ROEV.

WADE(DUEPROCESS)

FACTS:

JaneRoewaspregnant(throughrape)andunmarried,yetshewas
unabletoreceivealegalabortioninTexasbyalicensedphysicianbecauseherlifewas
notthreatenedbythecontinuationofherpregnancyandshewasunabletotravel
somewhereelsetohavealegalabortion.

Shefiledasuitagainstthedefendant,DistrictAttorneyHenryWadequestioningTexas
StateLaws,whichproscribeattemptinganabortionexceptonmedical
adviceforthepurposeofsavingthemotherslife.

Shearguesthatsaidlawsareunconstitutionallyvagueandthattheyabridgeherrightof
personalprivacyasguaranteedandprotected

Later,sheamendedhercomplaintastorepresentorsueonbehalfofherselfandall
otherwomensimilarlysituated;therebybecomingaclasssuit.

JamesHubertHallford,alicensedphysician,alsoallegedthatstatueswerevagueand
uncertain,forhehadbeenpreviouslyarrestedforviolationsoftheTexasabortionstatute.

Hedescribedconditionsofpatientswhocametohimseekingabortions,andheclaimed
thatformanycaseshe,asaphysician,wasunabletodeterminewhethertheyfellwithin
oroutsidetheexceptionrecognizedbyArticle1196

JohnandMaryDoewereachildlesscouple.Marywassufferingfrom
"neuralchemical"andphysicianadvisedhertoavoidpregnancyuntilherconditionimproved

Shediscontinuedusingbirthcontrolpillsbecauseofherconditionbutifsheshould
becomepregnant,shewouldwanttoterminatethepregnancybyanabortionperformed
byacompetent,licensedphysicianundersafe,clinicalconditions.

DistrictCourtheldthatthe"fundamentalrightofsinglewomenandmarriedpersons
tochoosewhethertohavechildrenisprotectedbytheNinthAmendment,throughthe
FourteenthAmendment,"andthattheTexascriminalabortionstatuteswere
voidontheirfacebecausetheywerebothunconstitutionallyvagueandconstitutedanoverbroad
infringementoftheplaintiffs'NinthAmendmentrights.

Courtdeclaredtheabortionstatutesvoid

Issue:
WONtheTexasabortionlawimproperlyinvadearightpossessedbytheappellanttoterminate
herpregnancyembodiedintheconceptofpersonallibertycontainedintheFourteenth
AmendmentsDueProcessClause

HELD:YES
Therighttopersonalprivacyincludestheabortiondecision,buttherightisnotunqualified
andmustbeconsideredagainstimportantstateinterestsinregulation.

"Dueprocessoflawisalegalconceptthatensuresthegovernmentwillrespectallofaperson'slegalrightsinstead
ofjustsomeormostofthoselegalrights,whenthegovernmentdeprivesapersonoflife,liberty,orproperty.Due
processhasalsobeeninterpretedasplacinglimitationsonlawsandlegalproceedingsinordertoguarantee
fundamentalfairness,justiceandliberty"toallcitizens

TheSupremeCourthasdeterminedthatthedueprocessclauseimpliesthatgovernmentscannotpasslegislationthat
intrudestoodeeplyintothepersonallifeofitscitizens.Therearelimitstotheabilityofstatestocontrolpersonal
behavior.
Section1ofthe14thAmendmentstates:
"AllpersonsbornornaturalizedintheUnitedStates,andsubjecttothejurisdictionthereof,arecitizensofthe
UnitedStatesandoftheStatewhereintheyreside.NoStateshallmakeorenforceanylawwhichshallabridge
theprivilegesorimmunitiesofcitizensoftheUnitedStates;norshallanyStatedepriveanypersonoflife,
liberty,orproperty,withoutdueprocessoflaw;nordenytoanypersonwithinitsjurisdictiontheequal
protectionofthelaws."

TheSupremeCourtjusticesdeterminedthat,anywhereintheU.S.:(LIMITATIONSNGABORTION)
Duringthefirstthreemonthsofpregnancy,awomanandherphysicianmayjointlydecidetoterminatea
pregnancy.Nosignificantstateinterferenceisallowed.
Laterinpregnancy,statescanrestrictabortionaccesswithlawsbutonlyiftheyareintendedtoprotectthe
woman'shealth.
Oncethefetusisviable(thirdtrimester),anabortionmuststillbeavailableifthewoman'shealthorlifeareatrisk.
Stategovernmentsarefreetopasslegislationthatwillalloworprohibitlatetermabortionsthoseonaviablefetus
forotherreasons.

TERMINALFACILITIESANDSERVICESCORPV.PHPORTSAUTHORITTY
FACTS:
TEFASCOsubmittedtoPPAaproposalfortheconstructionofaspecializedterminalcomplexwithportfacilities
andaprovisionforportservicesinDavaoCity.ToeasetheacutecongestioninthegovernmentportsatSasaand
Sta.Ana,DavaoCity,PPAwelcomedtheproposalandorganizedaninteragencycommitteetostudytheplan.The
committeerecommendedapproval

Undertheforegoingtermsandconditions,TEFASCOcontracteddollarloansfromprivatecommercialinstitutions
abroadtoconstructitsspecializedterminalcomplexwithportfacilitiesandthereafterpouredmillionsworthof
investmentsintheprocessofbuildingtheport.LongafterTEFASCObrokegroundwithmassiveinfrastructure
work,thePPABoardcuriouslypassedonOctober1,1976ResolutionNo.50underwhichTEFASCO,without
askingforone,wascompelledtosubmitanapplicationforconstructionpermit.WithouttheconsentofTEFASCO,
theapplicationimposedadditionalsignificantconditions.

TheseriesofPPAimpositionsdidnotstopthere.Theyincludedprovisionsfortenpercent(10%)governmentshare
outofarrastreandstevedoringgrossincomeandonehundredpercent(100%)wharfageandberthingchargesIn
returnPPApromisedtoissuethenecessarypermitsforTEFASCOsportactivities.TEFASCOcompliedwiththe
MOAandpaidtheaccruedandcurrentgovernmentshare.

