' as it was
popularly called, but that, if the court was not
needed for village financial reasons, he would not do
so
Held
 That officers acting in a judicial or quasi judicial
capacity are disqualified by their interest in the
controversy to be decided
 That it would deprive a defendant in a criminal case
of due process of law to subject his liberty or
property to the judgment of a court in which the
judge has a direct, personal, substantial pecuniary
interest in reaching a conclusion against him
 The mayor has direct personal pecuniary interest in
convicting the defendant
 in analogous cases it is very clear that the slightest
pecuniary interest of any officer, judicial or quasi
judicial, in the resolving of the subject-matter which
he was to decide, rendered the decision voidable
 General rule: Judges are not allowed to try their own
case
 Right to impartial judgment
 He seasonably raised the objection, and was entitled
to halt the trial because of the disqualification of the
judge, which existed both because of his direct
pecuniary interest in the outcome, and because of
his official motive to convict and to graduate the fine
to help the financial needs of the village. There were
thus presented at the outset both features of the
disqualification.
Macalintal vs Teh
OCA vs FLORO
 Atty. Florentino V. Floro
 When first applied for judgeship
o Psychological evaluation: ego disintegration
and developing psychotic process
 2nd application
o Problems with self-esteem, mood swings,
confusion, social/interpersonal deficits,
paranoid ideation, suspiciousness, and
perceptual distortions
 JBC allowed him to get second opinion from a private
practitioner
 Results are favorable and he was allowed to be a
judge of RTC Malabon
 Offenses
o Chambers as sleeping quarters
o Alleged partiality in criminal cases (pro-
accused)
o Rendering resolutions without written
orders
o Appearing in personal cases without prior
authority from the SC
o Engaging in private practice of law
o Proceeding with the hearing on the Motion
for Release without prosecutor
o Prioritize settling and eventually dismissing
criminal case
Held:
 Proceeding with the hearing on the Motion for
Release on Recognizance filed by the accused
without the presence of the trial prosecutor and
propounding questions in the form of examination of
the custodian of the accused
o After reading the sentence, Judge Floro
would automatically inform the accused that
they are qualified to apply for probation
o Errors:
 Ordered the release on
recognizance of the accused without
the presence of the prosecutor thus
depriving the latter any opportunity
to oppose said release
  Judge Floro ordered the release
without first requiring the probation
officer to render a case study and
investigation report on the accused
 Order granting the release of the
accused on recognizance was not
reduced into writing
o To release the accused significantly deprived
the prosecution and the private
complainants of their right to due process
 For appearing for his personal cases without prior
authority from the Supreme Court and without filing
the corresponding applications for leaves of absence
on the scheduled dates of hearing
o Pending case: signed as a petitioner and
indicated that he is the presiding judge of
RTC Malabon
o Pending requests with the Court
Management Office, Office of the Court
Administrator to appear as counsel or
collaborating counsel in several civil cases
 Rule: judges are prohibited from
engaging in the private practice of
law
 It aims to ensure that judges give
their full time and attention to their
judicial duties, prevent them from
extending special favors to their own
private interests and assure the
public of their impartiality in the
performance of their functions.
o Judge Floro might not be guilty of
unauthorized practice of law as defined, he
is guilty of unbecoming conduct for signing a
pleading wherein he indicated that he is the
presiding judge of RTC, Branch
73, Malabon City and for appending to the
pleading a copy of his oath with a picture of
his oath-taking. The only logical explanation
we can reach for such acts is that Judge Floro
was obviously trying to influence or put
pressure on a fellow judge by emphasizing
that he himself is a judge and is thus in the
right
o Time and again we have held that although
administrative proceedings are not strictly
bound by formal rules on evidence, the
liberality of procedure in administrative
actions is still subject to limitations imposed
by the fundamental requirement of due
process.
