EMINENT

DOMAIN Commission would be used not only for informing

the public about the identities, qualifications and
Philippine Press Institute vs. programs of government of candidates for elective
COMELEC office but also for "dissemination of vital election
TAKING IN EMINENT DOMAIN. - To compel print information" (including, presumably, circulars,
media companies to donate "Comelec space" of the regulations, notices, directives, etc. issued by
dimensions specified in Section 2 of resolution No. Comelec). It seems to the Court a matter of judicial
2772 (not less than one-half Page), amounts to notice that government offices and agencies
"taking" of private personal property for public use (including the Supreme Court) simply purchase print
or purposes. Section 2 failed to specify the intended space, in the ordinary course of events, when their
frequency of such compulsory "donation:" only rules and regulations, circulars, notices and so forth
once during the period from 6 March 1995 (or 21 need officially to be brought to the attention of the
March 1995) until 12 May 1995? or everyday or general public.
once a week? or has often as Comelec may direct
during the same period? the extent of the taking or The taking of private property for public use it, of
deprivation is not insubstantial; this is not a case of course, authorized by the Constitution, but not
a de minimis temporary limitation or restraint upon without payment of "just compensation" (Article III,
the use of private property. The monetary value of Section 9). And apparently the necessity of paying
the compulsory "donation," measured by the compensation for "Comelec space" is precisely what
advertising rates ordinarily charged by newspaper is sought to be avoided by respondent Commission,
publishers whether in cities or in non-urban areas, whether Section 2 of resolution No. 2772 is read as
may be very substantial indeed. petitioner PPI reads it, as an assertion of authority
to require newspaper publishers to "donate" free
The taking of print space here sought to be effected print space for Comelec purpose, or as an exhortion,
may first be appraised under the public of or perhaps an appeal, to publishers to donate free
expropriation of private personal property for public print space, as Section 1 of Resolution No. 2772-A
use. The threshold requisites for a lawful taking of attempts to suggest. There is nothing at all to
private property for public use need to be examined prevent newspaper and magazine publishers from
here: one is the necessity for the taking; another is voluntarily giving free print space to Comelec for the
the legal authority to effect the taking. The element purposes contemplated in Resolution No. 2772.
of necessity for the taking has not been shown by Section 2 of resolution No. 2772 does not, however,
respondent Comelec. It has not been suggested that provide a constitutional basis for compelling
the members of PPI are unwilling to sell print space publishers, against their will, in the kind of factual
at their normal rates to Comelec for election context here present, to provide free print space for
purposes. Indeed, the unwillingness or reluctance of Comelec purposes. Section 2 does not constitute a
Comelec to buy print space lies at the heart of the valid exercise of the power of eminent domain.
problem. Similarly, it has not been suggested, let
alone demonstrated, that Comelec has been Manosca vs. Court of Appeals
granted the power of imminent domain either by
PUBLIC USE: This Court is asked to resolve whether
the Constitution or by the legislative authority. A
or not the "public use" requirement of Eminent
reasonable relationship between that power and
Domain is extant in the attempted expropriation by
the enforcement and administration of election
the Republic of a 492-square- meter parcel of land
laws by Comelec must be shown; it is not casually to
so declared by the National Historical Institute
be assumed. ("NHI") as a national historical landmark. x x x (the
birthsite of Felix Y. Manalo, the founder of Iglesia Ni
That the taking is designed to subserve "public use" Cristo) x x x The validity of the exercise of the power
is not contested by petitioner PPI. We note only of eminent domain for traditional purposes is
that, under Section 3 of Resolution No. 2772, the beyond question;
free "Comelec space" sought by the respondent
it is not at all to be said, however, that public use circumstances brought about by an increase in
should thereby be restricted to such traditional population and new modes of communication and
uses. The idea that "public use" is strictly limited to transportation. Katz v. Brandon, 156 Conn., 521, 245
clear cases of "use by the public" has long been A.2d 579,586."
discarded. Manosca v. Court of Appeals, 252 SCRA
412 (1996) Petitioners ask: But "(w)hat is the so-called unusual
interest that the expropriation of (Felix Manalo's)
PUBLIC USE IN EMINENT DOMAIN. The term "public birthplace become so vital as to be a public use
use," not having been otherwise defined by the appropriate for the exercise of the power of
constitution, must be considered in its general eminent domain" when only members of the Iglesia
concept of meeting a public need or a public ni Cristo would benefit? This attempt to give some
exigency. Black summarizes the characterization religious perspective to the case deserves little
given by various courts to the term: thus: consideration, for what should be significant is the
"Public Use. Eminent domain. The constitutional principal objective of, not the casual consequences
and statutory basis for taking property by eminent that might follow from, the exercise of the power.