TEFASCOsuedPPAforrefundofgovernmentshareithadpaidandfordamagesasaresultofallegedillegal
exactionfromitsclientsofonehundredpercent(100%)berthingandwharfagefees.
RTC:InfavorofTEFASCO
CA:ReversedintototheRTC
ISSUE:(a)thecharacteroftheobligationsbetweenTEFASCOandPPA;(b)thevalidityofthecollectionbyPPA
ofonehundredpercent(100%)wharfagefeesandberthingcharges;(c)theproprietyoftheawardoffiftypercent
(50%)wharfagefeesandthirtypercent(30%)berthingchargesasactualdamagesinfavorofTEFASCOforthe
periodfrom1977to1991
HELD:
Firstly,itwasnotamereprivilegethatPPAbestoweduponTEFASCOtoconstructaspecializedterminalcomplex
withportfacilitiesandprovideportservicesinDavaoCityunderPPAResolutionNo.7andthetermsand
conditionsthereof.Rather,thearrangementwasenvisionedtobemutuallybeneficial,ononehand,toobtain
businessopportunitiesforTEFASCO,andontheother,enhancePPA'sservices

evenassumingarguendothatTEFASCOrelieduponamereprivilegegrantedbyPPA,stillthetermsandconditions
betweenthemaswritteninthedocumentsapprovingTEFASCO'sprojectproposalshouldindubitablyremainthe
same.Undertraditionalformofpropertyownership,recipientsofprivilegesorlargessesfromthegovernmentcould
besaidtohavenopropertyrightsbecausetheypossessednotraditionallyrecognizedproprietaryinteresttherein.
holdingthatalicensetooperatecockpitswouldbeamereprivilegebelongedtothisvintage.Buttherightprivilege
dichotomycametoanendwhencourtsrealizedthatindividualsshouldnotbesubjectedtotheunfetteredwhimsof
governmentofficialstowithholdprivilegespreviouslygiventhem.[ifIndeedtoperpetuatesuchdistinctionwould
leavethecitizensatthemercyofStatefunctionaries,andworse,threatenthelibertiesprotectedbytheBillofRights.

EvenifPPAgrantedTEFASCOonlyalicensetoconstructandoperateaspecializedcomplexterminalwithport
facilities,thefactremainsthatPPAcannotunilaterallyimposeconditionsthatfindnobasisintheinteragency
committeereport

Secondly,weholdthatPPA'simpositionofonehundredpercent(100%)wharfagefeesandberthingchargesisvoid.
ItisveryclearfromP.D.No.857asamendedthatwharfageandberthingratescollectiblebyPPAaresubjecttoThe
TariffandCustomsCode.Thatstatesthatthosethatarenotconsideredasnationalportshallchargeonly50%.

ThePPAnotcitednorhavewefoundanylawcreatingtheTEFASCOPortasanationalportorconvertingitinto
one.Hence,followingcaselaw,werulethatPPAerredincollectingberthingfeesfromvesselsthatberthedatthe
privatelyfundedportofpetitionerTEFASCO

WHITELIGHTCORPV.CITYOFMANILA

FACTS:
CityMayorAlfredoS.LimsignedintolawOrdinanceNo.7774AnOrdinanceProhibitingShortTimeAdmission,
ShortTimeAdmissionRates,andWashUpRateSchemesinHotels,Motels,Inns,LodgingHouses,Pension
Houses,andSimilarEstablishmentsintheCityofManila.Theordinancesanctionsanypersonorcorporationwho
willallowtheadmissionandchargingofroomratesforlessthan12hoursortherentingofroomsmorethantwicea
day.

PetitionerswhoownandoperateseveralhotelsandmotelsinMetroManila,filedamotiontointerveneandtoadmit
attachedcomplaintininterventiononthegroundthatisitunconstitutionalandvoidsinceitviolatestherightto
privacyandfreedomofmovement;itisaninvalidexerciseofpolicepower;anditisunreasonableandoppressive
interferenceintheirbusiness.
respondents,inturn,allegedthattheordinanceisalegitimateexerciseofpolicepower.

RTC:OrdinanceNo.7774nullandvoidasitstrikesatthepersonallibertyoftheindividualguaranteedand
jealouslyguardedbytheConstitution.

CA:reversedthedecisionofRTC
First,itheldthattheordinancedidnotviolatetherighttoprivacyorthefreedomofmovement,asitonlypenalizes
theownersoroperatorsofestablishmentsthatadmitindividualsforshorttimestays.Second,thevirtuallylimitless
reachofpolicepowerisonlyconstrainedbyhavingalawfulobjectobtainedthroughalawfulmethod.Thelawful
objectiveoftheordinanceissatisfiedsinceitaimstocurbimmoralactivities.Thereisalawfulmethodsincethe
establishmentsarestillallowedtooperate.Third,theadverseeffectontheestablishmentsisjustifiedbythewell
beingofitsconstituentsingeneral.
ISSUE:WhetherOrdinanceNo.7774isavalidornot
HELD:No.OrdinanceNo.7774cannotbeconsideredasavalid

Thegeneraltestofthevalidityofanordinanceonsubstantivedueprocessgroundsisbesttestedwhenassessedwith
theevolvedfootnote4testlaiddownbytheU.S.SupremeCourt
Consequently,twostandardsofjudicialreviewwereestablished:strictscrutinyforlawsdealingwithfreedomofthe
mindorrestrictingthepoliticalprocess,andtherationalbasisstandardofreviewforeconomiclegislation.

Rationalbasisexamination,lawsorordinancesareupheldiftheyrationallyfurtheralegitimategovernmental
interest,governmentalinterestisextensivelyexaminedandtheavailabilityoflessrestrictivemeasuresisconsidered.
Strictscrutiny,thefocusisonthepresenceofcompelling,ratherthansubstantial,governmentalinterestandonthe
absenceoflessrestrictivemeansforachievingthatinterest.Itisstandardfordeterminingthequalityandtheamount
ofgovernmentalinterestbroughttojustifytheregulationoffundamentalfreedoms.Usedtodaytotestthevalidityof
lawsdealingwiththeregulationofspeech,gender,orraceaswellasotherfundamentalrightsasexpansionfromits
earlierapplicationstoequalprotection.TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourthasexpandedthescopeofstrictscrutiny
toprotectfundamentalrightssuchassuffrage,judicialaccessandinterstatetravel.