ZAMBALES MINING CO VS CA
Facts:
 CA: improper from Benjamin M. Gozon as Secretary
of Agriculture and Natural resources to affirm his
own decisions as Director of Mines
 Director Gozon dismissed the case filed by the
petitioners
o Petitioners sought to be declared the rightful
and prior locators and possessors of 69
mining claims located in Santa Cruz,
Zambales
 Petitioners filed an appeal to the Secretary of
Agriculture and Natural Resources
 Pending the appeal, Gozon was appointed Secretary
of Agriculture and Natural resources
 Instead of inhibiting himself, he decided the appeal
 He exercised appellate jurisdiction over a case which
he had decided as Director of Mines
 Petitioners argue that the judgment of Gozon was
void because he was disqualified to review his own
decision as Director of Mines
 CA Sixth Division: reversed RTC and the petitioners
were the rightful locators and possessors
o Reversed its own decision
o Remanded the case to Minister of natural
Resources for another review
Held
 Secretary Gozon  grave abuse of discretion in
reviewing his decision as Director of Mines
 Reviewing officer must perforce be other than the
officer whose decision is under review
 There could be no different view or there would be
biased view; inevitably, it would be the same view
since being human, he would not admit that he was
mistaken in his first view of the case
 Petitioners-appellants were deprived of due process,
meaning fundamental fairness, when Secretary
Gozon reviewed his own decision as Director of
Mines.
SINGSON VS NLRC
 Singson was employed by Philippine Airlines (PAL)
o Checking in passengers and baggage
 Ms Kondo
o Alleged that Petitioner required her to pay
$200 for alleged excess baggage without
issuing any receipt
 Found not in his possession but in the check-in
counter he was manning
 After investigation, PAL recommended and
dismissed him from the service
 Labor Arbiter: Raul T. Aquino declared dismissal to be
illegal
 Second Division of NLRC: Calaycay, Rayala, and
Aquino: reversed Aquino’s decision
Held
 Requisites of procedural due process in
administrative proceedings
o Right to a hearing (which includes the right
to submit evidence)
o Tribunal must consider the evidence
presented
o Decision must have something to support
itself
o Decision must be substantial
o Decision must be based on evidence
presented at the hearing
o Tribunal or body must act on its own
independent consideration
o Board or body should render its decisions
that the parties to the proceeding can know
the various issues involved and reason for
the decision rendered
 Administrative due process
o Right to notice
o Reasonable opportunity to appear and
defend his rights and introduce witnesses
o A tribunal so constituted as to give him
reasonable assurance of honesty and
impartiality
o Decision must be supported by the evidence
presented during hearing or at least
ascertained in the records or disclosed to the
parties
 Officer who reviews a case on appeal should not be
the same person whose decision is the subject of
review
 Denied due process
o Aquino participated in reviewing his own
decision
TEJANO VS OMBUDSMAN
OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN VS QUIMBO
 Stemmed from the administrative complaint by Gilda
D. Daradal against Engr. Prudencio C. Quimbo
(provincial engineer) for Sexual Harassment
 Her name was removed for refusing the sexual
advancements of Quimbo
 Catbalogan, Samar
 Ombudsman-Visayas dismissed the case of sexual
harassment but find him guilty of oppression
o Ordered the suspension of Quimbo for 6
months without pay
 CA reversed Ombudsman
o Power of ombudsman is to recommend
appropriate sanction
 Ombudsman filed an omnibus motion for
intervention and reconsideration
o CA denied the motion
 Ombudsman is not the real party in
interest and Daradal did not file any
motion for reconsideration
 Ombudsman, as a quasi-judicial
body, should detach itself from
cases where its decision is appealed
to a higher court for review
Held
 Ombudsman has the power to impose the penalty of
removal, suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or
prosecution of a public officer or employee in the
exercise of its administrative disciplinary authority
 The Ombudsman has the legal interest to intervene
in the proceedings before the CA
o Part of its broad powers include defending
its decisions before the CA
o Competent disciplining body
o Constitutional mandate as protector of the
people
o Disciplinary authority vested with quasi-
judicial function to resolve administrative
disciplinary cases against public officials
o Guardian of public trust and accountability
o It was in keeping with its duty to act as a
champion of the people and preserve the
integrity of public service that petitioner
had to be given the opportunity to act fully
within the parameters of its authority.
