Sei sulla pagina 1di 17

Teodoro v Manalo

-Feb. 14, 2006 Buhol na Manga, San Ildefonso, Bulacan: Raymond and Reynaldo
Manalo detained, beaten up, and tortured by CAFGU on the assumption that they were
affiliated with the NPA. They were held in captivity for 18 months at Fort Magsaysay.
-Sometime during their captivity, Raymond was interrogated by General Palparan. In
exchange for his life, he was advised to tell his parents to refrain from being involved in
political activities (e.g. joining human rights rallies) and to help in contacting their older
brother Rolando Manalo aka "Ka Bestre" in order to make him surrender to the military
-October 2006: Raymond also meets Sherlyn Cadapan in Camp Tecson, who was also
tortured and raped by her abductors. Also in Camp Tecson was Karen Empeno and
Manuel Merino
-November 2006: Respondents and the other detainees were subsequently transferred
to a 24th Infantry Battalion camp in Limay, Bataan. Raymond and Manuel were brought
along during Operation Lubog where NPA sympathizers were taken and killed
-May-June 2007: detainees transferred to Zambales then subsequently returned to
Limay
-June 2007: Raymond witnesses Merino being set afire. One of the military men implies
that Empeno and Cadapan are also dead
-mid-June, the brothers were brought to Pangasinan to help one of their abductors
(Donald Caigas) to farm his land.
-August 13, 2007: Brothers escape from their captors.
-Medical examination (per the Istanbul Protocol) conducted by Dr. Molino two days after
their escape corroborate their account of the physical injuries inflicted upon them
-Petitioner filed Return fo the Writ of Amparo denying the involvement of M/Sgt. Rizal
Hilario aka Rollie Castillo, Gen. Jovito Palparan, and Lt. Gen. Hermogenes Esperon
-CAFGU Auxiliaries (Maximo dela Cruz, Roman dela Cruz, Michael dela Cruz, Randy
Mendoza), an ex-CAA (Marcelo dela Cruz), and civilian Rudy Mendoza all deny
involvement. They rely primarily on the Investigation Report filed by Lt. Col. Ruben U.
Jimenez exonerating them of any wrongdoing
-CA renders a decision in faovr of the Manalo's writ of Amparo, ordering Secretary of
NatDef and AFP Chief of Staff to
-produce all official and unofficial reports of investigation undertaken in
connection to said case
-confirm where M/Sgt. Hilario aka Rollie Castillo and Donald Caigas are currently
assigned
-produce all medical documentation prescribed and personnel who attended to
the petitioners

Issues:
WON there is a continuing violation of the respondent's right to security of person

