Session 4: DUE PROCESS

Art. III, Sec. 1

1. History

2. Meaning and scope

3. Substantive due process

Cases:
U.S. v. Toribio, 15 Phil. 85 (1910)
Antamok Goldfields Mining Co. v. CIR, 70 Phil. 340 (1940)
Ongsiako v. Gamboa, 86 Phil. 50 (1950)
Cruz v. Secretary of DENR, 347 SCRA 128 (2000)
Smith Kline & French Laboratories, Ltd. V. CA, 368 SCRA 9
(2001)
Pilipinas Kao, Inc. v. CA, 372 SCRA 548 (2001)
Montesciaros v. COMELEC, 384 SCRA 269 (2002)


4. Procedural due process

a. Judicial

Cases:
Salazar v. People, 411 SCRA 598 (2003)
People v. Bodosco, 398 SCRA 642 (2003) SC laid
down the procedure to observed by the trial courts to
protect the right of due process of every accused in a
capital offense

b. Administrative
Cases:
Lopez v. Director of Lands, 47 Phil. 23 (1924)
Ang Tibay v. CIR 69 Phil 635 (1940)
Air Manila v. Balatbat 38 SCRA 189 (1971)
Busuego v. CA, 304 SCRA 473 (1999)
UP Board of Regents v. CA, 313 SCRA 405 (1999)
Pefianco v. Moral, 322 SCRA 439 (2000)
Mollaneda v. Umacob, 358 SCRA 537 (2001)
Sayo-Ang v. COMELEC 416 SCRA 651 (2003)
Samalia v. CA, 454 SCRA 462 (2005)
DOH v. Camposano, 457 SCRA 438 (2005)
Antonio v. Ville, 454 SCRA 851 (2005)


5. Notice

Taada v. Tuvera, 136 SCRA 27 (1985); 146 SCRA 446
(1986)
People v. Vaymaco, 305 SCRA 93 (1999)
People v. Sanchez, 301 SCRA 21 (1999)
Miranda v. Carreon, 401 SCRA 303 (2003)
Dayloc v. COMELEC, 395 SCRA 742 (2003)

6. Impartiality

Taada v. PAEC, 141 SCRA 307 (1986)
Mateo v. Villaluz, 50 SCRA 18 (1973)
People v. Vaymaco, 305 SCRA 93 (1999)
Lacson v. Executive Secretary, 301 SCRA 298 (1999)
People v. Sanchez, 301 SCRA 21 (1999)
People v. Sesbreo, 314 SCRA (1987)
Soriano v. Angeles, 339 SCRA 366 (2000)
People v. Cabiles, 341 SCRA 721 ( 2000)
Almendra v. Asis, 330 SCRA 69 (2000)
People v. Cueto, 395 SCRA 344 (2003)
People v. Medina, 404 SCRA 248 (2003)
Camacho v. Gloria, 409 SCRA 174 (2003)
People v. Moralde, 395 SCRA 286 (2003)
People v. Tee, 395 SCRA 419 (2003)

7. Certainty

a. Void for vagueness an act is vague when it
lacks comprehensible standards that men of
common intelligence must necessarily guess at its
meaning and differ as to its application

Cases:
Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560, Nov.
19, 2001

b. Overbreadth
Cases:
Gonzales v. COMELEC, 27 SCRA 835 (1969)
People v. Morato, 224 SCRA 361 (1993)
People v. Nazario, 165 SCRA 186 (1988)
Gallego v. Sandiganbayan, 119 SCRA 493 (1982)
Chavez v. COMELEC. 437 SCRA 415 (2004)
Lucena Grand Central Terminal v. JAC Liner, 452
SCRA 174 (2005)
POUSES CARLOS S. ROMUALDEZ and
ERLINDA R. ROMUALDEZ vs. COMMISSION
ON ELECTIONS and DENNIS GARAY, EN
BANC, G. R. No. 167011, April 30, 2008,
. 8. Excessive penalties

Art. III, Sec. 19 (11)

9. Ex Post Facto Law & Bill of Attainder

Art. III, Sec. 22
People v. Ferrer, G.R. Nos. L-32613-14
December 27, 1972
Roman C. Tuason and Remedios V. Tuason vs.
Register of Deeds. GR No. 70484, January 29, 1988