o The Office of the Ombudsman cannot be
detached, disinterested and neutral
specially when defending its decisions.
o In administrative cases against government
personnel, the offense is committed against
the government and public interest. What
further proof of a direct constitutional and
legal interest in the accountability of public
officers is necessary
LEGASPI VS CITY OF CEBU
 Constitutionality and validity of an ordinance on the
ground that the ordinance constituted a
contravention of the guaranty of due process under
the Constitution by authorizing the immobilization of
offending vehicles through the clamping of tires
 Ordinance 1664 authorizing enforces to immobilize
any motor vehicle violating the parking restrictions
and prohibitions define in 801 and 1664
 Jabans: Ordinance 1664 is unconstitutional in
violation of due process and for being contrary to law
and damages
o He was not even told why his car had been
immobilized
 Same also with Legaspi
Held
 The guaranty of due process of law is a constitutional
safeguard against any arbitrariness on the part of the
Government
 Procedural due process refers to the procedures that
the government must follow before it deprives a
person of life, liberty or property.
 Substantive due process asks whether the
government has an adequate reason for taking away
a person’s life, liberty, or property (sufficient
justification)
 Did not violate due process
 Any driver whose vehicle was immobilized by
clamping could protest such action of a traffic
enforcer or PNP personnel enforcing the ordinance
o Protest to the chairman, committee on
police, fire and penology of Cebu City or to
Asst City Prosecutor
o Release could be ordered without the
payment of the stipulated fine
 Immobilization is not necessary of driver is present
 Towing away is not equivalent to impounding
o Prevent obstruction
o Owner was not deprived of his property
 Procedural due process
o Exception dispensing with notice and
hearing
o Same nature with: passport of a person
being sought for the commission of a crime,
the preventive suspension of a civil servant
facing administrative charges etc
o Clamping was necessary because the
transgressors were not around at the time of
apprehension  no need for notice and
hearing
o Giving the transgressors the chance to
reverse the apprehension through a timely
protest = the need for a hearing
BUCK VS BELL
 Carrie Buck = feeble minded committed to the State
Colony
o Ordered to be operated to make her sterile
 Pursuant to an Act of Virginia which aims to promote
the health of the patient and the welfare of society
o If discharge without being sterile = menace
o If incapable of procreating = might be
discharged with safety and become self-
supporting with benefit to themselves and to
society
o If superintendent of certain institutions shall
be in opinion should be sterilized, he may
have the operation by filing a petition
 Steps for the filing of petition for the operation
o Stating the facts and grounds for his opinion
o Notice of the petition, time, and place of the
hearing to be served to the inmate and his
guardian (if no guardian, court may appoint)
o After board made its order for or against the
operation, inmate, guardian or
superintendent may appeal to the Circuit
Court then finally to the SC of Appeals
Held:
 Every step considers the right of the patient and thus
it has due process of law
 Better to prevent the execution of a degenerate
offspring for crime, let them starve for their
imbecility
 The law does all that is needed when it does all that
it can, indicates a policy, applies it to all within the
lines, and seeks to bring within the lines all similarly
situated so far and so fast its mean allow.
MICHAEL H. V GERALD D
 California law: a child born to a married woman living
with her husband is presumed to be a child of the
marriage
o May be rebutted only by husband or wife
 This presumption infringes upon the due process
rights of a man who wishes to establish his paternity
of a child born to the wife of another man and the
claim that it infringes the constitutional right of the
child to maintain a relationship with her natural
father
 Carole D <3 Gerald D
 Carole D  affair with Michael H
 Blood test that Michael H was Victoria’s father
Held
Michael’s claim
 A conclusive presumption does foreclose the person
against whom it is invoked, from demonstrating that
the presumption to him will not further the lawful
government policy
 Due process clause affords only those protections
“so rotted in the traditions and conscience of our
people as to be ranked as fundamental”
 The presumption of legitimacy was a fundamental
principle of the common law.