Ratio:
Yes
-while under detention, they were threatened that if they escaped, their families (and
petitioner's would be killed). Condition has now passed and continuing threat to their life
is more than apparent
-military failed in protecting respondents by perpetrating said abduction themselves.
They further failed to conduct an effective investigation of respondent's abduction
-Said one-day investigation was very limited, superficial, and one-sided.
-No questions were propounded to ascertain the veracity of the statments of the
six implicated CAFGU members and civilians being investigated.
-No witnesses were called to test the alibis given by those implicated
-Nor were the family or neighbors of the respondent involved in said investigation
-thus petitioners ordered to:
(1) produce all official and unofficial reports of investigation undertaken in
connection to said case
(2) confirm where M/Sgt. Hilario aka Rollie Castillo and Donald Caigas are
currently assigned
(3) produce all medical documentation prescribed and personnel who attended to
the petitioners
-production order is not equivalent to a search warrant per Article III, Section 2 of the
1987 Constitution as petitioner's aver. In any case, said provision provides protection of
the people from unreasonable intrusion of the government, not protection of the
government from the demand of the people such as respondents
-production order more along the lines of a subpoena duces tecum, it is a rule of civil
procedure that does not fall within the ambit of unreasonable searches prohibited by the
constitution
-also untenable is the claim that the second and thir relief sought will unnecessarily
compromise and jeopardize exercise of official functions and duties of military officers.
Such disclosure would facilitate serving said parties with notices and court processes in
relation to any investigation and action pertaining to their violation
General Notes:
-Amparo (Spanish lit. protection) Rule promulgated on October 24, 2007, which was meant to address
"extra-legal killings" and "enforced disappearances".
-Extralegal killings: killings committed without due process of law, i.e. without legal safeguards or judicial
proceedings
-Enforced disappearances: arrest, detention, or abduction of a person by:
(1) a government official
(2) or organized groups
(3) or private individuals
with the direct or indirect acquiescence of the government; the refusal of the State to disclose the fate or
whereabouts of the person concerned or a refusal to acknoledge the deprivation of liberty which places
suche persons outside the protection of law.
-Amparo drafted by Manuel Crescencio Rejon for the Yucatan constitution
-Amparo grants judges power to protect all persons in the enjoyment of their constitutional and legal
rights. It combines judicial review with judicial restraints imposed by the civil law tradition prevailing in
Mexico. Allows courts to enforce constitution by protecting individual rights in particular cases, but
prevents them from using said power to make law for the entire nation.
-sub-types:
-amparo libertad: protection of personal freedom
-amparo contra leyes: judicial review of constitutionality of statutes
-amparo casacion: judicial review of constitutionality and legality of a judicial decision
-amparo administrativo: judicial review of administrative actions
-amparo agrario: protection of peasants' rights derived from the agrarian reform process
-While there are pre-existing remedies like the Grave Abuse clause per Article VIII, Section 1 of the 1987
Constitution and habeas corpus, amparo offers a better remedy due to its swiftness (via summary
proceedings requiring only substantial evidence to make appropriate reliefs available to petitioner) and
because of the availability of appropriate interim and permanent reliefs.
-amparo is not an action (involving full and exhaustive proceedings) to determine:
-criminal guilt requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt
-liability for damages requiring preponderance of evidence
-administrative responsibility requiring substantial evidence
-preventive role: breaks expectation of impunity
-curative role: deter further commission of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances
-substantial evidence is the degree of proof required for granting Amparo. Subtantial evidence constitutes
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion
-factual findings of CA per Raymond Manalo's affidavit/testimony affirmed. His account was narrated in a
clear and convincing manner, dotted with countless candid details of his experience
-Raymond's affidavit/testimony corroborated by his brother Reynaldo's affidavit. Testimony and medical
reports by Dr. Molino corroborates physical injuries inflicted on respondents. Raymond's familiarity with
the facilities of Fort Magsaysay's Division Training Unit (DTU) shores up their claim that they were
detained in said facility.
-despite their forced disappearance having ceased, said brothers are still under threat of being once
again abducted or killed, which constitute a direct violation of their right to security of person.
-right to security premised on Article 3 Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution providing:
Sec. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no
search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally
by the judge…
-right to security of person embodies:
-freedom from fear/threat
-guarantee of bodily and psychological integrity or security.
-guarantee of protection of one's rights by the government. This constitutes conducting effective
investigations, organizing institutions for protection of victims and their families, and bringing offenders to
justice
-right to security of person can exist independently of the right to liberty. Deprivation of liberty is not
necessary in order to be able to invoke right to security of person
-right to security not just prohibits the State from arbitrarily depriving liberty, but also imposes a positive
duty on the State to afford protection of the right to liberty
Pestano v GRP-Human Rights Committee

-Phillip Pestano - cargo officer of BRP Bacolod City

-Sept. 25, 1995: Ship commander allows loading of 14k board feet of logs without proper papers
or authorization.

-Sept. 26: victim discloses to his father that unauthorized cargo includes 20 sacks of shabu

-Sept. 27: 4 am, Pestano boards; 11 am: parents asked to proceed to Navy HQ, since Phillip had
an accident. Navy alleges their son committed suicide

-PNP-CID and NBI affirms Navy's findings

-radio operator of BRP Bacolod City (a friend of Phillip Pestano) drowns under highly
suspicious circumstances

-Another member of the Navy (perceived as an ally of Pestano) who was also aboard BRP
Bacolod City during Pestano's death mysteriously disappears

-several Navy Flag Officers ask Felipe Pestano, the victim's father, to refrain from pursuing their
son's case against the Navy. The elder Pestano was offered a hundred million peso contract
together with a waiver of his action against the Navy. Pestano refuses and subsequently, four
ships being repaired by his company sinks mysteriously, and their offices are ransacked and
looted. His nephew, the company's property custodian was also shot dead.

