Kwong Sing vs. City of Manila G.R. No.

L-15972 October 11, 1920

Facts: Petitioner challenges the validity of Ordinance No. 532 of the city of Manila requiring receipts in
duplicate in English and Spanish duly signed showing the kind and number of articles delivered by laundries and dyeing and cleaning establishments. In the lower court, the prayer of the complaint was for a preliminary injunction was granted, however the prayer for permanent injunction was denied. On appeal, appellant claims that Ordinance No. 532 savors of class legislation; that it unjustly discriminates between persons in similar circumstances; and that it constitutes an arbitrary infringement of property rights.

Issue: Whether or not Ordinance No. 532 discriminates against Chinese Held: NO, The life, liberty, or property of persons cannot be taken without due process of law; they are
entitled to the equal protection of the laws without regard to their race; and treaty rights, as effectuated between the United States and China, must be accorded them. 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 every one of them without distinction, must comply with the ordinance. There is no privilege, no discrimination, and 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. Hence, the judgment is affirmed, and the petition for a preliminary injunction is denied.

Congressman Francisco B. Aniag, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections and Department of Justice Special Task Force G.R. No. 104961 October 7, 1994

Facts: Petitioner assails the constitutionality of COMELEC Resolution No. 2327 on 26 December 1991,
providing for the summary disqualification of candidates engaged in gunrunning, using and transporting of firearms, organizing special strike forces, and establishing spot checkpoints, issued in accordance with COMELEC Resolution No. 2323 otherwise referred to as the "Gun Ban." On 10 January 1992 Petitioners driver, Ernesto Arellano, while complying with the order of Mr. Serapio P. Taccad, Sergeant-at-Arms of The House of Representatives to surrender the 2 firearms in possession of the Petitioner, was apprehended and detained by the Philippine National Police. Upon explaining their case, the Office of the City Prosecutor issued a resolution on March 6, 1992 which, among other matters, recommended that the case against Arellano be dismissed and that the "unofficial" charge against petitioner be also dismissed. Nevertheless, COMELEC issued directed the filing of information against petitioner and Arellano for violation of the Omnibus Election Code, in relation to Sec. 32 of R.A. No. 7166; and petitioner to show cause why he should not be disqualified pursuant to COMELEC Resolution No. 2327. Petitioner moved for reconsideration and to hold in abeyance the administrative proceedings as well as the filing of the information in court. However petitioner's motion was denied.

Issue: Whether or not Petitioners right to due process was violated Held: YES, the manner by which COMELEC proceeded against petitioner runs counter to the due
process clause of the Constitution. The facts show that petitioner was not among those charged by the PNP with violation of the Omnibus Election Code. Nor was he subjected by the City Prosecutor to a preliminary investigation for such offense. The non-disclosure by the City Prosecutor to the petitioner that he was a respondent in the preliminary investigation is violative of due process which requires that the procedure established by law should be obeyed. The act of the City Prosecutor of inviting petitioner to shed light to the circumstances leading to the arrest of the latters driver does not satisfy the requirement of due process the essence of which is the reasonable opportunity to be heard and to submit any evidence one may have in support of his defense. Due process guarantees the observance of both substantive and procedural rights, whatever the source of such rights, be it the Constitution itself or only a statute or a rule of court. In Go v. Court of Appeals, the Court held that The right to have a preliminary investigation conducted before being bound over to trial for a criminal offense and hence formally at risk of incarceration or some other penalty is not a mere formal or technical right; it is a substantive right.

Yu Cong Eng v. Trinidad 271 U.S. 500 June 7, 1926

Facts: Petitioner appeals to the Court the decision of the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands
denying an original petition for a writ of prohibition against officials in the Philippine Islands to prevent enforcement by criminal proceedings of Act No. 2972 of the Philippine Legislature, known as the Chinese Bookkeeping Act, making it an offense to keep business account books in any language except English, Spanish, or a Filipino dialect. The petitioners aver that the Act, if enforced, will deprive the petitioners, and the 12,000 Chinese merchants whom they represent, of their liberty and property without due process of law, and deny them the equal protection of the laws, in violation of the Philippine Autonomy Act of Congress of August 29, 1916,

Issue: Whether or not Act No. 972 deprives petitioner of their liberty and property without due process
of law, and denies them the equal protection of the laws.

Held: Yes, the Philippine government may make every reasonable requirement of its taxpayers to keep
proper records of their business transactions in English or Spanish or Filipino dialect by which an adequate measure of what is due from them in meeting the cost of government can be had. How detailed those records should be is not within the police power of the Philippine Legislature, because it would be oppressive and arbitrary, to prohibit all Chinese merchants from maintaining a set of books in the Chinese language, and in the Chinese characters, and thus prevent them from keeping advised of the status of their business and directing its conduct. It would greatly and disastrously curtail their liberty of action, and be oppressive and damaging in the preservation of their property. The legislature may not, under the guise of protecting the public interests, arbitrarily interfere with private business or impose unusual and unnecessary restrictions upon lawful occupations. In other words, its determination as to what is a proper exercise of its police powers is not final or conclusive, but is subject to the supervision of the courts. Hence the law in question was held to be invalid.