domain. For condemnation purposes, 'public use' is The purpose in setting up the marker is essentially
one which confers some benefit or advantage to the to recognize the distinctive contribution of the late
public; it is not confined to actual use by public. It is Felix Manalo to the culture of the Philippines, rather
measured in terms of right of public to use proposed than to commemorate his founding and leadership
facilities for which condemnation is sought and, as of the Iglesia ni Cristo. The practical reality that
long as public has right of use, whether exercised by greater benefit may be derived by members of the
one or many members of public, a 'public Iglesia ni Cristo than by most others could well be
advantage' or 'public benefit' accrues sufficient to true but such a peculiar advantage still remains to
constitute a public use. be merely incidental and secondary in nature.
Indeed, that only a few would actually benefit from
"Public use, in constitutional provisions restricting the expropriation of property does not necessarily
the exercise of the right to take private property in diminish the essence and character of public use.
virtue of eminent domain, means a use concerning
the whole community as distinguished from EPZA vs. Dulay
particular individuals. But each and every member DETERMINATION OF JUST COMPENSATION: It is
of society need not be equally interested in such violative of due process to deny to the owner the
use, or be personally and directly affected by it; if
opportunity to prove that the valuation in the tax
the object is to satisfy a great public want or
documents is unfair or wrong. And it is repulsive to
exigency, that is sufficient. Rindge Co. vs. Los
basic concepts of justice and fairness to allow the
Angeles County, 262 U.S. 700, 43 S.Ct. 689, 692, 67
haphazard work of a minor bureaucrat or clerk to
L.Ed. 1186.
absolutely prevail over the judgment of a court

promulgated only after expert commissioners have
The term may be said to mean public usefulness,
actually viewed the property, after evidence and
utility, or advantage, or what is productive of
arguments pro and con have been presented, and
general benefit. It may be limited to the inhabitants
after all factors and considerations essential to a fair
of a small or restricted locality, but must be in
and just determination have been judiciously
common, and not for a particular individual. The use
evaluated. x x x P.D. No. 1533, which eliminates the
must be a needful one for the public, which cannot
court's discretion to appoint commissioners
be surrendered without obvious general loss and pursuant to Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, is
inconvenience. A 'public use' for which land may be unconstitutional and void. EPZA v. Dulay, 149 SCRA
taken defies absolute definition for it changes with 305 (1987)
varying conditions of society, new appliances in the
sciences, changing conceptions of scope and
functions of government, and other differing
DETERMINATION OF JUST COMPENSATION IS A such amount. A return to the earlier well-
POWER THAT BELONGS TO THE COURT. The established doctrine, to our mind, is more in keeping
determination of "just compensation" in with the principle that the judiciary should live up to
eminent domain cases is a judicial function. The its mission "by vitalizing and not denigrating
executive department or the legislature may make constitutional rights." (See Salonga v. Cruz Paño,
the initial determinations but when a party claims a 134 SCRA 438, 462; citing Mercado v. Court of First
violation of the guarantee in the Bill of Rights that Instance of Rizal, 116 SCRA 93.)
private property may not be taken for public use
without just compensation, no statute, decree, or The doctrine we enunciated in National Housing
executive order can mandate that its own Authority v. Reyes, supra, therefore, must
determination shall prevail over the court's findings. necessarily be abandoned if we are to uphold this
Much less can the courts be precluded from looking Court's role as the guardian of the fundamental
into the "just- ness" of the decreed compensation. rights guaranteed by the due process and equal
protection clauses and as the final arbiter over
The method
of ascertaining just transgressions committed against constitutional
compensation
decrees constitutes impermissible rights.
encroachment on judicial prerogatives. It tends to
render this Court initial in a matter which under the Just compensation means the value of the property
Constitution is reserved to it for final determination. at the time of the taking. It means a fair and full
Thus, although in an expropriation proceeding the equivalent for the loss sustained. All the facts as to
court technically would still have the power to the condition of the property and its surroundings,
determine the just compensation for the property, its improvements and capabilities, should be
following the applicable decrees, its task would be considered.