-leaked copy of an armed forces intelligence report states the Phillip was killed to prevent him
from revealing criminal activities aboard the ship
-Senate Committee report investigating the incident concludes that Pestano was murdered

-Case reopened by Ombudsman in December 2005 but was subsequently abandoned then left
uninvestigated thus this petition. Alleging violation of rights under the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights this communication thus submitted

-Authors allege that entire State aside from Senate jointly and severally deprived Phillip of his
right to redress for violation of his rights, denying him justice for twelve years

-State challenges admissibility per exhaustion of administrative remedies, case is pending with
the Ombudsman

-Committee points out that remedies must both be effective and available and must not be unduly
prolonged. Considering 15 years has elapsed since commission of offense, domestic remedies
has been deemed unreasonably prolonged

-threats and unlawful attack against honor inadmissible

-There is a deliberate attempt to make it appear that the authors’ son committed suicide

-author alleges death of multiple people connected to the case and threat by a vice-admiral to
lose their business should they persist in their complaint

-positive obligation insists for a speedy investigation. Merely avowing direct participation of the
state falls short of such an obligation

-State party in breach of obligation to properly investigate death of author’s son, prosecute
perpetrators and ensure redress
Burgos v. Macapagal-Arroyo

Facts/ Issues:
 In 2007, Jonas Burgos was abducted at about 1:30 pm by 4 armed men and a
woman in civilian clothes while having lunch at the HapagKainan Restaurant in
Ever Gotesco Mall, Quezon City.
 On the same year, Jonas’s family files a complaint at the Commission on Human
Rights alleging military involvement in the abduction of Jonas after tracing the
license plate number of the vehicle used in the abduction to a vehicle impounded
in the 56th Infantry Battalion of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. The Burgos
family also filed a complaint with the Intelligence Service of the Armed Forces of
the Philippines, and Task Force-USIG – National Capital Region.
 The Burgos family files a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Philippine Court
of Appeals asking that the government produce Jonas to the court which was
denied, however, by the Armed Forces of the Philippines.
 Almost five years since the disappearance of Jonas Burgos, the Burgos family
concluded their presentation of witnesses and evidences for the Habeas Corpus
Petition. The defense shall start presenting their witnesses in May 2012.
 In light of the latest developments on the abduction case of Jonas Burgos, the
Supreme Court reviews the Court of Appeal’s decision on the consolidated
petitions of Edita Burgos for Habeas Corpus, Contempt and Writ of Amparo.
 The assailed CA decision dismissed the petition for the issuance of the Writ of
Habeas Corpus; denied the petitioner's motion to declare the respondents in
Contempt; and partially granted the privilege of the Writ of Amparo
 Last 2010, the Supreme Court issued a resolution ordering the Commission on
Human Rights to continue the investigation regarding the abduction of Jonas
Burgos. The Court tasked the CHR to conduct further investigations because of
the lapses by the PNP-CIDG
 In this same Resolution, we also affirmed the CA's dismissal of the petitions for
Contempt and for the issuance of a Writ of Amparowith respect to President
Macapagal-Arroyo, as she is entitled as President to immunity from suit.
 March 15, 2011 – The Commission on Human Rights submits its report to the
Supreme Court
 The Commission Submitted the following findings:
a. Based on the facts developed by evidence obtaining in this case, the
CHR finds that the enforced disappearance of Jonas Joseph T. Burgos had
transpired; and that his constitutional rights to life liberty and security were
violated by the Government have been fully determined.