10. Cases:
Banco Espaol-Filipino v. Palanca, 37 Phil. 921 (1918)
Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro, 39 Phil. 660 (1919)
Ichong v. Hernandez, 101 Phil. 1155 (1957)
Vda. de Cuaycong v. Vda. de Sengbengco, 110 Phil. 113
(1960)
Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association, Inc. v.
City Mayor of Manila, 20 SCRA 849 (1967); 21 SCRA 669
(1967)
Luzon Surety Co., Inc. v. Beson, 31 SCRA 313 (1970)
Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 US 254 (1970)
Bell v. Burson, 402 US 535 (1971)
In re Lynch, 8 Cal 3rd 410 P. 2d (1972)
Mateo, Jr. v. Villaluz, 50 SCRA 18 (1973)
Montemayor v. Araneta University Foundation, 77 SCRA 321
(1977)
Reyes v. Court of Appeals, 80 SCRA 144 (1977)
Zambales Chromite Mining Co. v. CA, 94 SCRA 261 (1979)
Ansaldo v. Clave, 119 SCRA 353 (1982)
Bautista v. Juinio, 127 SCRA 329 (1984)
Ateneo v. CA, 145 SCRA 106 (1986)
Alcuaz v. PSBA 161 SCRA 7 (1988)
Philcomsat v. Alcuaz, 180 SCRA 218 (1989)
Ynot v. IAC, 148 SCRA 659 (1987)
Adamson & Adamson, Inc. v. Amores, 152 SCRA 237 (1987)
DBP v. NLRC, 183 SCRA 328 (1990)
Commission on Human Rights v. Civil Service Commission,
227 SCRA 42 (1993)
U.P. Board of Regents v. Ligot-Telan, 227 SCRA 342 (1993)
Ople v. Torres, 293 SCRA 141 (1998)
Recuerdo v. People, G.R. No. 133036, January 22, 2003






Session 5. EQUAL PROTECTION

Art. III, Sec. 1

1. Concept
2. Purpose
3. Conditions for valid classification
4. Discrimination against aliens
5. Classification of citizens
4. Dimensions of Equality
Read: M. Defensor-Santiago, "New" Equal Protection,
58 Phil. L. J. 1-27 (1983)

Cases:
People v. Cayat, 68 Phil. 12 (1939)
Ichong v. Hernandez, 101 Phil. 1155 (1957)
Ormoc Sugar Co., Inc v. Treasurer of Ormoc City, 22 SCRA
603 (1968)
Peralta v. COMELEC, 82 SCRA 30 (1978)
Villegas v. Hiu Chiong Tsai Pao Ho, 86 SCRA 270 (1978)
Nuez v. Sandiganbayan, 111 SCRA 433 (1982)
Taxicab Operators of Metro Manila Inc. v. Board of
Transportation, 117 SCRA 597 (1982)
Del Rosario v. Bengzon, 180 SCRA 521 (1989)
Shauf v. Court of Appeals, 191 SCRA 713 (1990)
Chua v. Civil Service Commission, 206 SCRA 65 (1992)
Conference of Maritime Manning Agencies v. POEA, 243
SCRA 666 (1995)
Tiu v. CA, 301 SCRA 278 (1999)
Soriano v. CA, 304 v.231 (1999)
Loong v. COMELEC, 305 SCRA 832 (1999)
Aguinaldo v. COMELEC, 308 SCRA 770 (1999)
People v. Jalosjos, 324 SCRA 689 (2000)
De Guzman vs. COMELEC, 336 SCRA 188 (2001)
Cruz vs. COA, 368 SCRA 85 (2001)
People v. Dela Piedra, 350 SCRA 163 (2001)
Peliguino v. People, 362 SCRA 682 (2001)
Lopez v. CA, 389 SCRA 570 (2001)
PRECA v. Secretary of DILG, 403 SCRA 558 (2003)
Villarena v. COA 408 SCRA 455 (2003)
Farias v. Executive Secretary, 417 SCRA 503 (2003)
GSIS v. Montesclaros, 434 SCRA 441 (2004)
Central Bank Employees Association v. Bangko Sentral ng
Pilipinas, 446 SCRA 299 (2004)
Gallardo v. People, 454 SCRA 494 (2005)
Abakada Guro Party List v. Ermita, 469 SCRA 1 (2005)
Beltran v. Secretary of Health, 476 SCRA 168 (2005)
City of Manila v. Laguio, supra