relegated to simply stating the lower value of the
property as declared either by the owner or the In this particular case, the tax declarations
assessor. As a necessary consequence, it would be presented by the petitioner as basis for just
useless for the court to appoint commissioners compensation were made by the Lapu-Lapu
under Rule 67 of the Rules of Court. Moreover, the municipal, later city assessor long before martial
need to satisfy the due process clause in the taking law, when land was not only much cheaper but
of private property is seemingly fulfilled since it when assessed values of properties were stated in
cannot be said that a judicial proceeding was not figures constituting only a fraction of their true
had before the actual taking. market value. The private respondent was not even
the owner of the properties at the time. It
However, the strict application of the decrees purchased the lots for development purposes. To
during the proceedings would be nothing short of a peg the value of the lots on the basis of documents
mere formality or charade as the court has only to which are out of date and at prices below the
choose between the valuation of the owner and that acquisition cost of present owners would be
of the assessor, and its choice is always limited to arbitrary and confiscatory.
the lower of the two. The court cannot exercise its
discretion or independence in determining what is Municipality of Parañaque vs. V.M.
just or fair. Even a grade school pupil could
substitute for the judge insofar as the determination Realty Corp.
of constitutional just compensation is concerned. CONDITIONS FOR THE VALID EXERCISE OF EMINENT
We are convinced and so rule that the trial court DOMAIN BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS. Petitioner
correctly stated that the valuation in the decree may contends that a resolution approved by the
only serve as a guiding principle or one of the factors municipal council for the purpose of initiating an
in determining just compensation but it may not expropriation case "substantially complies with the
substitute the court's own judgment as to what requirements of the law" because the terms
amount should be awarded and how to arrive at "ordinance" and "resolution" are
synonymous
for “the purpose of based on the fair market value at the time of the
bestowing
government unit through its chief taking of the property."
executive to initiate the expropriation proceedings Thus, the following essential requisites must concur
in court in the exercise of the power of eminent before an LGU can exercise the
power of eminent
domain." Petitioner seeks to bolster this contention domain:
by citing Article 36, Rule VI of the Rules and 1. An ordinance is enacted by the local
Regulations Implementing the Local Government legislative council authorizing the local chief
Code, which provides: executive, in behalf of the LGU, to exercise the
"If the LGU fails to acquire a private property power of eminent domain or pursue expropriation
for public use, purpose, or welfare through proceedings over a particular private property.
purchase, the LGU may expropriate said property 2. The power of eminent domain is exercised
through a resolution of the Sanggunian authorizing for public use, purpose or welfare, or for the benefit
its chief executive to initiate expropriation of the poor and the landless.
proceedings." 3. There is payment of just compensation, as
required under Section 9, Article III of the
The Court disagrees. The power of eminent domain Constitution, and other pertinent laws.
is lodged in the legislative branch of government, 4. A valid and definite offer has been
which may delegate the exercise thereof to LGUs, previously made to the owner of the property
other public entities and public utilities. An LGU may sought to be expropriated, but said offer was not
therefore exercise the power to expropriate private accepted.
property only when authorized by Congress and
subject to the latter's control and restraints
imposed "through the law conferring the power or Republic vs. Lim
in other legislations." In this case, Section 19 of RA DOCTRINE: REPUBLIC VS. LIM RECOVERY OF
7160, which delegates to LGUs the power of EXPROPRIATED LAND: In summation, while the
eminent domain, also lays down the parameters for prevailing doctrine is that "the non- payment of just
its exercise. It provides as follows: compensation does not entitle the private
"Section 19. Eminent Domain. — A local landowner to recover possession of the
government unit may, through its chief executive expropriated lots, however, in cases where the
and acting pursuant to an ordinance, exercise the government failed to pay just compensation within
power of eminent domain for public use, or five (5) years from the finality of the judgment in the
purpose, or welfare for the benefit of the poor and expropriation proceedings, the owners concerned
the landless, upon payment of just compensation, shall have the right to recover possession of their
pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution and property. This is in consonance with the principle
pertinent laws. that "the government cannot keep the property and
dishonor the judgment." To be sure, the five-year
Provided, however, That the power of eminent period limitation will encourage the government to
domain may not be exercised unless a valid and pay just compensation punctually. This is in keeping
definite offer has been previously made to the with justice and equity. After all, it is the duty of the
owner, and such offer was not accepted: government, whenever it takes property from
Provided, further, That the local government unit private persons against their will, to facilitate the
may immediately take possession of the property payment of just compensation. In Cosculluela v.
upon the filing of the expropriation proceedings and Court of Appeals, we defined just compensation as
upon making a deposit with the proper court of at not only the correct determination of the amount to
least fifteen percent (15%) of the fair market value be paid to the property owner but also the payment
of the property based on the current tax declaration of the property within a reasonable time. Without
of the property to be expropriated: Provided, finally, prompt payment, compensation cannot be
That, the amount to be paid for the expropriated considered "just."
property shall be determined by the proper court,
TAXATION community, and thus the public welfare, may be
ultimately benefited by their promotion. Incidental
Sison vs. Ancheta to the public or to the state, which results from the
Limitation on due process. It is undoubted that it promotion of private interest and the prosperity of
may be invoked where a taxing statute is so private enterprises or business, does not justify
arbitrary that it finds no support in the their aid by the use public money.