b. In his SinumpaangSalaysay, Jeffrey had a clear recollection of the face


of HARRY AGAGEN BALIAGA, JR. as one of the principal abductors, apart from
the faces of the two abductors in the cartographic sketches that he described to
the police, after he was shown by the Team the pictures in the PMA Year Book of
Batch Sanghaya 2000 and group pictures of men taken some years thereafter.
The same group of pictures were shown to detained former 56th IB Army trooper
Edmond M. Dag-uman (Dag-uman), who also positively identified Lt. Harry
Baliaga, Jr. Daguman'sSinumpaangSalaysaystates that he came to know Lt.
Baliaga as a Company Commander in the 56th IB while he was still in the military
service (with Serial No. 800693, from 1997 to 2002) also with the 56th IB but
under 1Lt. UsmalikTayaban, the Commander of Bravo Company

c. Most if not all the actual abductors would have been identified had it not
been for what is otherwise called as evidentiary difficulties shamelessly put up by
some police and military elites. The deliberate refusal of TJAG Roa to provide the
CHR with the requested documents does not only defy the Supreme Court
directive to the AFP but ipso facto created a disputable presumption that AFP
personnel were responsible for the abduction and that their superiors would be
found accountable, if not responsible, for the crime committed. This observation
finds support in the disputable presumption "That evidence willfully suppressed
would be adverse if produced." (Paragraph (e), Section 3, Rule 131 on Burden of
Proof and Presumptions, Revised Rules on Evidence of the Rules of Court of the
Philippines).
d. As regards the PNP CIDG, the positive identification of former 56th IB
officer Lt. HARRY A. BALIAGA, JR. as one of the principal abductors has effectively
crushed the theory of the CIDG witnesses that the NPAs abducted Jonas. Baliaga's
true identity and affiliation with the military have been established by overwhelming
evidence corroborated by detained former Army trooper Dag-uman.

e. Interview with VirgilioEustaquio, Chairman of the Union Masses for


Democracy and Justice (UMDJ), revealed that the male abductor of Jonas
Burgos appearing in the cartographic sketch was among the raiders who
abducted him and four others, identified as Jim Cabauatan, Jose Curament,
Ruben Dionisio and Dennis Ibona otherwise known as ERAP FIVE.

 WON the CHR report on the disappearance of Jonas Burgos is sufficient enough
for the SC to issue a final ruling and to:
1) Issue a writ of Habeas corpus— YES
2) Declare respondents in contempt— NO
3) Issue a writ of Amparo— NO

Court’s Ruling AMPARO

1. After reviewing the evidence in the present case, the CA findings and our findings in
our June 22, 2010 Resolution heretofore mentioned, including the recent CHR findings
that Lt. Harry A. Baliaga, Jr., (Lt. Baliaga) of the 56th Infantry Battalion, 7th Infantry
Division, Philippine Army is one of the abductors of Jonas, we resolve to hold in
abeyance our ruling on the merits in the Amparoaspect of the present case and refer
this case back to the CA in order to allow Lt. Baliaga and the present
Amparorespondents to file their respective Comments on the CHR Report within a non-
extendible period of fifteen (15) days from receipt of this Resolution.
2. The Court of Appeals shall continue hearing on the Amparo petition.
3. On the non-compliance of the Office of the Judge Advocate General (TJAG) to
provide the CHR with copies of documents relevant to the case of Jonas, and thereby
disobeyed our June 22, 2010 Resolution.
4. Acting on the CHR's recommendation and based on the above considerations, we
resolve to require General Roa of TJAG, AFP, and the Deputy Chief of Staff for
Personnel, JI, AFP, at the time of our June 22, 2010 Resolution, and then incumbent
Chief of Staff, AFP, to show cause and explain, within a non-extendible period of fifteen
(15) days from receipt of this Resolution, why they should not be held in contempt of
this Court for defying our June 22, 2010 Resolution.
Rubi vs Provincial Board of Mindoro

FACTS:
The case is an application for habeas corpus in favor of Rubi and other Manguianes of
the Province of Mindoro. It is alleged that the Maguianes are being illegally deprived of
their liberty by the provincial officials of that province. Rubi and his companions are said
to be held on the reservation established at Tigbao, Mindoro, against their will, and one
Dabalos is said to be held under the custody of the provincial sheriff in the prison at
Calapan for having run away from the reservation.
The provincial governor of Mindoro and the provincial board thereof directed the
Manguianes in question to take up their habitation in Tigbao, a site on the shore of Lake
Naujan, selected by the provincial governor and approved by the provincial board. The
action was taken in accordance with section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917,
and was duly approved by the Secretary of the Interior as required by said action.

Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917 reads as follows:

SEC. 2145. Establishment of non-Christian upon sites selected by provincial governor.


— With the prior approval of the Department Head, the provincial governor of any
province in which non-Christian inhabitants are found is authorized, when such a course
is deemed necessary in the interest of law and order, to direct such inhabitants to take
up their habitation on sites on unoccupied public lands to be selected by him an
approved by the provincial board.

Petitioners, however, challenge the validity of this section of the Administrative Code.

ISSUE:
Does section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917 constitute an unlawful delegation
of legislative power by the Philippine Legislature to a provincial official and a department
head, therefore making it unconstitutional?

HELD:
No. The Philippine Legislature has here conferred authority upon the Province of
Mindoro, to be exercised by the provincial governor and the provincial board.
In determining whether the delegation of legislative power is valid or not, the distinction
is between the delegation of power to make the law, which necessarily involves a
discretion as to what it shall be, and conferring an authority or discretion as to its
execution, to be exercised under and in pursuance of the law. The first cannot be done;
to the later no valid objection can be made. Discretion may be committed by the
Legislature to an executive department or official. The Legislature may make decisions
of executive departments of subordinate official thereof, to whom it has committed the
execution of certain acts, final on questions of fact. The growing tendency in the
decision is to give prominence to the "necessity" of the case.
In enacting the said provision of the Administrative Code, the Legislature merely
conferred upon the provincial governor, with the approval of the provincial board and the
Department Head, discretionary authority as to the execution of the law. This is
necessary since the provincial governor and the provincial board, as the official
representatives of the province, are better qualified to judge “when such as course is
deemed necessary in the interest of law and order”. As officials charged with the
administration of the province and the protection of its inhabitants, they are better fitted
to select sites which have the conditions most favorable for improving the people who
have the misfortune of being in a backward state.

Hence, Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917 is not an unlawful delegation of
legislative power by the Philippine Legislature to provincial official and a department
head
Buck v. Bell

Facts of the case

Carrie Buck was a feeble minded woman who was committed to a state mental
institution. Her condition had been present in her family for the last three generations. A
Virginia law allowed for the sexual sterilization of inmates of institutions to promote the
"health of the patient and the welfare of society." Before the procedure could be
performed, however, a hearing was required to determine whether or not the operation
was a wise thing to do.

Question

Did the Virginia statute which authorized sterilization deny Buck the right to due process
of the law and the equal protection of the laws as protected by the Fourteenth
Amendment?

Conclusion

The Court found that the statute did not violate the Constitution. Justice Holmes made
clear that Buck's challenge was not upon the medical procedure involved but on the
process of the substantive law. Since sterilization could not occur until a proper hearing
had occurred (at which the patient and a guardian could be present) and after the
Circuit Court of the County and the Supreme Court of Appeals had reviewed the case, if
so requested by the patient. Only after "months of observation" could the operation take
place. That was enough to satisfy the Court that there was no Constitutional violation.
Citing the best interests of the state, Justice Holmes affirmed the value of a law like
Virginia's in order to prevent the nation from "being swamped with incompetence . . .
Three generations of imbeciles are enough."
TERRACE vs THOMPSON, November 12, 1923

FACTS:
Appellants questioned the Anti-Alien Land Law which is enforced by the Attorney
General of Washington on the grounds that it is in conflict with the due process and
equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment.

The appellants are residents of Washington. The Terraces are citizens of the US and of
Washington. Nakatsuka was born in Japan of Japanese parents and is a subject of the
emperor of Japan.

The Terraces are the owners of a tract of land in King county and has a desire to lease
their land to Nakatsuka for the period of five years, that the latter desires to accept such
lease. However, the Attorney General, informed the appellants that the Anti-Alien Land
Law will be enforced and the leasehold interest will be forfeited in favor of the state, and
will prosecute them criminally for the violation of the act.