IfweweretotakethemyopicviewthatanOrdinanceshouldbeanalyzedstrictlyastoitseffectonlyonthe
petitionersatbar,thenitwouldseemthattheonlyrestraintimposedbythelawwhichwearecapacitatedtoactupon
istheinjurytopropertysustainedbythepetitioners,aninjurythatwouldwarranttheapplicationofthemost
deferentialstandardtherationalbasistest.Yetasearlierstated,werecognizethecapacityofthepetitionersto
invokeaswelltheconstitutionalrightsoftheirpatronsthosepersonswhowouldbedeprivedofavailingshorttime
accessorwashupratestothelodgingestablishmentsinquestion.

ThattheOrdinancepreventsthelawfulusesofawashratedeprivingpatronsofaproductandthepetitionersof
lucrativebusinesstiesinwithanotherconstitutionalrequisiteforthelegitimacyoftheOrdinanceasapolicepower
measure.Itmustappearthattheinterestsofthepublicgenerally,asdistinguishedfromthoseofaparticularclass,
requireaninterferencewithprivaterightsandthemeansmustbereasonablynecessaryfortheaccomplishmentof
thepurposeandnotundulyoppressiveofprivaterights.71Itmustalsobeevidentthatnootheralternativeforthe
accomplishmentofthepurposelessintrusiveofprivaterightscanwork.Moreimportantly,areasonablerelation
mustexistbetweenthepurposesofthemeasureandthemeansemployedforitsaccomplishment,forevenunderthe
guiseofprotectingthepublicinterest,personalrightsandthosepertainingtoprivatepropertywillnotbepermitted
tobearbitrarilyinvaded

LACHANCEV.ERICKSON

FACTS:
Federalemployeessubjecttoadverseactionsbytheirrespectiveagencies,eachmadefalsestatementstoagency
investigatorswithrespecttothemisconductwithwhichtheywerecharged.Ineachcase,theagencyadditionally
chargedthefalsestatementasagroundforadverseaction.Separately,eachemployeeappealedtheactionstaken
againsthimorhertotheMeritSystemsProtectionBoard(Board).TheBoardupheldtheportionofeachpenaltythat
wasbasedontheunderlyingcharge.TheBoardoverturnedeachfalsestatementcharge.TheBoardheldthatan
employee'sfalsestatementscouldnotbeusedforpurposesofimpeachingtheemployee'scredibility,norcouldthey
beconsideredinsettingtheappropriatepunishmentfortheemployee'sunderlyingmisconduct.Ultimately,theCourt
ofAppealsfortheFederalCircuitagreedwiththeBoardandheldthatnopenaltycouldbebasedonafalsedenialof
theunderlyingclaim

ISSUE:WONDueProcessClauseprecludeafederalagencyfromsanctioninganemployeeformakingfalse
statementstotheagencyregardingallegedemploymentrelatedmisconductonthepartoftheemployee

HELD:No.theCourtheldthatneithertheFifthAmendment'sDueProcessClauseprecludesafederalagencyfrom
sanctioninganemployeeformakingfalsestatementstotheagencyregardinghisallegedemploymentrelated
misconduct."Thecoreofdueprocessistherighttonoticeandameaningfulopportunitytobeheard,"

ButwerejecttheviewexpressedbytheCourtofAppealsinthiscasethata'meaningfulopportunitytobeheard'
includesarighttomakefalsestatementswithrespecttothechargedconduct."

PEFIANCOV.MORAL
FACTS:DECSSecretaryGloriafiledacomplaintagainstrespondentMoral,thenChiefLibrarian,forpilferageof
somehistoricaldocumentsfromthevaultsoftheFilipinianaandAsianDivision(FAD)oftheNationalLibrary
whichwereunderhercontrolandsupervisionasDivisionChief.
Andsoonfoundguiltyoftheadministrativeoffenses.Shewasordereddismissedfromthegovernmentservicewith
prejudicetoreinstatementandforfeitureofallherretirementbenefitsandotherremunerations.

respondentfiledaPetitionfortheProductionoftheDECSInvestigationCommitteeReportpurportedlyto"guide
heronwhateveractionwouldbemostappropriatetotakeunderthecircumstances.Herpetitionwas,however,
denied.

RespondentinstitutedanactionformandamusandinjunctionbeforetheregularcourtsagainstSecretaryGloria
prayingthatshebefurnishedacopyoftheDECSInvestigationCommitteeReportandthattheDECSSecretarybe
enjoinedfromenforcingtheorderofdismissaluntilshereceivedacopyofthesaidreport.

GloriamovedtodismissthemandamuscaseatRTCbutdeniedandsoshewenttotheCAfiledapetitionfor
certioraributdeniedbyCAstatingthatshemusthavefirstfiledamotionforreconsideration.Hencethereisa
proceduralinfirmity.

ISSUE:WONtheCAerredindismissingthepetitionofGloria
HELD:YES
Ordinarily,certiorariwillnotlieunlessthelowercourt,throughamotionforreconsideration,hasbeengivenan
opportunitytocorrecttheimputederrorsonitsactororder.However,thisruleisnotabsoluteandissubjecttowell
recognizedexceptions.Thus,whentheactororderofthelowercourtisapatentnullityforfailuretocomplywitha
mandatoryprovisionoftheRules,asinthiscase,amotionforreconsiderationmaybedispensedwithandthe
aggrievedpartymayassailtheactororderofthelowercourtdirectlyoncertiorari.
Moreover,thereisnolaworrulewhichimposesalegaldutyonpetitionertofurnishrespondentwithacopyofthe
investigationreport.