Constitution. An obvious example is where it can
be shown to amount to the confiscation of The rule is set forth in Corpus Juris Secundum in
property from abuse of power. Petitioner alleges the following language: In accordance with the rule
arbitrariness but his mere allegation does not that the taxing power must be exercised for public
suffice and there must be a factual foundation of purposes only, discussed surprasec. 14, money
such unconstitutional taint. raised by taxation can be expended only for public
purposes and not for the advantage of private
Limitation on equal protection clause. It suffices individuals.
that the laws operate equally and uniformly on all Explaining the reason underlying said rule, Corpus
persons under similar circumstances, both in the
Juris Secundum states: Generally, under the
privileges conferred and the liabilities imposed. On
express or implied provisions of the constitution,
the matter that the rule of taxation shall be
public funds may be used only for public purpose.
uniform and equitable – this requirement is met

when the tax operates with the same force and
The right of the legislature to appropriate funds is
effect in every place where the subject may be
correlative with its right to tax, and, under
found.” Also, the rule of uniformity does not call
constitutional provisions against taxation except
for perfect uniformity or perfect equality, because
for public purposes and prohibiting the collection
this is hardly unattainable.” When the problem of
of a tax for one purpose and the devotion thereof
classification became the issue, the Court said:
to another purpose, no appropriation of state
“Equality and uniformity in taxation means that all
funds can be made for other than a public purpose.
taxable articles or kinds of property of the same
The test of constitutionality of a statute requiring
class shall be taxed the same rate. The taxing the use of public funds is whether the statute is
power has the authority to make reasonable and designed to promote the public interest, as
natural classifications for purposes of taxation..” As opposed to the furtherance of the advantage of
provided by this Court, where “the differentiation” individuals, although each advantage to individuals
complained of conforms to the practical dictates of might incidentally serve the public.
justice and equity it is not discriminatory within the
meaning of this clause and is therefore uniform. Needless to say, this Court is fully in accord with
the foregoing views which apart from being
Pascual vs. Secretary of Public patently sound, are a necessary corollary to our
democratic system of government, which, as such,
Works exists primarily for the promotion of the general
Public money may only be appropriated for public welfare. Besides, reflecting as they do, the
purpose. As regards the legal feasibility of established jurisprudence in the US< after whose
appropriating public funds for a public purpose, the constitutional system ours has been patterned,
principle according to Ruling Case Law, is this: “It is said views and jurisprudence are, likewise, part and
a general rule that the legislature is without power parcel of our own constitutional law.
to appropriate public revenue for anything but a
public purpose. It is the essential character of the The validity of the appropriation is determined
direct object of the expenditure which must under the circumstances prevailing at the time of
determine its validity as justifying a tax, and not appropriation and not on subsequent events.
the magnitude of the interest to be affected nor The validity of a statute depends upon the powers
the degree to which the general advantage of the of Congress at the time of its passage or approval,
not upon events occurring, or acts performed, Lladoc vs. Commissioner of Internal
subsequently thereto, unless the latter consists of
an amendment of the organic law, removing, with Revenue
retrospective operation, the constitutional The tax exemption under Section 28(3), Art. VI,
limitation infringed by said statute. Referring to the applies only to real property tax and not to excise
P85,000,00 appropriation for the projected feeder taxes.
roads in question, the legality thereof depended
upon whether said roads were public or private Section 22 (3), Art. VI of the Constitution of the
property when the bill, which, latter on, Philippines, exempts from taxation cemeteries,
became Republic Act 920, was passed by Congress, churches and convents, appurtenant all lands,
or, when said bill was approved by the President and buildings, and used exclusively for religious
the disbursement of said sum became effective, or purposes. The exemption is only from the payment
on June 20, 1953 (see section 13 of said Act). parsonages or thereto, and improvements of taxes
Inasmuch as the land on which the projected feeder assessed on such properties enumerated, as
roads were to be constructed belonged then to property taxes, as contradistinguished from excise
respondent Zulueta, the result is that said taxes.
appropriation sought a private purpose, and hence,
was null and void. 4 The donation to the In the present case, what the Collector assessed was
Government, over five (5) months after the approval a donee's gift tax; the assessment was not on the
and effectivity of said Act, made, according to the properties themselves. It did not rest upon general
petition, for the purpose of giving a "semblance of ownership; it was an excise upon the use made of
legality", or legalizing, the appropriation in question, the properties, upon the exercise of the
did not cure its aforementioned basic defect. privilege of receiving the properties (Phipps vs. Com.
