PPA

issued AO 03-85, which mandated that every pilot must be holders of licenses,
have trained as probationary pilots in outports for 3 months and trained in the
manila ports for 4 months. Only after they have shown satisfactory performance will
they be entitled to a regular and permanent appointment until the age of 70, unless
otherwise removed from service earlier by the PPA due to mental or physical
conditions.

Therafter, in July 1992, PPA issued AO 04-92, which aimed to improve pilot services
and make it safer for port users. This issuance decreed that all existing regular
appointments would be valid only until December 31, 1992 ony and thereafter, all
appointments would be valid for a period of 1 year only, subject to an annual review
of rigid evaluation of performance.

Respondents, United Harbor Pilots, questioned the validity of this issuance but the
PPA said that only its BOD had the power to recall the issuance. When they didnt
get any further response, UHP went to the OP and OP eventually ordered PPA to
hold in abeyance the implementation of AO 04-92. PPA countered that it was
exercising its administrative functions.T Then, Assistant Executive Secretary for
Legal Affairs of OP, Renato Corona, dismissed the petition and lifted the restraining
order on AO 04-92.

Renato Corona : AO 04-92 does NOT constitute a wrongful interference or a
wrongful deprivation of the property rights of those affected. Issuance merely aims
to improve pilot services. He cited PD 857 (PPAs Charter) which requires the PPA
to consult with relevant government agencies. In this case, since PPAs BOD was
already composed of secretaries from DOTC, DPWH, DOF, DENR, NEDA, MARINA,
and the private sector, PPA has sufficiently complied with this requirement.

Respondents filed a motion for certiorari with RTC, which declared the AO null and
void, explaining that piloting, as a profession, was a property right, and that to
deprive it would require due process in this case, the proper public hearings with
those concerned.

OP filed motion with SC for certiorari.

Issue: W/N AO 04-92 was issued in stark disregard of respondents right to
due process of law

NO FOR PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS
Procedural due process refers to the method or manner by which the law is forced.
As long as a party was given an opportunity to defend his interests in due course, he
cannot be said to have been denied due process, for this opportunity to be heard is
the very essence of due process. Respondents questioned AO 04-92 four times
before the case was brought to the Supreme Court. Neither does the fact that the
pilots were not notified taint the process. As a general rule, notice and hearing (as
fundamental requirements of due process) are required only when an
administrative body exercises its quasi-judicial function, not when it exercises its
executive or legislative functions, such as issuing rules and regulations.

YES FOR SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS
Substantive due process requires that the law itself, not merely the procedure by
which the law would be enforced, is fair, reasonable and just. In this case, there is no
dispute that pilotage as a profession has taken on the nature of a property right. It
may be practiced only by licensed individuals. A license is a right or permission
granted by some competent authority to carry on a business or to do an act which,
without such license, would be illegal. Their license is granted in the form of an
appointment to practice their profession until 70 years. This is a vested right. AO
04-92 unduly restricts the right of harbor pilots to enjoy their profession
before their compulsory retirement. In the past, they enjoyed a measure of
security but under the new issuance, they have to contend with an annual
cancellation of their license. Thus, AO 04-92 is unreasonable and
constitutionally affirm.