INGRAHAMV.WRIGHT
FACTS:
JamesIngrahamwasajuniorhighstudentinaFloridapublicschool.Afterfailingtorespondquicklytoateachers
instructions,IngrahamwasbroughttoPrincipalWillieWrightsofficewhereherefusedtoadmittheinfraction.
IngrahamwasthensubjectedtocorporalpunishmentbyPrincipalWright,withthehelpoftheAssistantPrincipal
andhispersonalassistant.Accordingtotherecord,Ingrahamsspankingwasparticularlyharshashewassubjected
totwentyseparatestrokesfromthewoodenpaddle.Ingrahamsdoctorsorderedhimtoremainoutofschoolto
recoverfrominjuriessustainedduringhispaddling.IngrahamandanotherstudentbroughtsuitallegingthatFlorida
lawallowingcorporalpunishmentviolatedtheEighthAmendment,violatedtheirdueprocessrights,andsought
damagesinadditiontodeclaratoryandinjunctiverelief.

DISTRICTCOURT:GrantedWrightsmotiontodismiss
DISTRICTCOURT:GrantedWrightsmotiontodismiss
CA:AFFIRMED
CA:AFFIRMED
ISSUE:WONtheEighthAmendmentbarcorporalpunishmentinpublicschools
ISSUE:WONtheEighthAmendmentbarcorporalpunishmentinpublicschools
WONDoesdueprocessrequirenoticetoparentsbeforecorporalpunishmentisimposed
HELD:NO
HELD:NO
EighthAmendmenthasnoapplicationtocorporalpunishmentinpublicschools.No,noticeisnotrequiredbefore
administeringpunishingastheFloridastatutoryschemecontainsadequatesafeguardstopreventwrongful
punishment,andaffordsadequateremediesintheeventastudentisdeprivedofhisrights.

Itonlyisappliedtothoseconvictedofcrimesratherthantothediscipliningofschoolchildren.Therewasnobasis
forextendingtheEighthAmendmentbeyondthathistoricalcontext,particularlyasappliedtoschoolsthatare
alreadycarefullymonitoredbylocalcommunities.Furthermore,aggrievedstudentsandparentscanseekcriminal
andcivilremediesintheeventpunishmentsexceedwhatisnecessarytoenforcerulesandimposedisciplinewithin
theschoolenvironment.

Next,theCourtturnedtotheDueProcessissue,explainingthatbothphysicalrestraintandinflictionofpainare
withinthehistoricalmeaningoflibertyinterestprotectedbyguaranteesofdueprocessoflaw.Childrenobviously
haveastrongandlegitimateinterestinavoidingunwarrantedpunishmentsorbeingunnecessarilydeprivedoftheir
liberty.However,theCourthereconcludedFloridalawalreadycontainedadequateprotections,withteachersand
principalsalikerequiredtoexerciseprudenceinapplyingpunishments,subjecttothewatchfuleyeofthe
communityandthepossibilityofsubsequentcivilorcriminalliabilityforwrongfulbehavior.TheCourtsawno
needtoaddprepunishmentnotifications,asschooldisciplinehasalwaysbeenhandledwithouttheneedforprior
notificationorhearings.Finally,theCourtexplainedthatimposingadditionalrequirementsonschoolsseekingto
imposepunishmentswouldintrudestateauthoritytoregulateschools.

MACALINTALV.TECH
FACTS:RespondentJudgeTehissuedaresolutionadversetotheclientofMacalintal.Thelatterquestionedthe
resolutionviapetitionforcertiorari,beforetheComelec.WhilethecasewaspendingattheComelec,
respondentactivelyparticipatedintheproceedingsbyfilinghiscommentonthepetition.Complainantfileda
motionforrespondent'sinhibitionintheelectioncase.Andwasalsoaskedbythecourttocommentonsuch.Instead
ofactingonthemotion,respondenthiredhisownlawyer,filedhisanswertothemotionbeforehisowncourt,and
forthwithdeniedthesame.

ISSUE:WONJudgeTehisguiltyofGrossignoranceofthelaw

HELD:YES(dismissedfromservice)

Respondent'sactiveparticipationinthecertiorariproceedings,beingmerelyanominal
orformalparty,isnotcalledfor.RespondentJudgeactedbothasapartylitigantandas
ajudgebeforehisowncourt.Respondent'sgrossdeviationfromtheacceptablenorm
forjudgesisclearlymanifest.

Section5ofRule65oftheRulesofCourt,ajudgewhoseorderis
challengedinanappellatecourtdoesnothavetofileanyanswerortakeactivepartin
theproceedingunlessexpresslydirectedbyorderofthisCourt.

Whencomplainantfiledamotionfor
respondent'sinhibitionthelatter,insteadofacting
thereon,hiredhisownlawyer,filedhisanswertothemotionandforthwithdeniedthesame,ordering,atthe
same.RespondentJudge,infine,actedboth
asapartylitigantandasajudgebeforehisowncourt.
Respondentwasdirectedtoactonthemotionforinhibitioninaccordancewiththeprocedureprescribedin
RulesofCourt.RespondentJudgeeithermisunderstoodorchoseto
misunderstandthedirectivefor,inhisorder,hegrantedthemotion
forinhibition"incompliancewiththeresolution"oftheCourt.Clearly,theCourt,merelyrequiredrespondentJudge
toactonthemotionforinhibitioninaccordancewiththeRules,i.e.,"toeitherproceedwiththetrial,orwithdraw
therefrom.

TEJANOV.OMBUDSMAN
FACTS:

Desiertothenthespecialprosecutor,concurredintheapprovalofhissubordinatesinthefillingoftheinformation
fortheviolationofSection3(e)ofRep.ActNo.3019againstpetitioners.ThecasewasfilledintheSandiganbayan,
whichledthepetitionerstofileforanurgentmotionforaperiodoftimetofilemotionforreinvestigation.
SandiganbayangrantedthemotionandrequestedforareinvestigationfromtheofficeofSpecialProsecutorMicael.
Theresultwasthattherewasnoprobablecausetoindictthepetitionersandrecommendedforthedismissalofthe
case.
ThenowOmbudsmanDesierto,whoparticipatedearlierwiththepreliminaryinvestigationasspecialprosecutor
disapprovedtherecommendationandthereinattachedanotestating:
assigntoanotherprosecutorandinvestigateaggressively

ISSUE:WONtheOmbudsmanisjustifiedindisapprovingtherecommendationfordismissalofthecase.