Consequently, a judicial nullification of said of Int. Rec. 91 F 2d 627). Manifestly, gift tax is not
donation need not precede the declaration of within the exempting provisions of the section just
unconstitutionality of said appropriation. mentioned. A gift tax is not a property tax, but an
excise tax imposed on the transfer of property by
way of gift inter vivos, the imposition of which on
Punsalan vs. Municipal Board of property used exclusively for religious purposes,
Manila does not constitute an impairment of the
CASE DOCTRINE: Double taxation is not prohibited Constitution. As well observed by the learned
under the Constitution unless it is unduly oppressive respondent Court, the phrase "exempt from
and violates equal protection clause. taxation," as employed in the Constitution (supra)
should not be interpreted to mean exemption from
The argument against double taxation may not be all kinds of taxes. And there being no clear, positive
invoked where one tax is imposed by the state and or express grant of such privilege by law, in favor of
the other is imposed by the city (1 Cooley on petitioner, the exemption herein must be denied.
Taxation, 4th ed., p. 492), it being widely recognized
that there is nothing inherently obnoxious in the
requirement that license fees or taxes be exacted Abra Valley College vs. Aquino
with respect to the same occupation, calling or Exemption extends to uses which are incidental to
activity by both the state and the political the main purposes. As early as 1916 in YMCA of
subdivisions thereof. (51 Am. Jur., 341.) Manila vs. Collector of lnternal Revenue, 33 Phil. 217
[1916], this Court ruled that while it may be true
that the YMCA keeps a lodging and a boarding house
and maintains a restaurant for its members, still
these do not constitute business in the ordinary
acceptance of the word, but an institution used
exclusively for religious, charitable and educational
purposes, and as such, it is entitled to be exempted Section 22, paragraph 3 of the 1935 Philippine
from taxation. Constitution, reasonable emphasis has always been
made that exemption extends to facilities which are
In the case of Bishop of Nueva Segovia v. Provincial incidental to and reasonably necessary for the
Board of Ilocos Norte, 51 Phil. 352 [1972], this Court accomplishment of the main purposes. Otherwise
included in the stated, the use of the school building or lot for
exemption a vegetable garden in an adjacent lot and commercial purposes is neither contemplated by
another lot formerly used as a cemetery. It was law, nor by jurisprudence. Thus, while the use of the
clarified that the term "used exclusively" considers second floor of the main building in the case at bar
incidental use also. Thus, the exemption from for residential purposes of the Director and his
payment of land tax in favor of the convent includes, family, may find justification under the concept of
not only the land actually occupied by the building incidental use, which is complimentary to the main
but also the adjacent garden devoted to the or primary purpose— educational, the lease of the
incidental use of the parish priest. The lot which is first floor thereof to the Northern Marketing
not used for commercial purposes but serves solely Corporation cannot by any stretch of the
as a sort of lodging place, also qualifies for imagination be considered incidental to the purpose
exemption because this constitutes incidental use in of education.
religious functions.
DUE PROCESS
The phrase "exclusively used for educational
purposes" was further clarified by this Court in the
Ichong vs Hernandez
BALANCING OF INTERESTS IN DUE PROCESS. The
cases of Herrera vs. Quezon City Board of
conflict between police power and the guarantees
assessment Appeals, 3 SCRA 186 [1961] and
of due process and equal protection of the laws is
Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Bishop of the
more apparent than real. Properly related, the
Missionary District, 14 SCRA 991 [1965], thus —
power and the guarantees are supposed to coexist.
Moreover, the exemption in favor of property used
The balancing is the essence, or the indispensable
exclusively for charitable or educational purposes is
'not limited to property actually indispensable' means for the attainment of legitimate aspirations
therefor (Cooley on Taxation, Vol. 2,p. 1430), but of any democratic society. There can be no absolute
extends to facilities which are incidental to and power, whoever exercises it, for that would be
reasonably necessary forthe accomplishment of tyranny. Yet there can neither be absolute liberty,
said purposes, such as in the case of hospitals, "a for that would mean license and anarchy. So the
school for training nurses, a nurses' home, property State can deprive persons of life, liberty or property,
use to provide housing facilities for interns, resident provided there is due process of law; and persons
doctors, superintendents, and other members of may be classified into classes and groups, provided
the hospital staff, and recreational facilities for everyone is given the equal protection of the law.
