Feeder International Line v. CA – 197 SCRA 842 Facts: The M/T „ULU WAI‟ a foreign vessel of Honduran registry, owned and operated by Feeder International Shipping Lines of Singapore, left Singapore on May 6, 1986 carrying 1,100 metric tons of gas oil and 1,000 metric tons of fuel oil consigned to Far East Synergy Corporation of Zamboanga, Philippines. On May 14, 1986, the vessel anchored at the vicinity of Guiuanon Island in Iloilo without notifying the Iloilo customs authorities. The presence of the vessel only came to the knowledge of the Iloilo authorities by information of the civilian informer in the area. Acting on said information, information, the Acting District Collector of Iloilo dispatched dispatched a Customs team on May 19, 1986 to verify the report. The Customs team found out that the vessel did not have on board the required ship and shipping documents, except for a clearance from the port authorities of Singapore clearing the vessel for „Zamboan ga.‟ ga.‟ The District Collector issued his decision finding the said vessel and her cargo in violation of the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines (PD 1464). The same was affirmed by both Custom Commissioner and Court of Tax Appeals. Issue: Whether or not the petitioner was deprived of property without due process of law in that its right to be presumed innocent was not recognized . Ruling: No, the petitioner, which is a corporate entity, has no personality to invoke the right to be presumed innocent which right is available only to an individual who is an accused in a criminal case.
Basco vs. Phil. Amusements and Gaming Corporation G.R. No. 91649. May 14, 1991 Facts: A TV ad proudly announces: “The new PAGCOR—responding through responsible gaming.” But the petitioners think otherwise, that is why, they filed the instant petition seeking to annul the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) Charter —PD 1869, because it is allegedly contrary to morals, public policy and order, and because, inter alia, It violates the equal protection clause of the constitution in that it legalizes PAGCOR—conducted gambling, while most other forms of gambling are outlawed, together with prostitution, drug trafficking and other vices; Issue: Whether or not PD 1869 violates the Equal Protection Caluse of the Constitution. Held: The Court finds no valid ground to sustain this contention. The petitioners‟ posture ignores the well-accepted meaning of the clause “equal protection of the laws.” The clause does not preclude classification of individuals who may be accorded different treatment under the law as long as the classification is not unreasonable or arbitrary (Itchong v. Hernandez, 101 Phil. 1155). A law does not have to operate in equal force on all persons or things to be conformable to Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution (DECS v. San Diego, G.R. No. 89572, December 21, 1989).
Valmonte v. General de Villa – 178 SCRA 211 (Main) Facts: This is a petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order, seeking the declaration of checkpoints in Valenzuela, Metro Manila or elsewhere, as unconstitutional and the dismantling and banning of the same or, in the alternative, to direct the respondents to formulate guidelines in the implementation of checkpoints, for the protection of the people. Petitioner Ricardo C. Valmonte sues in his capacity as citizen of the Republic, taxpayer, member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), and resident of Valenzuela, Metro Manila; while petitioner Union of Lawyers and Advocates for Peo ple‟s Rights (ULAP) sues in its capacity as an association whose members are all members of the IBP. On 20 January 1987, the National Capital Region District Command (NCRDC) was activated pursuant to Letter of Instruction 02/87 of the Philippine General Headquarters, AFP, with the mission of conducting security operations within its area of responsibility and peripheral areas As part of its duty to maintain peace and order, the NCRDC installed checkpoints in various parts of Valenzuela, Metro Manila. Petitioners aver that, because of the installation of said checkpoints, the residents of Valenzuela are worried of being harassed and of their safety being placed at the arbitrary, capricious and whimsical disposition of the military manning the checkpoints, considering that their cars and vehicles are being subjected to regular searches and check-ups, especially at night or at dawn, without the benefit of a search warrant and/or court order. Their alleged fear for their safety increased when, at dawn of 9 July 1988, Benjamin Parpon, a supply officer of Municipality of Valenzuela, Bulacan, was gunned down allegedly in cold blood by the members of the NCRDC manning the checkpoint along McArthur Highway at Malinta, Valenzuela, for ignoring and/or refusing to submit himself to the checkpoint and for continuing to speed off inspite of warning shots fired in the air. Petitioner Valmonte also claims that, on several occasions, he had gone thru these checkpoints where he was stopped and his car subjected to search/check-up without a court order or search warrant. Petitioners further contend that the said checkpoints give the respondents a blanket authority to make searches and/or seizures without search warrant or court order in violation of the Constitution;2 and, instances have occurred where a citizen, while not killed, had been harassed. Issue: Whether or not checkpoints are constitutional. Held: Checkpoints during abnormal times, if conducted within reasonable limits, are constitutional. Not all searches and seizures are prohibited. Those which are reasonable are not forbidden. A reasonable search is not to be determined by any fixed formula but is to be resolved according to the facts of each case.
Valmonte v. General de Villa - 185 SCRA 655 (MR) In the Court‟s decision dated 29 September 1989, petitioners‟ petition for prohibition seeking the declaration of the checkpoints as unconstitutional and their dismantling and/or banning, was dismissed. Petitioners have filed the instant motion and supplemental motion for reconsideration of said decision. Issue: Whether or not checkpoints are illegal. Held: It should be stated, at the outset, that nowhere in the questioned decision did this Court legalize all checkpoints, i.e. at all times and under all circumstances. What the Court declared is, that checkpoints are not illegal per se. Thus, under exceptional circumstances, as where the survival of organized government is on the balance, or where the lives and safety of the people are in grave peril, checkpoints may be allowed and installed by the government. Routine inspection and a few questions do noty constitute unreasonable searches. If the inspection becomes more thorough to the extent of becoming a search, this can be done when there is deemed to be probable cause. In the latter situation, it is justifiable as a warrantless search of a moving vehicle.