HELD:NO
Dueprocessdictatesthatonecalledupontoresolveadisputemaynotreviewhisdecisiononappeal.Having
participatedinthepreliminaryinvestigationofthecaseandhavingrecommendedtheproperinformationtobe
filled,itbehoovedDesiertofromrescuinghimfromparticipatinginthereviewofthesameduringthere
investigation.

MICHAELH.vs.GERALDD
FACTS:
Carole D. and Gerald D. were married and established a home in California. Carole became involved in an
adulterousaffairwithMichaelH.Sheconceivedachild,Victoria,withGeraldlistedasfatheronthebirthcertificate.
Geraldhasalwaysheldthechildouttobehisdaughter,butsoonafter deliveryCaroleinformedMichael she
believedhemightbethefather.In1981GeraldmovedtoNewYork.Carole,Michael,andVictoriahadbloodtests
revealinga98.07%probabilitythatMichaelwasthefather.CarolevisitedwithMichaelforseveralmonths,werehe
heldVictoriaoutashisdaughter.

ThenextmonthCaroleleftMichaelandreconciledwithGeraldandtheylivedtogetherwithtwomorechildren
beingborn.

Michael and Victoria, through guardian ad litem, sought visitation rights for Michael pendente lite. A court
appointedpsychologistrecommendedthatCaroleretainsolecustody,butMichaelbeallowedcontinuedcontact
withVictoriapursuanttoarestrictedvisitationschedule.Thecourtconcurred.

GeraldmovedforsummaryjudgmentonthegroundthatunderCalifornialawtherewerenotriableissuesoffactas
toVictoriaspaternity.Thelawprovidesthattheissueofawifecohabitingwithherhusband,whoisnotimpotent
orsterile,isconclusivelypresumedtobeachildofthemarriage.
Thepresumptionmayonlyberebuttedbybloodtests,andamotionforsuchtestsmustbemadewithintwoyearsof
thebirthbythehusband,orbythewifeifthenaturalfatherhasfiledanaffidavitacknowledgingpaternity.
In 1985 the Superior Court granted the motion for summary judgment, finding that Carole and Gerald were
cohabitingatthetimeofconceptionandbirthandthatGeraldwasneithersterilenorimpotent.

Issue:WONthepresumptionestablishedbythelawinfringeuponthedueprocessrightsofamanwhowishesto
establishhispaternityofachildborntothewifeofanotherman.

HELD: Michael contends as a matter of substantive due process that because he has established a parental
relationshipwithVictoria,protectionofGeraldandCarolesmaritalunionisaninsufficientstateinteresttosupport
terminationoftherelationship.However,Michaelsinterestmustbeafundamentallibertytobeconstitutionally
protected.
Historically,themaritalfamilyhasbeenprotectedratherthanthepotentialfatheroutsideofthemarriage.The
presumptionoflegitimacywasfundamentalatcommonlaw,andcouldberebuttedonlybyahusbandwhowas
incapableofprocreationorhadnoaccesstohiswifeduringtherelativeperiod.Thepolicyrationaleswerethe
aversiontodeclaringchildrenillegitimateandthepeaceandtranquilityoftheStatesandfamilies.Nomodernor
historicalprecedentsimilarlyrecognizesthepowerofthenaturalfathertoassertparentalrights.
Michaelmustestablishnotthatsocietyhastraditionallyallowedanaturalfatherinhiscircumstancestoestablish
paternity,butthatithastraditionallyaccordedsuchafatherparentalrights.Toprovideprotectiontoanadulterous
naturalfatheristodenyprotectiontoamaritalfather.

DELACRUZVSPARAS
FACTS:
VicenteDeLaCruzetalwereclub&cabaretoperators.TheyassailtheconstitutionalityofOrd.No.84,orthe
ProhibitionandClosureOrdinanceofBulacanonthegroundsthat:

1.OrdinanceNo.84isnullandvoidasamunicipalityhasnoauthoritytoprohibitalawfulbusiness,occupationor
calling.
2.OrdinanceNo.84isviolativeofthepetitionersrighttodueprocessandtheequalprotectionofthelaw,asthe
licensepreviouslygiventopetitionerswasineffectwithdrawnwithoutjudicialhearing.
3.ThatunderPresidentialDecreeNo.189,asamended,byPresidentialDecreeNo.259,thepowertolicenseand
regulatetouristorientedbusinessesincludingnightclubs,hasbeentransferredtotheDepartmentofTourism.

JudgeParassidedwiththepetitionerandissuedaTROontheordinancebutheeventuallyliftedsuchTRO.
DeclaringthatOrd84.isconstitutionalforitispursuanttoRA938whichreadsANACTGRANTING
MUNICIPALORCITYBOARDSANDCOUNCILSTHEPOWERTOREGULATETHEESTABLISHMENT,
MAINTENANCEANDOPERATIONOFCERTAINPLACESOFAMUSEMENTWITHINTHEIR
RESPECTIVETERRITORIALJURISDICTIONS.Parasruledthattheprohibitionisavalidexerciseofpolice
powertopromotegeneralwelfare

DelaCruzthenappealedcitingthattheyweredeprivedofdueprocess.

ISSUE:WONamunicipalcorporationcan,prohibittheexerciseofalawfultrade,theoperationofnightclubs,and
thepursuitofalawfuloccupation,suchclubsemployinghostessespursuanttoOrd84whichisfurtherinpursuantto
RA938.

HELD:NO
TheSCheldthatmunicipalcorporationscannotprohibittheoperationofnightclubs.Theymaybe
regulated,butnotpreventedfromcarryingontheirbusiness.Ordinancedeclaredvoidandunconstitutional.
ItcannotbesaidthatsuchasweepingexerciseofalawmakingpowerbyBocauecouldqualifyundertheterm
reasonable.Theobjectiveoffosteringpublicmorals,aworthyanddesirableendcanbeattainedbyameasurethat
doesnotencompasstoowideafield.Certainlytheordinanceonitsface ischaracterized byoverbreadth.The
purpose sought to be achieved could have been attained by reasonable restrictions rather than by an absolute
prohibition.PursuanttothetitleoftheOrdinance,Bocaueshouldandcanonlyregulatenotprohibitthebusinessof
cabarets.