o Aversion to declare children illegitimate
 Even in present times, the ability of a person in
Michael’s position to claim paternity has not been
generally acknowledged
 What he must establish is not that our society has
traditionally allowed a natural father in his
circumstances to establish paternity, but that it has
traditionally accorded such father parental rights or
at least has not traditionally denied them.
o Court is not aware of single case that has
done so
o Not the stuff of which fundamental rights
qualifying as liberty interests are made
o It is a question of legislative policy and not
constitutional law whether California will
allow such claim
o Natural father’s unique opportunity conflicts
with the similarly unique opportunity of the
husband of the marriage
 Not unconstitutional for the State to
give preference to the latter
o The absence of a legal tie with the mother
may place a limit on whatever substantive
constitutional claims might otherwise exist
Victoria’s claim
 Weaker than Michael’s claim
 She claims due process right to maintain filial
relationships with both
 Allowing a claim of illegitimacy may well disrupt an
otherwise peaceful union
 Since it pursue a legitimate end by rational means,
California’s decision to treat Victoria differently from
her parents is not a denial of equal protection
KANSAS VS HENDRICKS
 Kansan enacted the Sexually Violent Predator Act
o Procedures for civil commitment of persons
who, due to a “mental abnormality” or
“personality disorder” are likely to engage in
“predatory acts of sexual violence”
 Leroy Hendricks
o Long history of sexually molesting children
o The act was invoked to commit him
 Steps
o Custodial agency was required to notify the
local prosecutor 60 days before the
anticipated release of a person
o Prosecutor to file a petition in state court
seeking the person’s involuntary
commitment
o Determination of the state court
o Transfer of individual to a secure facility for
professional evaluation would occur
o Trail to determine if the individual was
sexually violent predator
o Transfer to the social and rehabilitation
services
 Burden of proof  State
 Confined persons were afforded 3 avenues of
review:
o Annual review of court
o Secretary was permitted to decide that the
confined individual’s condition had so
changed that release was appropriate and
could then authorize the person to petition
for release
o Person at any time file a release petition
Held
 Although freedom from physical restraint has always
been at the core of liberty protected by the Due
Process Clause from arbitrary governmental action,
that liberty interest is not absolute
 Liberty does not import an absolute right at all times
and in all circumstances, wholly free from restraint.
There are restraints to which every person is
necessarily subject for the common good
 States provided for forcible civil detainment of
people who are unable to control their behavior and
who thereby pose a danger to the public health and
safety.
o Pursuant to proper procedures and
evidentiary standards
o Not contrary to ordered liberty
WASHINGTON VS GLUCKSBERG
 Washington’s prohibition against causing or aiding a
suicide offends the 14th Amendment to the US
Constitution (Court: it does not)
 Respondents: physicians who practice in Washington
o Occasionally treat terminally ill
o Would assist these patients in ending their
lives of not for Washington’s assisted suicide
ban
o Existence of a liberty interest which extends
to a personal choice by a mentally
competent, terminally ill adult to commit
physician assisted suicide
Held
 Due Process Clause guarantees more than fair
process and the liberty it protects includes more than
the absence of physical restraint
 Also provides heightened protection against
government interference with certain fundamental
rights and liberty interests
 TO hold for respondents  have to reverse centuries
of legal doctrine and practice and strike down the
considered policy choice of almost every State
 Usual topics  personal autonomy, important,
intimate, and personal decisions
o Does not follow that it should include all
 History of the law’s treatment of assisted suicide 
rejection of efforts to permit it
 Asserted right to assistance in committing suicide is
not a fundamental liberty interest protected by the
Due Process Clause
 Washington’s assisted suicide band be rationally
related to legitimate government interest
o Interest in preservation of human life
o Interest in protecting the integrity and ethics
of the medical profession
o Protecting vulnerable groups
o State may fear that permitting assisted
suicide will start it down the path to
voluntary and perhaps even voluntary
euthanasia
LAWRENCE VS TEXAS
 Validity of a Texas statute making it a crime for two
persons of the same sex to engage in certain sexual
conduct
 Right to be from unwarranted governmental
intrusion
 Petitioners: John Geddes Lawrence and Tyrone
Garner
Held
 Violates the liberties protected by the due process
clause
 A personal relationship is within the liberty of
persons to choose without being punished as
criminals
 Adults may choose to enter upon this relationship in
the confines of their homes and their own private
lives and still retain their dignity as free persons
 The liberty protected by the Constitution allows
homosexual persons the right to make this choice.