student nurses, interns, and residents' (84 CJS The test or standard, as always, is reason. The police
6621), such as "Athletic fields" including "a firm used power legislation must be firmly grounded on public
for the inmates of the institution. (Cooley Taxation, interest and welfare, and a reasonable relation must
Vol. 2, p. 1430). exist between purposes and means. And if
distinction or classification has been made, there
On The test of exemption from taxation is the use of must be a reasonable basis for said distinction.
the property for purposes mentioned in the
Constitution (Apostolic Prefect v. City Treasurer of Philippine Phosphate Fertilizer
Baguio, 71 Phil, 547 [1941]). Corp. vs. Torres

It must be stressed however, that while this Court
THE RIGHT TO HEARING AS AN ELEMENT OF DUE
allows a more liberal and non- restrictive
PROCESS DOES NOT CALL FOR A TRIAL TYPE
interpretation of the phrase "exclusively used for
HEARING. We do not see it the way PHILPHOS does
educational purposes" as provided for in Article VI,
here. The essence of due process is simply an the ideal. In the case of the due process clause,
opportunity to be heard or, as applied to however, this rule was deliberately not followed and
administrative proceedings, an opportunity to the wording was purposely kept ambiguous. In fact,
explain one's side or an opportunity to seek a a proposal to delineate it more clearly was
reconsideration of the action or ruling complained submitted in the Constitutional Convention of 1934,
of. Where, as in the instant case, petitioner but it was rejected by Delegate Jose P. Laurel,
PHILPHOS agreed to file its position paper with the Chairman of the Committee on the Bill of Rights,
Mediator-Arbiter and to consider the case who forcefully argued against it. He was sustained
submitted for decision on the basis of the position by the body.
papers filed by the parties, there was sufficient
compliance with the requirement of due process, as The due process clause was kept intentionally vague
petitioner was afforded reasonable opportunity to so it would remain also conveniently resilient. This
present its side. Moreover, petitioner could have, if was felt necessary because due process is not, like
it so desired, insisted on a hearing to confront and some provisions of the fundamental law, an "iron
examine the witnesses of the other party. But it did rule" laying down an implacable and immutable
not; instead, it opted to submit its position paper command for all seasons and all persons. Flexibility
with the Mediator- Arbiter. Besides, petitioner had must be the best virtue of the guaranty. The very
all the opportunity to ventilate its arguments in its elasticity of the due process clause was meant to
appeal to the Secretary of Labor. make it adapt easily to every situation, enlarging or
constricting its protection as the changing times and
What is the essence of administrative due process? circumstances may require.
The essence of due process is simply an opportunity
to be heard or, as applied to administrative Aware of this, the courts have also hesitated to
proceedings, an opportunity to explain one's side or adopt their own specific description of due process
an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the lest they confine themselves in a legal straitjacket
action or ruling complained of. Where, as in the that will deprive them of the elbow room they may
instant case, petitioner PHILPHOS agreed to file its need to vary the meaning of the clause whenever
position paper with the Mediator-Arbiter and to indicated. Instead, they have preferred to leave the
consider the case submitted for decision on the import of the protection open-ended, as it were, to
basis of the position papers filed by the parties, be "gradually ascertained by the process of inclusion
there was sufficient compliance with the and exclusion in the course of the decision of cases
requirement of due process, as petitioner was as they arise." Thus, Justice Felix Frankfurter of the
afforded reasonable opportunity to present its side. U.S. Supreme Court, for example, would go no
Moreover, petitioner could have, if it so desired, farther than to define due process -
insisted on a hearing to confront and examine the andinsodoingsumsitallup—as nothing more and
witnesses of the other party. But it did not; instead, nothing less than "the embodiment of the sporting
it opted to submit its position paper with the idea of fair play."
Mediator- Arbiter. Besides, petitioner had all the
opportunity to ventilate its arguments in its appeal What are the minimum requirements of due
to the Secretary of Labor. process?
The minimum requirements of due process are
Ynot vs. IAC notice and hearing which, generally speaking, may
not be dispensed with because they are intended as
THE CONCEPT OF DUE PROCESS WAS NOT GIVEN
EXACT DEFINITION FOR RESILIENCY. a safeguard against official arbitrariness.
It is part of the art of constitution-making that the
provisions of the charter be cast in precise and Are Notice and Hearing imperative meaning
unmistakable language to avoid controversies that indispensable? Yes. Absolute? No. What are the
might arise on their correct interpretation. That is exceptions?
