You are on page 1of 2

Corona v.

United Harbor Pilots Association of the Philippines


GR No. 111953
December 12, 1997
Specific constitutional provision/s cited: A. 3, 1, Due Process Clause.
FACTS:
The Philippine Ports Authority [PPA] was created through PD 505, as amended by PD
857 to control, regulate, supervise pilots and the pilotage profession.
After hearing from relevant government agencies, pursuant to said charter, PPA
General Manager Rogelio A. Dayan issued Administrative Order 04-92 [PPA-AO 04-92] and
corresponding Memorandum Order in 1992, stating that all existing regular appointments
which have been previously issued... shall remain valid up to 31 December 1992 only and that
all appointments to harbor pilot positions in all pilotage districts shall, henceforth, be only for
a term of one year from date of effectivity subject to yearly renewal or cancellation by the
Authority after conduct of a rigid evaluation of performance to regulate and improve pilot
services by instilling discipline and give better protection to port users.
PPA-AO 04-92 replaces PPA-AO 03-85 which succinctly provides that, aspiring pilots
must have a license and train as probationary pilots, and only upon satisfactory performance, are
given permanent and regular appointments by the PPA itself and to exercise harbor pilotage
until they reach the age of 70.
Upon learning of PPA-AO 04-92 only after publication in the newspaper, the United
Harbor Pilots Association of the Philippines:
(a) questioned said PPA-AO twice before the DOTC, which Secretary Garcia said twice
that only the PPA Board of Directors [as governing body] has exclusive jurisdiction to review,
recall or annul PPA-AOs,
(b) appealed to the Office of the President, which first issued a restraining order to the
PPA on the implementation of the PPA-AO, and after PPAs answer, then dismissed the
appeal/petition and lifted said order, stating, through Assistant Executive Secretary for Legal
Affairs Renato C. Corona, that the PPA-AO (i) merely implements PPA Charter, (ii) issuance is
an act of PPA, not of its General Manager, (iii) merely regulates, not forbids practice of the
profession, recognizing that such exercise is property right, and (iv) sufficiently complied with
the requirement in the PD to consult only with relevant Government Agencies, and
(d) finally finding affirmative relief with Manila RTC Br. 6. Court, which ruled that (i)
said PPA-AO is null and void (ii) PPA acted in excess of jurisdiction with grave abuse of
discretion, and (iii) imposed a permanent restraining order on PPA on its implementation.
Assistant Executive Secretary Corona thus filed petition for review [of the Manila RTC
Decision] to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE:
1. WON PPA-AO 04-92 is violative of the procedural due process of UHPAP members.
2. WON PPA-AO 04-92 is violative of the substantive due process of UHPAP members.

Prepared By: Hezekiah D. Nicdao

RATIO:
To constitute deprivation of due process of law, there must be (a) a deprivation, and (b)
such deprivation is done without proper observance of due process.
1. NO. Notice and hearing is not required in the performance of an administrative bodys
function of executive or legislative functions, such as issuing rules and regulations, but only in
the performance of quasi-judicial functions. Also PPA sufficiently complied with the PPA
Charter requirement that only relevant government agencies are consulted with, which does
not include the UHPAP.
Procedural due process refers to the method or manner by which the law is enforced. The
opportunity to be heard is the very essence of due process. Due process is also satisfied when an
opportunity to seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of is granted, which was
availed by UHPAP four times.
2. YES. Substantive due process is when the law itself, not merely the procedures by which
the law would be enforced, is fair, reasonable, and just. Said PPA-AO unduly restricts their right
to enjoy their profession before compulsory retirement by facing an annual cancellation [both
veteran and neophyte Harbor Pilots] of their license dependent on a rigid evaluation of
performance.
Pilotage as a profession has taken on the nature of a property right. Any alteration of
property right must be strictly made in accordance with the constitutional mandate of due process
of law. Pilotage may only be practiced by duly licensed individuals. A license is a right or
permission granted by some competent authority to carry on a business ordo an act which,
without such license, would be illegal. Pilotage license requires passing 5 examinations, each
followed by actual training. License is granted in the form of an appontment
Said PPA- AO does not add anything new or substantial a mere surplusage, thus unecessary,
since PPA-AO 03-85 already provides for a comprehensive order on regulating harbor pilots,
matters merely duplicated in PPA-AO 04-92.
UHPAP also insinuated that the General Manager issued PPA-AO 04-92 with animosity to
the UHPAP, however, the General Manager is presumed to have acted in accordance with law
and the best of professional services. Such animosity, as evidenced by the number of cases filed,
cannot be considered the primordial reason for the issuance of said PPA-AO.
Petition denied. PPA-AO struck down as violative of substantive due process.

Prepared By: Hezekiah D. Nicdao

You might also like