 Laws prohibiting sodomy do not seem to have been
enforced against consenting adults acting in private
o History  predatory acts against those who
could not or did not consent
 Laws and tradition afford constitutional protection
to personal decisions
 Governing majority in a State has traditionally
viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a
sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the
practice
 Individual decisions concerning the intimacies of
their physical relationship, even when not intended
to produce offspring are a form of liberty protected
by the Due process Clause
o Extends to intimate choices by unmarried as
well as married persons
DE LA CRUZ VS PARAS
 Whether or not a municipal corporation can prohibit
the exercise of a lawful trade, the operation of night
clubs, and the pursuit of a lawful occupation such
cubs employing hostesses
 Petitioner: rights to due process and equal
protection of the laws were violated as the licenses
previously given to them was in effect withdrawn
without judicial hearing
 Ordinance 84: closure of night clubs
Held
 Reliance on the police power is insufficient to justify
the enactment of the assailed ordinance
 If night clubs were merely regulated and not
prohibited, the assailed ordinance would pass the
test of validity
o The ordinance on its face is characterized by
overbreadth
o The purpose sought to be achieved could
have been attained by reasonable
restrictions rather than by absolute
prohibition
 Local Govt Code: regulate
o Therefore not prohibit
o They may regulate but not prevent the
petitioners from carrying on their business
o Their employees  deprivation
 arbitrariness
MMDA VS VIRON
 questions the authority of the MMDA to order the
closure of provincial bus terminals along EDSA and
major thoroughfares of Manila
 EO 179: establishment of Greater Manila Mass
Transport System
o Designated the MMDA as the implementing
agency for the Project
 Viron: MMDA does not have the power to direct
provincial bus operators to abandon their existing
bus terminals
 MMDA: nothing in the body of the EO mentions the
closure and elimination of bus terminals along the
major thoroughfares of Metro Manila
o Failed to produce any letter or
communication from the Executive
 Department apprising them of an immediate
plan to close down their bus terminals
o Relations: between the Chief executive and
the implementing officials but not between
third persons
Held:
 Notable that the 5th whereas clause is to remove the
bus terminals
o Mentions the establishment of the North
and South terminals
o Immediate implementation
 To ensure the success of the project  the existing
bus terminals owned operated or lease by third
persons like respondents would have to eliminated
and respondents would be force to operate from the
common bus terminals
 The closure of their bus terminals would mean,
among other things the loss of income from their
operation and/or rentals of stalls thereat
o Deprivation of their constitutional right to
property without due process of law
 Devoid of the authority  DOTC dapat
 Not valid police power
o Means employed not reasonable
o Entities which might be able to provide
better facilities are banned from operating
at all
DYCAICO VS SSS
 Elena Dyaico denied to claim survivor’s pension
accruing from the death of her husband
 Elena and Bonifacio lived together without the
benefit of marriage when Bonifacio became a
member of SSS
 SSC and CA: Common-law wife of Bonifcaio at the
time of his retirement
Held
 Retirement benefits  property interest of a retiree
 Under RA 8282, the surviving spouse is entitled to
survivors pension accruing on the death of the
member
o Right to receive such benefit
 The proviso violates the due process clause as it
outrightly deprives the surviving spouse whose
respective marriage to the retired SSS member was
contracted after the latter’s retirement