1. The conclusive presumption, for example, the jurisprudence of this country is rich with
bars the admission of contrary evidence as applications of this guaranty as proof of our fealty to
long as such presumption is based on human the rule of law and the ancient rudiments of fair
experience or there is a rational connection play. We have consistently declared that every
between the fact proved and the fact person, faced by the awesome power of the State,
ultimately presumed therefrom. is entitled to "the law of the land," which Daniel
2. In the summary abatement of a nuisance per Webster described almost two hundred years ago in
se, like a mad dog on the loose, which may the famous Dartmouth College Case, as "the law
be killed on sight because of the immediate which hears before it condemns, which proceeds
danger it poses to the safety and lives of the upon inquiry and renders judgment only after trial."
people. Pornographic materials, It has to be so if the rights of every person are to be
contaminated meat and narcotic drugs are secured beyond the reach of officials who, out of
inherently pernicious and may be summarily mistaken zeal or plain arrogance, would degrade the
destroyed. due process clause into a worn and empty
3. The passport of a person sought for a catchword.
criminal offense may be cancelled without
hearing, to compel his return to the country This is not to say that notice and hearing are
he has fled. 
 imperative in every case for, to be sure, there are a
4. Filthy restaurants may be summarily number of admitted exceptions. The conclusive
padlocked in the interest of the public health presumption, for example, bars the admission of
and bawdy houses to protect the public contrary evidence as long as such presumption is
morals. 
 based on human experience or there is a rational
connection between the fact proved and the fact
Reason for non-requirement of notice and Hearing? ultimately presumed therefrom.
Because of the nature of the property involved or
the urgency of the need to protect the general There are instances when the need for expeditious
welfare from a clear and present danger. action will justify omission of these requisites, as in
the summary abatement of a nuisance per se, like a
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF DUE PROCESS. mad dog on the loose, which may be killed on sight
The closed mind has no place in the open society. It because of the immediate danger it poses to the
is part of the sporting idea of fair play to hear "the safety and lives of the people. Pornographic
other side" before an opinion is formed or a decision materials, contaminated meat and narcotic drugs
is made by those who sit in judgment. Obviously, are inherently pernicious and may be summarily
one side is only one-half of the question; the other destroyed. The passport of a person sought for a
half must also be considered if an impartial verdict criminal offense may be cancelled without hearing,
is to be reached based on an informed appreciation to compel his return to the country he has fled.
of the issues in contention. It is indispensable that Filthy restaurants may be summarily padlocked in
the two sides complement each other, as unto the the interest of the public health and bawdy houses
bow the arrow, in leading to the correct ruling after to protect the public morals. In such instances,
examination of the problem not from one or the previous judicial hearing may be omitted without
other perspective only but in its totality. vice of bias violation of due process in view of the nature of the
or intolerance or ignorance, or worst of all, in property involved or the urgency of the need to
repressive regimes, the insolence of power. protect the general welfare from a clear and present
danger.
The minimum requirements of due process are
notice and hearing which, generally speaking, may
not be dispensed with because they are intended as
a safeguard against official arbitrariness. It is a
gratifying commentary on our judicial system that
What are the essential requirements of duly notified and his failure to appear is
administrative due process? unjustifiable."
1. Right to hearing- it includes right to present
one’s case and submit evidence to support Jurisprudence acknowledges that due process in
thereof; 
 criminal proceedings, in particular, require (a) that
2. The tribunal or body or any of its judges must the court or tribunal trying the case is properly
act on its own Independent consideration of clothed with judicial power to hear and determine
the law and facts of the controversy; 
 the matter before it; (b) that jurisdiction is lawfully
3. The tribunal must consider the evidence acquired by it over the person of the accused; (c)
Presented; 
Evidence presented must be
 that the accused is given an opportunity to be
4. substantial, which means relevant evidence heard; and (d) that judgment is rendered only upon
as a reasonable mind might accept as lawful hearing.
adequate to support a conclusion;
5. The Decision must have something to The above constitutional and jurisprudential
support itself; 
 postulates, by now elementary and deeply
6. The Decision must be based on evidence imbedded in our own criminal justice system, are
presented during hearing or at least mandatory and indispensable. The principles find
contained in the record and disclosed by the universal acceptance and are tersely expressed in
parties; and 
 the oft- quoted statement that procedural due
7. The decision must be rendered in a manner process cannot possibly be met without a "law
that the parties can know the various issues which hears before it condemns, which proceeds
involved and the reason for the decision upon inquiry and renders judgment only after trial."
rendered. 