ISSUE:
Whether the Anti-Alien Land Law is repugnant to the due process clause or the equal
protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

HELD:
It is obvious that one who is not a citizen and cannot become one lacks an interest in,
and the power to effectually work for the welfare of, the state, and, so lacking, the state
may rightfully deny him the right to own and lease real estate within its boundaries.

The rights, privileges and duties of aliens differ widely from those of citizens; and those
of alien declarants differ substantially from those of non-declarants. All persons of
whatever color or race who have not declared their intention in good faith to become
citizens are prohibited from so owning agricultural lands. Two classes of aliens
inevitably result from the naturalization laws-those who may and those who may not
become citizens. The rule established by Congress on this subject, in and of itself,
furnishes a reasonable basis for classification in a state law withholding from aliens the
privilege of land ownership as defined in the act. The quality and allegiance of those
who own, occupy and use the farm lands within its borders are matters of highest
importance and affect the safety and power of the state itself.

Thus, the state act is not repugnant to the equal protection clause and does not
contravene the Fourteenth Amendment.
Crespo v. Provincial Board of Nueva Ecija

FACTS:
Petitioner Gregorio Crespo was the elected Municipal Mayor of Cabiao, Nueva Ecija in
the local elections of 1967. An administrative complaint was filed against him by private
respondent Pedro Wycoco for harassment, abuse of authority and oppression. Public
respondent Provincial Board of Nueva Ecija heard the said administrative case without
notifying the petitioner or his counsel and, on the basis of the evidence presented by
private respondent, passed a resolution preventively suspending petitioner from his
office as municipal mayor.

ISSUE(S):
Whether or not the preventive suspension issued by the Provincial Board is arbitrary
and violated the fundamental principle of due process.

RULING:
YES. Petitioner was denied due process by respondent Provincial Board. Undoubtedly,
the order of preventive suspension was issued without giving the petitioner a chance to
be heard. In the proceedings held on 15 February 1971, nothing therein can be
gathered that, in issuing the assailed order, the written explanation submitted by
petitioner was taken into account. The assailed order was issued mainly on the basis of
the evidence presented ex parte by respondent Wycoco.

Petition is DISMISSED for being MOOT and ACADEMIC.


JMM Production and Management v. CA

FACTS:
The government created the Entertainment Industry Advisory Council (EIAC) which was
tasked with issuing guidelines on the training, testing certification and deployment of
performing artists abroad. As a result of such guidelines, the Department of Labor
issued department orders requiring an Artist Record Book for performing artists for
deployment abroad.

ISSUE(S):
Whether or not the assailed department orders violated the equal protection guarantee
of the constitution.

RULING:
NO. The equal protection clause is directed principally against undue favor or class
privilege. It is not intended to prohibit legislation which is limited to the object to which it
is directed or by the territory in which it is to operate. It does not require absolute
equality, but merely that all persons be treated alike under like conditions both as to
privileges conferred and liabilities imposed. The equal protection clause of the
constitution does not forbid classification for so long as such classification is based on
real and substantial differences having a reasonable relation to the subject of the
particular legislation. If classification is germane to the purpose of the law, concerns all
members of the class, and applies equally to present and future conditions, the
classification does not violate the equal protection guarantee.

Petition is DENIED.
Pedro vs Provincial Board of Rizal

G. R. No. 34163, September 18, 1931

Facts: Gregorio Pedro argues for the nullity of Ordinance No. 36, series of 1928,
approved on December 29, 1928, by the temporary councillors appointed by the
provincial governor of Rizal, Eligio Naval, on the ground that (1) it impairs the acquired
rights of said appellant; (2) it was enacted on account of prejudice, because it was
intended for a special and not a general purpose, namely to prevent, at any cost, the
opening, maintenance, and exploitation of the cockpit of the said petitioner-appellant;
and (3) it provides for special committee composed of persons who are not members
of the council, vested them with powers which of their very nature, cannot be delegated
by said council to that committee.

He further contends that, having obtained the proper permit to maintain, exploit, and
open to the public the cockpit in question, having paid the license fee and fulfilled all
the requirements provided by Ordinance No. 35, series of 1928, he has acquired
a right which cannot be taken away from him by Ordinance No. 36, series of 1928,
which was subsequently approved.