 Outright confiscation of benefits  without giving
them an opportunity to be heard
 Created a presumption that marriages contracted
after the retirement were entered into for the
purpose of securing the benefits
o Surviving spouse are not afforded any
opportunity to disprove the presence of such
presumption
 She was deprived of the survivor’s benefits, a
property interest without the opportunity to be
heard
REPUBLIC VS ALBIOS
 Questioning the decision of RTC Cavite that the
marriage of Daniel Lee Fringer and Liberty Albios as
void from the very beginning
 Albios wanted their marriage to be declared null and
void because the purpose of the marriage is not to
fulfill marital obligations but rather to acquire
American Citizenship
Held
 Fringer and Albios consented to the marriage
o Was also consciously given as they
understood the beneficial and inconvenient
consequence of their marriage
o Evidence: conscious purpose of acquiring
American citizenship through marriage
o There was a clear intention to enter into a
real and valid marriage so as to fully comply
with the requirements of an application for
citizenship
 The State cannot dictate on the kind of life that a
couple chooses to lead
o Would go to into the realm of their right to
privacy and would raise serious
constitutional questions
o Right to marital privacy to structure their
marriage
o Marriages entered into for other purposes
are equally valid
IMBONG VS OCHOA
 RH Law violates due process in terms of
o One subject-one title rule (by concealing its
true intent to act as population control
measure)
o Right to life and health of the unborn child
by allowing access to
abortifacients/abortives effectively
sanctions abortion
o Suffers from vagueness
 Private health service providers are
among those who may be held
punishable but does not define who
is private health care service
provider
 Hospitals operated by religious
groups exempted from rendering
 reproductive health service and
modern family planning methods
 Unclear if exempted from
rendering health
information
 Punishes the withholding, restricting
and providing of incorrect
information but at the same time
fails to define incorrect information
Held
 Reproductive health and reproductive parenthood
o Interrelated and germane
o Purpose of 1 subject rule: to inform the
purpose of the enactment
o No intent to deceive the public
 Right to life
o Use of non-abortifacient contraceptives
(prevents the union of sperm and egg cells)
and therefore no abortion
o But the IRR is void for using the word
primarily pertaining to the abortifacient
drugs
 Due process
o Vague if
 It violates due process for failure to
accord persons fair notice of the
conduct to avoid
 Leaves law enforcers unbridled
discretion
o Must be interpreted with the other parts of
the statute
o Private health care institution and service
provider  used synonymously
o The right to be exempt from being obligated
to render reproductive health service
include exemption from being obligated to
give reproductive health information
o Incorrect and knowingly connote a sense of
malice and ill motive to mislead or
misrepresent the public as to the nature and
effect of programs and service on
reproductive health
OBERGEFELL VS HODGES
 Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee: marriage
as a union between one man and one woman
 14 same sex couples and two men whose partners
are deceased
o Violation of due process clause by denying
them the right to marry or have their
marriages, lawfully performed in another
State, given full recognition
 Obergefell <3 John Arthur
o Brought suit to be shown as the surviving
spouse on Arthur’s death certificate
 April deBoer & Jayne Rowse
o Adopted 3 children
o Seeks relief from the continuing uncertainty
their unmarried status creates in their lives
 DeKoe & Kostura
 They seek not to denigrate marriage but rather to
live their lives, or honor their spouses’ memory,
joined by its bond.
