1.

Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators

Facts:
The Municipal Board of Manila passed Ordinance No. 4760 with the following
provisions questioned for its violation of due process:
(1) Refraining from entertaining or accepting any guest or customer unless it fills out a
prescribed form in the lobby in open view; (2) Prohibiting admission of any person less than 18
years old; (3) Usurious increase of license fee to P4,500 and 6,000 o 150% and 200%
respectively (tax issue also); (4) Making unlawful lease or rent more than twice every 24 hours;
and (5) Cancellation of license for subsequent violation.
Ermita-Malate impugned the validity of the law averring that such is oppressive, arbitrary
and against due process.
Issue:
Whether or not the ordinance compliant with the due process requirement of the
constitution?
Held:
Yes. Ordinance is a valid exercise of police power to minimize certain practices hurtful to
public morals. There is no violation o constitutional due process for being reasonable and the
ordinance is enjoys the presumption of constitutionality absent any irregularity on its face.
Taxation may be made to implement a police power and the amount, object, and instance of
taxation is dependent upon the local legislative body.

2. Rubi vs. Prov. Board of Mindoro

Facts:
Rubi and other Manguianes were ordered by the provincial governor of Mindoro by
virtue of the resolution to remove their residence from their native habitat and to establish
themselves on a reservation in Tigbao, or be punished by imprisonment if they escaped. The
Manguianes are a Non-Christian tribe who were considered to be of “very low culture.”
They alleged that the resolution creating the reservation had illegally deprived them of
their liberty. In this case, the validity of Section 2145 of the Administrative Code, which
provides:
With the prior approval of the Department Head, the provincial governor of any province
in which non-Christian inhabitants are found is authorized, when such a course is deemed
necessary in the interest of law and order, to direct such inhabitants to take up their habitation on
sites on unoccupied public lands to be selected by him and approved by the provincial board.
Issue:
(1) Whether or not Section 2145 of the Administrative Code constitutes undue delegation
(2) Whether or not the Manguianes are being deprived of their liberty
Held:
(1) No. In determining whether the delegation of legislative power is valid or not, the
distinction is between the delegation of power to make the law, which necessarily involves a
discretion as to what it shall be, and conferring an authority or discretion as to its execution, to be
exercised under and in pursuance of the law
(2) No. The reservation was to promote peace and to arrest their seminomadic lifestyle.
This will ultimately settle them down where they can adapt to the changing times. They are
restrained for their own good and the general welfare of the Philippines. Nor can one say that due
process of law has not been followed. In due process of law and equal protection of the laws,
there exists a law; the law seems to be reasonable; it is enforced according to the regular methods
of procedure prescribed; and it applies alike to all of a class.”

3. Nebbia vs. State of New York

Facts:
The New York legislature established a Milk Control Board that was vested with the
power to “fix minimum and maximum retail prices” for milk sold within the state. Nebbia, an
owner of a New York grocery store, was alleged to have sold milk for prices in excess of the
price set by the Board.
Issue:
Whether or not the regulation is violative of the due process
Held:
No. The cutthroat competition then going on between the small and big dairy companies
in that state would, if left unchecked, result in the deterioration of the quality of the milk they
were selling leading to the detriment of public health. Property rights and contract rights are not
absolute in nature and may be subject to limitations. Since the price controls were not “arbitrary,
discriminatory, or demonstrably irrelevant” to the policy adopted by the legislature to promote
the general welfare, it was consistent with the Constitution.
4. Tumey vs. Ohio
Facts:
In North College Hill, Ohio, a man was arrested for illegally possessing alcohol. He
contended that the law compensating officials with additional money for liquor cases violated the
"due process of law." He further claimed that judges were more likely to convict people because
convictions increased the judges' and other law enforcement officials' salaries.
Issue:
Whether or not the law in question is violative of the due process
Held:
Yes. It deprives a defendant in a criminal case of due process to subject his liberty or
property to the judgment of a court, which has a direct, personal, substantial pecuniary interest in
reaching a conclusion against his case.

5. Ichong vs. Hernandez

Facts:
The Congress enacted Act No. 1180 or the Retail Trade Nationalization Law. In view of
economic independence and national security, it prohibited aliens from engaging directly or
indirectly in the retail trade. The petitioners contended that it denied alien residents their due
process of law by depriving them of legitimate means of livelihood.
Issue:
Whether or not the law in question is violative of the due process
Held:
No. The law was a valid exercise of police power. The retail trade was at that time
controlled by aliens. The State was entitled to take adequate steps to relax the foreign
stranglehold on a vital artery of the national economy. The law was necessary to free the national
economy from alien control and dominance.