IMBONGVSOCHOA
FACTS:
Fromapopulationof27Min1960to76Min2000andatotalof92Min2010.
TheCongressenactedRA10354whichistheResponsibleParenthoodandReproductiveHealthActonDec21,2012.
RHLawprovidesFilipinos,especiallythepoorandthemarginalizedsectoraccesstothefullrangeofinformationregarding
familymethods,products,andservices.Andtoensureitseffectivity,theRHlawmadeitmandatoryforhealthproviderstobethe
oneprovideforthefullrangeinformationregardingfamilyplanningmethods,products,andservices.Alsoforschoolsto
incorporateAgeDevelopmentReproductiveHealtheducation.Andtobettersinkteethintoit,itcriminalizesthosecertainactsof
refusaltocarryoutitsmandates.Itisanenhancementmeasuretofortifyandmakeeffectivethecurrentlawsoncontraception,
womenshealthandpopulationcontrol.

ISSUE/S:
I. SUBSTANTIVE:whethertheRHLawisunconstitutional:

1. Righttolife

2. Righttoheath

3. Freedomofreligionandrighttofreespeech

a.) WONtheRHLawviolatestheguaranteeofreligiousfreedomsinceitmandatestheStatesponsored
procurementofcontraceptives,whichcontravenethereligiousbeliefsofe.g.thepetitioners

b.) WONtheRHLawviolatestheguaranteeofreligiousfreedombycompellingmedicalhealth
practitioners,hospitals,andhealthcareproviders,underpainofpenalty,toreferpatientstoother
institutionsdespitetheirconscientiousobjections

c.) WONtheRHLawviolatestheguaranteeofreligiousfreedombyrequiringwouldbespouses,asa
conditionfortheissuanceofamarriagelicense,toattendaseminaronparenthood,familyplanning,
breastfeedingandinfantnutrition

4. Righttoprivacy(maritalprivacyandautonomy)

5. Freedomofexpressionandacademicfreedom

6. Dueprocessclause

7. Equalprotectionclause

8. Prohibitionsagainstinvoluntaryservitude

9. NaturalLaw

B. WONthedelegationofauthoritytotheFoodandDrugAdministration(FDA)todetermineWONasupplyor
productistobeintheEssentialsDrugListisvalid

C. WONtheRHLawinfringesuponthepowersdevolvedtheLocalGovernmentandtheAutonomousRegion
inMuslimMindanao(ARMM)

HELD:II.SUBSTANTIVE

1. NO,ArticleII,Section12oftheConstitutionstates:TheStaterecognizesthesanctityoffamilylifeandshallprotect

andstrengthenthefamilyasabasicautonomoussocialinstitution.Itshallequallyprotectthelifeofthemotherandthe

lifeoftheunbornfromconception.

Initsplainandordinarymeaningthetraditionalmeaningofconceptionaccordingtoreputabledictionariescitedby

theponenteisthatlifebeginsatfertilization.Medicalsourcesalsosupporttheviewthatconceptionbeginsatfertilization.

TheframersoftheConstitutionalsointendedfor(a)conceptiontorefertothemomentoffertilizationand(b)the

protection of the unborn child upon fertilization. In addition, they did not intend to ban all contraceptives for being

unconstitutional;onlythosethatkillordestroythefertilizedovumwouldbeprohibited.Contraceptivesthatactuallyprevent
 theunionofthemalespermandfemaleovum,andthosethatsimilarlytakeactionbeforefertilizationshouldbedeemed

nonabortive,andthusconstitutionallypermissible.

TheRHLawisinlinewiththisintentandactuallyprohibitsabortion.TheRHLawprohibitsnotonlydrugsordevicesthat

preventimplantationbutalsothosethatinduceabortionandinducethedestructionofafetusinsidethemotherswomb.The

RHLawrecognizesthatthefertilizedovumalreadyhaslifeandthattheStatehasaboundeddutytoprotectit.

However,theauthorsoftheIRRgravelyabusedtheirofficewhentheyredefinedthemeaningofabortifacientbyusingthe

termprimarily.Recognizingasabortifacientsonlythosethatprimarilyinduceabortionorthedestructionofafetusinside

themotherswomborthepreventionofthefertilizedovumtoreachandbeimplantedinthemotherswombwouldpave

thewayfortheapprovalofcontraceptivesthatmayharmordestroythelifeoftheunbornfromconception/fertilization.This

violatesSection12,ArticleIIoftheConstitution.Forthesamereason,thedefinitionofcontraceptivesundertheIRRwhich

alsousesthetermprimarily,mustbestruckdown.
2. NO,PetitionersclaimthattherighttohealthisviolatedbytheRHLawbecauseitrequirestheinclusionofhormonal
contraceptives,intrauterinedevices,injectableandothersafe,legal,nonabortifacientandeffectivefamilyplanning
productsandsuppliesintheNationalDrugFormularyandintheregularpurchaseofessentialmedicinesandsupplies
ofallnationalhospitals(Section9oftheRHLaw).Theyciterisksofgettingdiseasesgainedbyusinge.g.oral
contraceptivepills.

The RH Law does not intend to do away withRA 4729.With RA 4729 in place, the Court believes adequate

safeguardsexisttoensurethatonlysafecontraceptivesaremadeavailabletothepublic.Infulfillingitsmandateunder

Sec.10oftheRHLaw,theDOHmustkeepinmindtheprovisionsofRA4729:thecontraceptivesitwillprocureshall

befromadulylicenseddrugstoreorpharmaceuticalcompanyandthattheactualdistributionofthesecontraceptive

drugsanddeviceswillbedonefollowingaprescriptionofaqualifiedmedicalpractitioner.

Meanwhile,therequirementofSection9oftheRHLawistobeconsideredmandatoryonlyafterthesedevicesand

materialshavebeentested,evaluatedandapprovedbytheFDA.Congresscannotdeterminethatcontraceptivesare

safe,legal,nonabortifacientandeffective.

