Case Doctrines- Constitutional Law 2

SECTION 1

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

A. Life, Liberty or Property

American Inter-Fashion v. Office of the President – export quota allocation –
Glorious Sun’s export quota allocation was a initially a privilege evolved into some form of property which should not be removed arbitrarily and without due process and hurriedly confer it to another.

Chavez v. Romulo – citizen’s right to bear arms - The right to bear arms cannot be classified as a fundamental right under the 1987 Constitution – the right is a mere statutory privilege, not a  constitutional right. It is erroneous to assume that the US Constitution grants upon the people the
right to bear arms. The Second Amendment pertains to the citizen’s “collective right” to take arms in defense of the state, not to the citizen’s “individual right” to own and possess arms.

Exec. Secretary V. CA – Migrant Worker’s and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 – A profession, trade or calling is a property right within the meaning of our constitutional guarantees; one cannot be deprived of the right to work or 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 profesion is a valid exercise of police power.

Duncan v. Glaxo – not ed to have a relationship with an employee of a competitor company – Glaxo has a right to guard its trade secrets. (related topic: equal protection)

Alejano v. Cabuay – Oakwood Mutiny Case – writ of habeas corpus is available where a person continues to be unlawfully denied one or more of his constitutional freedoms, where there is a denial of due process, where the restraints are not merely involuntary but also unnecessary, and where a deprivation og freedom originally valid has later become arbitrary. (related topic: privacy of communication and correspondence)

B. Procedural Due Process

Banco Espanol-Filipino v. Palanca – mortgage foreclosure – due process implies that: 1) there must be a court or tribunal clothed with the power to hear or determine the matter before it; 2) that jurisdiction has been lawfully acquired; 3) defendant shall have to opputunity to be heard; 4) judgment shall be rendered upon lawful hearing. | NOTICE must be given

Bautista v. CA – land dispute – When a party was afforded the opportunity to participate in the proceedings but failed to do so, he cannot complain of deprivation of due process

Rural Bank of Buhi v. CA – bank receivership; insolvency – there is no requirement whether express or implied that a hearing must first be conducted before a banking institution may be placed in receivership

Pollution Adjudication Board v. CA – untreated wastewater discharged to sewer – Ex parte proceedings - permitted by law in situations like these because stopping the discharged of the wastewater cannot be
made to wait until protracted litigation; standards set by the board enough – not required to prove immediate danger to life, health et. al

Fabella v. CA – public school teachers striking – DUE PROCESS IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS –
requisites: 1) actual or constructive notice of the institution of the proceedings which may affect one’s legal rights; 2) real opportunity to be heard personally or with counsel; 3) to present witnesses and
evidence is one’s favor and to defend his rights; 4) tribunal vested with competent jurisdiction – reasonable guarantee of honesty and impartiality; 5) finding is supported by substantial evidence –
contained and made known to the parties

Guzman v. CA – kicked out from school – DUE PROCESS IN STUDENT DISCPLINE PROCEEDINGS – requisites: 1) student must be informed in writing the nature and cause of the accusation against him; 2) right to answer the charges against them, with the assistance of counsel if desired; 3) they shall
be informed of the evidence against them; 4) right to adduce evidence in their own behalf; 5) evidence must be duly considered by the investigating committee or officials hearing the case

Lao Gi v. CA – DUE PROCESS IN DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS – same requisites as those required in criminal proceedings (Rules of Court) Secretary of Justice v. Lantion – extradition case of Jimenez - DUE PROCESS IN QUASIJUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS – requisites: 1) taking and evaluation of evidence; 2)
determining facts based upon the evidence presented; 3) rendering an order based upon the facts proved Chavez v. COMELEC – billboard of Chavez as endorser – A statute or regulation is considered void for overbreadth when it offends the constitutionality principle that a governmental purpose to control or prevent activities constitutionally subject to state regulations may nor be achieved by means
that sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade protected freedoms