Case Doctrines
1. There must be a court of tribunal clothed with
POLICE POWER
The state not only has authority under its police
power to make such needful rules and regulations for
the protection of the health of its citizens as it may
deem necessary; it may also regulate private business in
a way so that the business of one man shall in no way
become a nuisance to the people of the state.
While the Constitution protects property rights,
petitioners must accept that the realities of business and
the State, in the exercise of police power, can intervene
in the operations of a business which may result in the
impairment of property rights.
In order for the state to be Justified of exercising the
police power, the interest of the public must be considered
and that the means are reasonable, necessary and not
oppressive among individuals. From this, the said law
enacted is for the promotion of the general welfare in the
exercise of the sovereign police power with a purpose of
minimizing the crime of cattle stealing which is necessary
because of the Philippines condition from the past.
Therefore, this law possessed the requirements for a valid
exercise of police power.
Police power of the state has been variously defined. It has
been defined as the power of government, inherent in
every sovereign, and cannot be limited. The power vested
in the legislature to make such laws as they shall judge to
be for the good of the state and its subjects. The authority
to establish such rules and regulations for the conduct of
all persons as may be conducive to the public interest.
(LIMITATION) The exercise of police power, as it may
affect the life, liberty, or property of any person, is subject
to judicial inquiry. Where such police power may be
considered unjust or unreasonable, a denial of due process
may call for correction by the courts.
Thus, it reasoned that balancing this conflict required that
the police power legislation be firmly grounded on public
interest and welfare; also, there must be a reasonable
relation existing between purpose and means. So the State
can deprive persons of life, liberty, and property, provided
that there is due process of law. In the moment that it is
unjust and unreasonable, it is within the function of the
courts to check its reasonableness.
DUE PROCESS
Requisites of due process of law:
judicial power to hear and determine the matter
before it;
2. Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the
person of the defendant or over the property
which is the subject of the proceeding;
3. The defendant must be given an opportunity to be
heard; and
4. Judgment must rendered upon lawful hearing
Procedural Due Process
Newly discovered evidence, if proven to be inaccessible
at the time of the trial even with the exercise of due
diligence, can be a ground to set a new trial. The evidence
must be substantial.
The law is silent as to the procedure to be followed with
regard to provisional permit. Re-submitted evidence may
serve as basis for the issuance of a provisional permit to
the applicant.
The court first stated that the due process clause under
the constitution was intentionally kept ambiguous to
make it conveniently resilient. It was deemed to be
necessary because due process is not an “iron rule” laying
down an implacable and immutable command for all
seasons and all persons. It was kept vague to guaranty
flexibility of the clause to adapt easily to every situation
as changing times and circumstances require.
The court held that there are exceptions to the rule of
notice and hearing. The Court stated that previous judicial
hearing may be omitted without violation of due process
in view of the nature of the property involved or the
urgency of the need to protect the general welfare from a
clear and present danger – Police Power.
The imposition of disciplinary sanctions requires
observance of procedural due process. And it bears
stressing that due process in disciplinary cases
involving students does not entail proceedings and
hearings similar to those prescribed for actions and
proceedings in courts of justice.
RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL
1. The right to a speedy disposition of cases, like the
right to a speedy trial, is deemed violated only
when the proceeding is attended by vexatious,
capricious, and oppressive delay.
2. (The Balancing Test) In the determination of
whether or not that right has been violated, the
factors that may be considered and balanced are:
the length of delay, the reasons for such delay,
 the assertion or failure to assert such right by himselfas long as a party is given the opportunity to
the accused, and the prejudice caused by the defend his or her interests in due course, said party is not
delay. denied due process.
3. The court held that the right to a speedy trial as
well as other rights conferred by the Constitution
or statute, except when otherwise expressly so Equal Protection Clause
provided by law, may be waived. It was ruled that the equal protection clause applies only
4. The right of an accused to a speedy trial is
to persons or things identically situated and does not bar
guaranteed to him by the Constitution but the
same shall not be utilized to deprive the State of a reasonable classification of the subject of legislation,
a reasonable opportunity of fairly indicting and a classification is reasonable where
criminals. While accused persons do have rights, (1) it is based on substantial distinctions which
many of them choose to forget that the aggrieved
make real differences;
also have the same rights. It secures rights to a
defendant, but it does not preclude the rights of (2) these are germane to the purpose of the law;
public justice. A party's individual rights should
not work against and preclude the people's (3) the classification applies not only to present
equally important right to public justice. conditions but also to future conditions which are
substantially identical to those of the present;
Air Manila, Inc. v. Balatbat, the formulation was (4) the classification applies only to those who
simplified into four basic rights (As opposed to the belong to the same class
original 7 from Ang Tibay case) , as follows:
1. The right to notice, be it actual or constructive, of the The equal protection of the law clause is against undue
institution of the proceedings that may affect a person’s favor and individual or class privilege, as well as hostile
legal right; discrimination or the oppression of inequality.
2. The right to a reasonable opportunity to appear and
defend his rights and to introduce witnesses and relevant
evidence in his favor; The right to hearing – present a case and evidence
3. The right to a tribunal so constituted as to give him
reasonable assurance of honesty and impartiality, and one Tribunal must consider evidence presented
of competent jurisdiction; and
4. The right to a finding or decision of that tribunal Decision must have support
supported by substantial evidence presented at the hearing
or at least ascertained in the records or disclosed to the
parties.

The essence of due process is the right to be heard.

Based on the foregoing, Bugarin or his heirs were
certainly not denied that right. Petitioners cannot now
claim a different right over the reduced list of properties
in order to prevent forfeiture, or at the least, justify
another round of proceedings.

This Court continues to emphasize that due process is

satisfied when the parties are afforded a fair and
reasonable opportunity to explain their respective
sides of the controversy. Thus, when the party seeking
due process was in fact given several opportunities to
be heard and air his side, but it is by his own fault or
choice he squanders these chances, then his cry for due
process must fail.
Due process, as a constitutional precept, does not always
and in all situations require a trial-type proceeding. It is
satisfied when a person is notified of the charge against
him and given an opportunity to explain or defend