Is the proposition that a profession, trade or calling a property right that is protected by the constitution absolute?
No. The proposition that “a profession, trade or calling is a property right within the meaning of our constitutional guarantees” is not unqualified. In JMM Promotion and Management, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 260 SCRA 319, it was ruled that a profession, trade or calling is a property within the meaning of our constitutional guarantees. One cannot be deprived of the right to work and the right to make a living because these rights are property rights, the arbitrary and unwarranted deprivation of which normally constitutes an actionable wrong.
Nevertheless, no right is absolute, and the proper regulation of a profession, calling, business or trade has always been upheld as a legitimate subject of a valid exercise of the police power by the state particularly when their conduct affects either the execution of legitimate governmental functions, the preservation of the State, the public health and welfare and public morals. According to the maxim, sic utere tuo it alienum non laedas, it must of course be within the legitimate range of legislative action to define the mode and manner in which every one may so use his own property so as not to pose injury to himself or others.
In any case, where the liberty curtailed affects at most the rights of property, the permissible scope of regulatory measures is certainly much wider.
Under the foregoing, the perpetual application of Rule 6.03 is clearly a valid and proper regulation. (PCGG vs. SB, et al., supra.).