Issue: Whether a license authorizing the operation and exploitation of a cockpit falls
under property rights which a person may not be deprived of without due process of law

Held: No.

The court held: (1) That a license authorizing the operation and exploitation of a cockpit
is not property of which the holder may not be deprived without due process of law, but
a mere privilege which may be revoked when the public interests so require; (2) that
the work entrusted by a municipal council to a special sanitary committee to make a
study of the sanitary effects upon the neighborhood of the establishment of a cockpit, is
not legislative in character, but only informational, and may be delegated; and (3) that
an ordinance, approved by a municipal council duly constituted, which suspends the
effects of another which had been enacted to favor the grantee of a cockpit license,
is valid and legal.
Libanan v. Sandiganbayan

FACTS:
Petitioner Marcelino C, Libanan, the incumbent Vice-Governor of Eastern Samar, was a
member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of that province prior to the 11 May 1992
elections. He was suspended from office after he was charged before the
Sandiganbayan with having violated Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019.

ISSUE(S):
Whether or not Libanan’s suspension violated his constitutional right to due process.

RULING:
NO. The suspension order cannot amount to a deprivation of property without due
process of law. Public office is “a public agency or trust,” and it is not the property
envisioned by the Constitutional provision which petitioner invokes.

Petition is DISMISSED.
Kwong sing

FACTS:
The City of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 532 which requires all laundry
establishments in the city to issue receipts in English and Spanish.

ISSUE(S):
Whether or not Ordinance No. 532 is invalid for being arbitrary and oppressive.

RULING:
NO. The ordinance invades no fundamental right, and impairs no personal privilege.
Under the guise of police regulation, an attempt is not made to violate personal property
rights. The ordinance is neither discriminatory nor unreasonable in its operation. It
applies to all public laundries without distinction, whether they belong to Americans,
Filipinos, Chinese, or any other nationality. All, without exception, and each [and]
everyone of them without distinction, must comply with the ordinance. There is no
privilege, no discrimination, no distinction. Equally and uniformly the ordinance applies
to all engaged in the laundry business, and, as nearly as may be, the same burdens are
cast upon them.

Judgment is AFFIRMED. Petition is DISMISSED


Yu Cong Eng v. Trinidad

Facts:
· On 1921, Act No. 2972 or the Chinese Bookkeeping Law was passed, regulating that the
account books should not be in any other language exc. English, Spanish or any dialect,
otherwise a penalty of fine of not more than 10K or imprisonment for not more than 2 years will
be imposed
- fiscal measure intended to facilitate the work of the government agents and to prevent
fraud in the returns of merchants, in conformity with the sales tax and the income tax
· On March 1923, BIR inspected the books of account of Yu Cong Eng where it was found
out that it is not in accordance with Act 2972
· A criminal case was filed against Yu Cong Eng before the CFI Manila for keeping his
books of account in Chinese
· Yu’s defense:
· Yu Cong Eng et al are Chinese merchants, claiming that they represent the other 12K
filed a petition for prohibition and injunction against the CIR, questioning the constitutionality of
Act No. 2972 or the Chinese Bookkeeping Law

Issue: W/N Act No. 2972 is constitutional?