 Liberties extend to certain personal choices central
to individual dignity and autonomy
 Right to marry is protected by the Constitution
o Vital personal right essential to the orderly
pursuit of happiness by free men
 Same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry
 First: Right to personal choice regarding marriage is
inherent in the concept of individual autonomy
 Contradictory to recognize a right of privacy with
respect to other matters of family life and not with
respect to the decision to enter the relationship that
is the foundation of the family in our society
 Second: Right to marry is fundamental because it
supports a two-person union unlike any other in its
importance to the committed individuals
 Same-sex couples have the same right as opposite-
sex couples to enjoy intimate association
 Third: safeguards children and families
 Excluding same-sex couples from marriage conflicts
with a central premise of the right to marry
 Rights rise from a better informed understanding of
how constitutional imperatives define a liberty that
remains urgent in our own ear
 Also derived from the equal protection of the laws
 Right to marry as one of the fundamental liberties it
protects and it applies to same-sex couple the same
manner it applies to opposite-sex couple
 Judicial precedent has held that the right to marry is
a fundamental liberty because it is inherent to the
concept of individual autonomy, it protects the most
intimate association between two people, it
safeguards children and families by according legal
recognition to building a home and raising children,
and it has historically been recognized as the
keystone of social order. Because there are no
differences between a same-sex union and an
opposite-sex union with respect to these principles,
the exclusion of same-sex couples from the right to
marry violates the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment.
MOSQUEDA VS PILIPINO BANANA
 Davao City
 Ordinance number 0309 to impose a ban against
aerial spraying as an agricultural practice by all
agricultural entities
 Pilipino Banana: amounted to the confiscation of
property without due process of law
 Violates the due process clause
o Substantive due process requires that a valid
ordinance must have a sufficient justification
for the Government's action. This means
that in exercising police power the local
government unit must not arbitrarily,
whimsically or despotically enact the
ordinance regardless of its salutary purpose.
 Reasonable means
o The required civil works for the conversion
to truck-mounted boom spraying alone will
consume considerable time and financial
resources given the topography and
geographical features of the
plantations.[117] As such, the conversion
could not be completed within the short
timeframe of three months. Requiring the
respondents and other affected individuals
to comply with the consequences of the ban
within the three-month period under pain of
penalty like fine, imprisonment and even
cancellation of business permits would
definitely be oppressive as to constitute
abuse of police power.
o The respondents posit that the requirement
of maintaining a buffer zone under Section 6
of the ordinance violates due process for
being confiscatory; and that the imposition
unduly deprives all agricultural landowners
within Davao City of the beneficial use of
their property that amounts to taking
without just compensation.
o In City of Manila v. Laguio, Jr.,[118] we have
thoroughly explained that taking only
becomes confiscatory if it substantially
divests the owner of the beneficial use of its
property
o purpose is to minimize the effects of
aerial spraying
CARPIO’S DISSENTING
Romualdez vs COMELEC
 Petitioner’s contention: RA 8189 does not state the
violations are election offenses
o Section 45 of the law: violation of any of the
provisions of this act is an election offsense
 Due process clause guarantees that no person shall
be deprived of life, liberty or property without due
 process of law requires that citizens are given AGABON VS NLRC
sufficient notice or warning of what is lawful and
unlawful conduct under a penal statute
 Void for vagueness doctrine
o For an act to constitute a crime, the law must
expressly and clearly declare such act a crime
 Petitioners use as applied challenge
o The petitioner who claims a violation of his
constitutional right can raise any
constitutional ground
o One can challenge the constitutionality of a
statute only if he asserts a violation of his
own rights
o Prohibits one from challenging the
constitutionality of the statute based solely
on the violation of the rights of third persons
not before the court
 Prohibition against third-party
standing
 Exception to the prohibition against third party
standing: facial challenge
o Facial challenge to the constitutionality of a
statute even if he claims no violation of his
own rights under the assailed statute
o A petitioner has only to show violation under
the assailed statute of the rights of third
parties not before the court
o Applies only to statutes involving free
speech
 Rationale for this exception: to counter the “chilling
effect” on protected speech that comes from
statutes violating free speech
o A person who does not know whether his
speech constitutes a crime under an
overbroad or vague law may simply refuse to
speak to avoid being charged of a crime
o Chills him to silence
 Overbreadth doctrine
o Exception to the prohibition against third-
party standing
o Can challenge a statute on the ground that it
violates free speech rights of third parties
not before the court, even though the law is
constitutional as applied to the defendant
o Closely related to the vagueness doctrine 
invoked to mount “facial” challenges to
statutes violating free speech


TINGA’S DISSENTING

SERRANO VS NLRC