3. A.)NO, TheStatemaypursueitslegitimatesecularobjectiveswithoutbeingdictateduponthepoliciesofanyone

religion.ToallowreligioussectstodictatepolicyorrestrictothergroupswouldviolateArticleIII,Section5ofthe

ConstitutionortheEstablishmentClause. This would causetheStatetoadheretoaparticularreligion, and thus,

establishesastatereligion.Thus,theStatecanenhanceitspopulationcontrolprogramthroughtheRHLawevenifthe

promotionofcontraceptiveuseiscontrarytothereligiousbeliefsofe.g.thepetitioners.

B.)YES,RHLawobligesahospitalormedicalpractitionertoimmediatelyreferapersonseekinghealthcareandservicesunder

thelawtoanotheraccessiblehealthcareproviderdespitetheirconscientiousobjectionsbasedonreligiousorethicalbeliefs.

Theseprovisionsviolatethereligiousbeliefandconvictionofaconscientiousobjector.TheyarecontrarytoSection29(2),

Article VI of the Constitution or the Free Exercise Clause, whose basis is the respect for the inviolability of the human

conscience.

TheprovisionsintheRHLawcompellingnonmaternityspecialtyhospitalsandhospitalsownedandoperatedbyareligious

groupandhealthcareserviceproviderstoreferpatientstootherprovidersandpenalizingthemiftheyfailtodoso(Sections7
and23(a)(3))aswellascompellingthemtodisseminateinformationandperformRHproceduresunderpainofpenaltySection

24alsoviolatethefreedomofreligion.Whilepenaltiesmaybeimposedbylawtoensurecompliancetoit,aconstitutionally

protectedrightmustprevailovertheeffectiveimplementationofthelaw.

Underthebenevolentneutralitytheory,theprincipleunderlyingtheFirstAmendmentisthatfreedomtocarryoutones

dutiestoaSupremeBeingisaninalienableright,notonedependentonthegraceoflegislature.Religiousfreedomis

seenasasubstantiverightandnotmerelyaprivilegeagainstdiscriminatorylegislation.Withreligionlookeduponwith

benevolenceandnothostility,benevolentneutralityallowsaccommodationofreligionundercertaincircumstances.

C.)RHLaw,whichrequireswouldbespousestoattendaseminaronparenthood,familyplanning,breastfeedingandinfant

nutritionasaconditionfortheissuanceofamarriagelicense,isareasonableexerciseofpolicepowerbythegovernment.The

lawdoesnotevenmandatethetypeoffamilyplanningmethodstobeincludedintheseminar.Thosewhoattendtheseminarare

freetoacceptorrejectinformationtheyreceiveandtheyretainthefreedomtodecideonmattersoffamilylifewithoutthe

interventionoftheState.

4.)YES,RHLaw,whichpermitsRHproceduresevenwithonlytheconsentofthespouseundergoingtheprovision(disregarding

spousalcontent),intrudesintomartialprivacyandautonomyandgoesagainsttheconstitutionalsafeguardsforthefamilyasthe

basicsocialinstitution.Particularly,Section3,ArticleXVoftheConstitutionmandatestheStatetodefend:(a)therightof

spousestofoundafamilyinaccordancewiththeirreligiousconvictionsandthedemandsofresponsibleparenthoodand(b)the

rightoffamiliesorfamilyassociationstoparticipateintheplanningandimplementationofpoliciesandprogramsthataffect

them.TheRHLawcannotinfringeuponthismutualdecisionmaking,andendangertheinstitutionsofmarriageandthefamily.

Theexclusionofparentalconsentincaseswhereaminorundergoingaprocedureisalreadyaparentorhashadamiscarriage

(Section7oftheRHLaw)isalsoantifamilyandviolatesArticleII,Section12oftheConstitution,whichstates:Thenatural

andprimaryrightanddutyofparentsintherearingoftheyouthforcivicefficiencyandthedevelopmentofmoralcharactershall

receivethesupportoftheGovernment.Inaddition,theportionofSection23(a)(ii)whichreadsinthecaseofminors,the

writtenconsentofparentsorlegalguardianor,intheirabsence,personsexercisingparentalauthorityornextofkinshallbe

requiredonlyinelectivesurgicalproceduresisinvalidasitdeniestherightofparentalauthorityincaseswherewhatisinvolved

isnonsurgicalprocedures.

5.) NO, The Court declined to rule on the constitutionality of Section 14 of the RH Law, which mandates the State to

provideAgeandDevelopmentAppropriateReproductiveHealthEducation.Althougheducatorsmightraisetheirobjectionto

theirparticipationintheRHeducationprogram,theCourtreservesitsjudgmentshouldanactualcasebefiledbeforeit.Thisis

alsobroughtbythefactthattheDEPEDhasntyetcomeupwithaparticulardraftofthesaidcurriculum.

6.)TheRHLawdoesnotviolatethedueprocessclauseoftheConstitutionasthedefinitionsofseveraltermsasobservedbythe

petitionersarenotvague.

ThedefinitionofprivatehealthcareserviceprovidermustbeseeninrelationtoSection4(n)oftheRHLawwhichdefinesa

publichealthserviceprovider.TheprivatehealthcareinstitutioncitedunderSection7shouldbeseenassynonymousto

privatehealthcareserviceprovider.
The terms service and methods are also broad enough to include providing of information and rendering of medical

procedures.Thus,hospitalsoperatedbyreligiousgroupsareexemptedfromrenderingRHserviceandmodernfamilyplanning

methods(asprovidedforbySection7oftheRHLaw)aswellasfromgivingRHinformationandprocedures.

TheRHLawalsodefinesincorrectinformation.UsedtogetherinrelationtoSection23(a)(1),thetermsincorrectand

knowinglyconnoteasenseofmaliceandillmotivetomisleadormisrepresentthepublicastothenatureandeffectof

programsandservicesonreproductivehealth.

7.)ToprovidethatthepooraretobegivenpriorityinthegovernmentsRHprogramisnotaviolationoftheequalprotection

clause.Infact,itispursuanttoSection11,ArticleXIIIoftheConstitution,whichstatesthattheStateshallprioritizetheneedsof

theunderprivileged,sickelderly,disabled,women,andchildrenandthatitshallendeavortoprovidemedicalcaretopaupers.

