Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Corona v. UHPAP
Corona v. UHPAP
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.