Ruling:
· As a general rule, the question of constitutionality must be raised in the lower court and
that court must be given an opportunity to pass upon the question before it may be presented to
the appellate court for resolution
· Power of taxation
- strongest of all the powers of government, practically absolute and unlimited
- It is a legislative power. All its incidents are within the control of the legislature. It is the
Legislature which must questions of state necessarily involved in ordering a tax, which must
make all the necessary rules and regulations which are to be observed in order to produce the
desired results, and which must decide upon the agencies by means of which collections shall
be made
· The power to tax is not judicial power and that a strong case is required for the judiciary
to declare a law relating to taxation invalid. If, of course, so great an abuse is manifest as to
destroy natural and fundamental rights, it is the duty of the judiciary to hold such an Act
unconstitutional
· The Chinese petitioners are accorded treaty rights of the most favored nation
· Their constitutional rights are those accorded all aliens, which means that the life, liberty,
or property of these persons cannot be taken without due process of law, and that they are
entitled to the equal protection of the laws, without regard to their race
· Act No. 2972 is a fiscal measure which seeks to prohibit not only the Chinese but all
merchants of whatever nationality from making entries in the books of account or forms subject
to inspection for taxation purposes in any other language than either the English or Spanish
language or a local dialect
· the law only intended to require the keeping of such books as were necessary in order to
facilitate governmental inspection for tax purposes
· The Chinese will not be singled out as a special subject for discriminating and hostile
legislation since there are other aliens doing business in the Phils. There will be no arbitrary
deprivation of liberty or arbitrary spoliation of property. There will be no unjust and illegal
discrimination between persons in similar circumstances. The law will prove oppressive to the
extent that all tax laws are oppressive, but not oppressive to the extent of confiscation
· Act No. 2972 as meaning that any person, company, partnership, or corporation,
engaged in commerce, industry, or any other activity for the purpose of profit in the Philippine
Islands, shall keep its account books, consisting of sales books and other records and returns
required for taxation purposes by regulations of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, in effect when
this action was begun, in English, Spanish, or a local dialect, thus valid and constitutional
Layno

FACTS:
Petitioner Hernando C. Layno, Sr., the duly elected Municipal Mayor of Lianga, Surigao
del Sur, was accused “of grave abuse of authority and evident bad faith in the exercise
of his official and/or administrative duties” for “knowing fully well that he has no
authority,” he suspended and prohibited Vice-Mayor Bernardita Resus and three
Sangguniang Bayan members from participating and exercising their official functions”
as such thus causing them injury “consisting of the salaries due to said officials not
[being] received by them.” Respondent Sandiganbayan suspended him on October 26,
1983, notwithstanding petitioner’s opposition to the same.

ISSUE(S):
Whether or not petitioner’s suspension pendente lite violates the due process and equal
protection clauses of the Constitution.

RULING:
YES. Suspension “does not impair petitioner’s foregoing constitutional right since the
same is not a penalty or a criminal punishment, because it was not imposed by the
court in a judgment of conviction or as a result of judicial proceeding.” Further: “The
suspension is merely a precautionary or preventive measure issued even before the
case is tried on its merits, purposely to ensure the fair and just trial of the case.”

Its continuance, however, for an unreasonable length of time raises a due process
question. For even if thereafter he were acquitted, in the meanwhile his right to hold
office had been nullified. Clearly, there would be in such a case an injustice suffered by
him. Nor is he the only victim. There is injustice inflicted likewise on the people of
Lianga.

“In all cases, preventive suspension shall not extend beyond sixty days after the start of
said suspension.”

Petition is GRANTED and the preventive suspension imposed on petitioner is SET


ASIDE
Deloso

FACTS:
The petitioner was the duly elected mayor of Botolan, Zambales in the local elections of
November 1971. While he occupied the position of mayor, a certain Juan Villanueva
filed a letter complaint with the Tanodbayan accusing Deloso of having committed acts
in violation of the Anti-Graft Law (Republic Act 3019) in relation to the award of licenses
to operate fish corrals in the municipal waters of Botolan, Zambales during the period
1976 to 1978 and the issuance of five (5) tractors of the municipality to certain
individuals allegedly without any agreement as to the payment of rentals. Petitioner was
then suspended pendente lite pursuant to Section 13 of Republic Act No. 3019.

ISSUE(S):
Whether or not the petitioner’s suspension is unreasonable and violates the due
process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution.

RULING:
YES. The order of suspension does not have a definite period so that the petitioner may
be suspended for the rest of his term of office unless his case is terminated sooner. An
extended suspension is a distinct possibility considering that the Sandiganbayan denied
the petitioner’s plea for earlier dates of trial of his cases on the ground that there are
other cases set earlier which have a right to expect priority. Under these circumstances
the preventive suspension which initially may be justified becomes unreasonable thus
raising a due process question.

Petition is GRANTED. The preventive suspension imposed on petitioner is limited to


only ninety (90) days without prejudice to the continuation of the trial of the pending
cases against him in the Sandiganbayan.