TheRHLawdoesnotonlyseektotargetthepoortoreducetheirnumber,sinceSection7oftheRHLawprioritizespoorand

marginalizedcoupleswhoaresufferingfromfertilityissuesanddesiretohavechildren.Inaddition,theRHLawdoesnot

prescribethenumberofchildrenacouplemayhaveanddoesnotimposeconditionsuponcoupleswhointendtohavechildren.

TheRHLawonlyseekstoprovideprioritytothepoor.

8.)TherequirementunderSec.17oftheRHLawforprivateandnongovernmenthealthcareserviceproviderstorender48

hoursofprobonoRHservicesdoesnotamounttoinvoluntaryservitude,fortworeasons.First,thepracticeofmedicineis

undeniablyimbuedwithpublicinterestthatitisboththepowerandadutyoftheStatetocontrolandregulateitinorderto

protectandpromotethepublicwelfare.Second,Section17onlyencouragesprivateandnongovernmentRHserviceprovidersto

renderprobonoservice.BesidesthePhilHealthaccreditation,nopenaltyisimposedshouldtheydootherwise.

9.)WithrespecttotheargumentthattheRHLawviolatesnaturallaw,sufficeittosaythattheCourtdoesnotdulyrecognizeitas

alegalbasisforupholdingorinvalidatingalaw.OuronlyguidepostistheConstitution.Whileeverylawenactedbyman

emanatedfromwhatisperceivedasnaturallaw,theCourtisnotobligedtoseeifastatute,executiveissuanceorordinanceisin

conformitytoit.Tobeginwith,itisnotenactedbyanacceptablelegitimatebody.Moreover,naturallawsaremerethoughtsand

notions on inherent rights espoused by theorists, philosophers and theologists. The jurists of the philosophical school are

interestedinthelawasanabstraction,ratherthanintheactuallawofthepastorpresent.Unless,anaturalrighthasbeen

transformedintoawrittenlaw,itcannotserveasabasistostrikedownalaw

B.)ThedelegationbyCongresstotheFDAofthepowertodeterminewhetherornotasupplyorproductistobeincludedinthe

EssentialDrugsListisvalid,astheFDAnotonlyhasthepowerbutalsothecompetencytoevaluate,registerandcoverhealth

servicesandmethods

C.)TheRHLawdoesnotinfringeupontheautonomyoflocalgovernments.Thereisexceptionofcasesinvolvingnationally

funded projects, facilities, programs and services. Unless a local government unit (LGU) is particularly designated as the

implementingagency,ithasnopoweroveraprogramforwhichfundinghasbeenprovidedbythenationalgovernmentunderthe

annualgeneralappropriationsact,eveniftheprograminvolvesthedeliveryofbasicserviceswithinthejurisdictionoftheLGU.

SERRANOVSNLRC
FACTS:RubenSerranowastheheadofthesecuritycheckerssectionofIsetann
DepartmentStore.themanagementsenthimaletter
immediatelyterminatinghisservicesassecuritysectionhead,effectiveon
thesameday.Thereasongivenbythemanagementwasretrenchment;
theyhadoptedtohireanindependentsecurityagencyasacostcutting
measure.SerranofiledacomplaintforIllegalDismissal
theLaborArbiter.
LA:infavorofSerrano.ItstatedthatIsetannfailedto
establishthatithadretrencheditssecuritydivision,thatthepetitionerwas
notaccordeddueprocess
NLRC:reversedtheLAbutorderedIsetanntopay
separationpayequivalenttoonemonthperyearofservice,unpaidsalary,et
al.Itheldthatthephaseoutofthesecuritysectionwasavalidexerciseof
managementprerogativeonthepartofIsetann,forwhichtheNLRCcannot
substituteitsjudgmentintheabsenceofbadfaithorabuseofdiscretionon
thepartofthelatter;andthatthesecurityandsafetysupervisorsposition
waslonginplacepriortoSerranosseparationfromthecompany,orthe
phaseoutoftheSecuritySection.

ISSUE:WONdismissalwasillegal.

HELD:No(VALIDbutINEFFECTUAL)
TheCourtheldthatthedismissalwasduetoanauthorizedcauseunder
Art.283oftheLaborCode,i.e.redundancy.However,whileanauthorized
causeexists,Isetannfailedtofollowtheproceduralrequirementprovidedby
Art.283ofLaborCode.Forterminationduetoauthorizedcauses,theemployermust
giveawrittennoticeofterminationtotheemployeeconcernedandtothe

In1989,theterminationofanemployee,evenforjustcausebut
withoutfollowingtherequisiteprocedure,renderssuchdismissalillegal,and
thereforenullandvoid.

IntheWenphildoctrinethesaidrulewasunjustto
employers.Instead,thedismissalwasheldtobestillvalidbuttheemployer
wassanctionedbywayofthepaymentofindemnity(damages)

TheCourtheldthatthedismissaloftheemployeeis
Merelyineffectual,notvoid.

Thisisbecauseoftheffreasons:
1)
Thedueprocessclauseisalimitationongovernmentalpowers,inapplicabletotheexerciseofprivatepower,such
asinthiscase.TheprovisionNopersonshallbedeprivedoflife,libertyandpropertywithoutdueprocessoflaw
pertainsonlytotheState,asonlyithastheauthoritytodothesame.
2)
ThepurposeofthenoticeandhearingundertheDueprocessclauseistoprovideanopportunityfortheemployeeto
beheardbeforethepoweroftheorganizedsocietyisbroughtupontheindividual.UnderArt.283,however,the
purposeistogivehimtimetopreparefortheeventuallossofhisjobandforDOLEto
determinewhethereconomiccausesexisttojustifytermination.Itisnottogiveopportunitytobeheardthereisno
chargeagainsttheemployeeunderArt.283

3.)
Notallnoticerequirementsarerequisitesofdueprocess.Some
aresimplyapartofaproceduretobefollowedbeforearight
grantedtopartycanbeexercised;othersareanapplicationofthe
Justinianprecept.Suchisthecasehere.Thefailureofthe
employertoobserveaprocedurefortheterminationof
employmentwhichmakestheterminationofemploymentmerely
ineffectual.
5)
Art.279oftheLCprovidesthatonlydismissalwithoutjustor
authorizedcauserenderssuchdismissalillegal.