Aniag vs COMELEC
Alonte vs. Savellano THE RIGHT
to preliminary
INDISPENSABLE ELEMENTS OF CRIMINAL DUE INVESTIGATION,
although does NOT EMANATE
PROCESS. It does seem to the Court that there has FROM THE CONSTITUTION IS AN ESSENTIAL
been undue precipitancy in the conduct of the ELEMENT OF CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS. Moreover,
proceedings. Perhaps the problem could have well the manner by which COMELEC proceeded against
been avoided had not the basic procedures been, to petitioner runs counter to the due process clause of
the Court's perception taken lightly. And in this the Constitution. The facts show that petitioner was
shortcoming, looking at the records of the case, the not among those charged by the PNP with violation
trial court certainly is not alone to blame. Section of the Omnibus Election Code. Nor was he subjected
14, paragraphs (1) and (2), of Article III, of the by the City Prosecutor to a preliminary investigation
Constitution provides the fundamentals. for such offense. The non- disclosure by the City
"(1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal Prosecutor to the petitioner that he was a
offense without due process of law. respondent in the preliminary investigation is
"(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be violative of due process which requires that the
presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and procedure established by law should be obeyed.
shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and
counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of COMELEC argues that petitioner was given the
the accusation against him, to have a speedy, chance to be heard because he was invited to
impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses enlighten the City Prosecutor regarding the
face to face, and to have compulsory process to circumstances leading to the arrest of his driver, and
secure the attendance of witnesses and the that petitioner in fact submitted a sworn letter of
production of evidence in his behalf. However, after explanation regarding the incident. This does not
arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the satisfy the requirement of due process the essence
absence of the accused provided that he has been of which is the reasonable opportunity to be heard
and to submit any evidence one may have in support What is the Overbreadth Doctrine?
of his defense. Due process guarantees the A facial challenge of the statute when a
observance of both substantive and procedural governmental purpose may not be achieved by
rights, whatever the source of such rights, be it the means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and
Constitution itself or only a statute or a rule of court. thereby invade the area of protected freedoms.
In Go v. Court of Appeals, we held that — While the (Ibid)
right to preliminary investigation is statutory rather
than constitutional in its fundamental, since it has in Does the two facial challenge applies to penal
fact been established by statute, it is a component statute? Why?
part of due process in criminal justice. The right to No. The overbreadth and the vagueness doctrines
have a preliminary investigation conducted before have special application only to free-speech cases,
being bound over to trial for a criminal offense and and are not appropriate for testing the validity of
hence formally at risk of incarceration or some other penal statutes.It added that, at any rate, the
penalty is not a mere formal or technical right; it is a challenged provision, under which the therein
substantive right . . . . [T]he right to an opportunity petitioner was charged, is not vague.
to avoid a process painful to anyone save, perhaps,
to hardened criminals is a valuable right. To deny A facial challenge is allowed to be made to a vague
petitioner's claim to a preliminary investigation statute and to one which is overbroad because of
would be to deprive him of the full measure of his possible "chilling effect" upon protected speech.
right to due process. The theory is that "[w]hen statutes regulate or
proscribe speech and no readily apparent
Apparently, petitioner was merely invited during construction suggests itself as a vehicle for
the preliminary investigation of Arellano to rehabilitating the statutes in a single prosecution,
corroborate the latter's explanation. Petitioner then the transcendent value to all society of
was made to believe that he was not a party constitutionally protected expression is deemed to
respondent in the case, so that his written justify allowing attacks on overly broad statutes
explanation on the incident was only intended to with no requirement that the person making the
exculpate Arellano, not petitioner himself. Hence, it attack demonstrate that his own conduct could not
cannot be seriously contended that petitioner was be regulated by a statute drawn with narrow
fully given the opportunity to meet the accusation specificity." The possible harm to society in
against him as he was not apprised that he was permitting some unprotected speech to go
himself a respondent when he appeared before the unpunished is outweighed by the possibility that the
City Prosecutor. protected speech of others may be deterred and
perceived grievances left to fester because of
What are the two facial challenge on the possible inhibitory effects of overly broad statutes.
constitutionality of a statute?
• Void-for-Vagueness Rule 
 This rationale does not apply to penal statutes.
• Overbreadth Doctrine 
 Criminal statutes have general in terrorism effect
resulting from their very existence, and, if facial
What is the Void-for-Vagueness Rule? challenge is allowed for this reason alone, the State
When a statute forbids or requires the doing of an may well be prevented from enacting laws against
act in terms so vague that man of common socially harmful conduct. In the area of criminal law,
intelligence must necessarily guess as to its meaning the law cannot take chances as in the area of free
and differ as to its application, that law is deemed speech.
void. Such kind of statute violates the first essential
requisite of due process of law because it denies the
accused the right to be informed of the charged
against him (Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, G. R. No,
148560, November 19, 2001)