Case 1

Ichong v. Hernandez
G.R. No. L-7995
May 31, 1957
Facts:
Petitioner assails the validity of RA 1180 entitled An Act to Regulate the Retail Business which
essentially prohibits aliens from engaging directly or indirectly in the retail trade and confiscates the
licenses of violators on the law of naturalization, control weights and measures, labor and other laws.
Petitioner contends that the law denies to alien residents the equal protection of the laws and
deprives them of liberty and property without due process of the law.
The OSG and the City Fiscal of Manila contend that the act is a valid exercise of police power.
Issue:
Whether or not RA 1180 violates petitioners constitutional right to due process.
Ruling:
Petition is dismissed. It has been stated by the highest authority of the US that the only demand
of the law is that it shall not be unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious and that the means selected has a
real and substantial relation to the subject.
The test of reasonableness of a law is the appropriateness or adequacy under all circumstances
of the means adopted. Judged by this test, the law is not merely reasonable but actually necessary.
The argument raised by petitioner that retail is an ordinary occupation, a privilege recognized for
the pursuit of happiness of free men but he overlooks the reality that the aliens ways of doing business is
harmful to society and the economy.
The law in question is deemed absolutely necessary to bring about the desired legislative
objective: which is to free the national economy from alien control and dominance. The attainment of
economic independence is never beyond the limits of legislative authority.

Case 2
Philippine Phosphate Fertilizer Corp. v Hon. Ruben D. Torres, Sec. of DOLE
G.R. No. L-98050
Mar. 17, 1994
Facts:
Petitioner assails the decision of the Secretary of Labor affirming the order of the Mediator-Arbiter
which directed the immediate conduct of a certification election among the supervisory, professional or
technical and confidential employees of petitioner.
Philphos Movement for Progress, Inc. (PMPI) filed a petition for certification election among the
supervisory employees of petitioner, that as a supervisor union registered with the DOLE, the sought to
represent the supervisory employees of petitioner.
Petitioner did not oppose the request of PMPI but in fact, filed a position paper welcoming the
creation of supervisory employees union provided that the union exempt its superintendents who were
managerial and not supervisory employees because they managed divisions and were endowed with
executive powers to enforce policies. They also assert that their professional and technical employees
were not within the definition of supervisory employees under the labor code.
PMPI amended their petition to include not only the supervisory employees but also its
professional/technical and confidential employees. The mediator-arbiter granted the petition and the
decision was affirmed by the Secretary of Labor. Thus this petition.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioner was denied due process before the Mediator-Arbiter; and whether or not
its professional/technical and confidential employees may validly join PMPI union.
Ruling:
Petition is granted. Petitioner was not denied due process. The essence of due process is simply
an opportunity to be heard or an opportunity to explain ones side.
In the case at bar, petitioner 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 of both parties thus there was
sufficient compliance with the requirement of due process. Moreover, petitioner could have requested a
hearing to confront the other party but did not. Besides, petitioner had ample opportunity to ventilate its
arguments with the Secretary of Labor.

Case 3
Ynot v. IAC
G.R. No. 74457
Mar. 20, 1987
Facts:
The case at bar assails the constitutionality of EO 626-A which prohibited the transport of
carabaos or carabeef from one province to another.
On Jan. 13, 1984, petitioner transported 6 carabaos from Masbate to Iloilo where they were
confiscated by the police. Petitioner sued for recovery but was denied by the lower court and even the
Court of Appeals. He has come to the Supreme court for review.
Petitioner contends that the penalty is invalid because it is imposed without according the owner
the right to be heard before a competent court as guaranteed by due process.
Issue:
Whether or not EO 626-A violates the constitutional right to due process.
Ruling:
Petition is granted. The minimum requirements of due process are notice and hearing which
generally, may not be dispensed with because they are intended as safeguards against official
arbitrariness.
There are instances where the omission of the requisites is justified like the summary abatement
of a nuisance like killing of a mad dog, destruction of drugs and other dangerous substances. Essentially,
the immediacy of the problem to be corrected and the urgency of the need to correct it is the prime
consideration to whether or not we can omit due process.
In the case at bar, there was no such situation of urgency that would require the confiscation of
the property of the petitioner.

Case 4
Aniag Jr. (congressman) v COMELEC
G.R. No. 104961
Oct. 7, 1994
Facts:
On Dec. 11, 1991, Comelec issued Resolution No. 2323 aka the Gun Ban. Subsequently on
Dec. 26, 1991 Comelec issued another resolution providing for the disqualification of candidates in
violation thereof.
Petitioner was informed by the Sgt-at-Arms to return 2 firearms issued to him by Congress.
Petitioner abided and ordered his driver, Arellano, to return the guns to congress. On the way, Arellano
was stopped at a checkpoint. The police searched the car and found the guns. They immediately
apprehended and detained Arellano in violation of the Gun Ban.
Petitioner was asked to appear before the City Prosecutor to explain his side to which petitioner
not only did but he also submitted a sworn letter of explanation pleading that the charges against Arellano
be dropped.
Nevertheless, Comelec proceeded to charge petitioner of violating the gun ban thus this petition.
Petitioner contends that his right to due process was violated because he was neither impleaded
as respondent in the preliminary investigation nor in the charge sheet by the City Prosecutor.
Comelec contends that he was given the opportunity to be heard because he was invited by the
City Prosecutor to explain and he submitted a sworn letter of explanation.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioners right to due process was violated.
Ruling:
Petition is granted. The non-disclosure of the City Prosecutor to the petitioner that he was a
respondent in the investigation is violative of due process which requires that the procedure established
by law should be obeyed.
Comelecs argument that petitioner was given a chance to be heard because he was invited to
explain and his sworn letter of explanation does not satisfy the requirement of due process the essence of
which is the reasonable opportunity to be heard and to submit any evidence one may have in support of
his defense. Due process is meant to protect both substantive and procedural rights.
Petitioner was made to believe that he wasnt a party respondent so in the letter he pleaded to
exculpate Arellano. Hence, it cannot be said he was given full opportunity to meet the accusation.