You are on page 1of 6

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II NOTES & DOCTRINES 1

SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW - MANILA


CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II NOTES & DOCTRINES

ARTICLE III Bill of Rights This bill proposes to regulate the retail business. Its purpose is to
SECTION 1 prevent persons who are not citizens of the Philippines from having a
strangle hold upon our economic life. If the persons who control this
DUE PROCESS OF LAW vital artery of our economic life are the ones who owe no allegiance to
this Republic, who have no profound devotion to our free institutions,
ICHONG vs. HERNANDEZ and who have no permanent stake in our people's welfare, we are not
Questions we ask when Due Process Clause is applied really the masters of our destiny. All aspects of our life, even our
1. Is there public interest, a public purpose; is public welfare national security, will be at the mercy of other people.
involved?
2. Is the Act reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of In seeking to accomplish the foregoing purpose, we do not propose to
the legislature's purpose? deprive persons who are not citizens of the Philippines of their means
3. Is it not unreasonable, arbitrary or oppressive? of livelihood. While this bill seeks to take away from the hands of
4. Is there sufficient foundation or reason in connection with persons who are not citizens of the Philippines a power that can be
the matter involved? wielded to paralyze all aspects of our national life and endanger our
5. Has there not been a capricious use of the legislative power? national security it respects existing rights.
6. Can the aims conceived be achieved by the means used, or
is it not merely an unjustified interference with private The approval of this bill is necessary for our national survival.
interest?
Law as expressly held by the Constitutional Convention
Conflict between Police Power and Due Process of Law The framers of the Constitution could not have intended to impose the
The conflict, therefore, between police power and the guarantees of constitutional restrictions of due process on the attainment of such a
due process and equal protection of the laws is more apparent than noble motive as freedom from economic control and domination, thru
real. Properly related, the power and the guarantees are supposed to the exercise of the police power. The fathers of the Constitution must
coexist. The balancing is the essence or, shall it be said, the have given to the legislature full authority and power to enact
indispensable means for the attainment of legitimate aspirations of any legislation that would promote the supreme happiness of the people,
democratic society. There can be no absolute power, whoever exercise their freedom and liberty. On the precise issue now before us, they
it, for that would be tyranny. Yet there can neither be absolute liberty, expressly made their voice clear; they adopted a resolution expressing
for that would mean license and anarchy. So the State can deprive their belief that the legislation in question is within the scope of the
persons of life, liberty and property, provided there is due process of legislative power. Thus they declared the their Resolution:
law; and persons may be classified into classes and groups, provided

JAMES BRYAN SUAREZ DEANG 2017 (09265563619/jbsdeang.jbd@gmail.com)


everyone is given the equal protection of the law. The test or standard, That it is the sense of the Convention that the public interest requires
as always, is reason. the nationalization of retail trade; but it abstain from approving the
amendment introduced by the Delegate for Manila, Mr. Araneta, and
Reasonability as the test of limitation others on this matter because it is convinced that the National
. . . . And the guaranty of due process, as has often been held, demands Assembly is authorized to promulgate a law which limits to Filipino
only that the law shall not be unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious, and and American citizens the privilege to engage in the retail trade. (11
that the means selected shall have a real and substantial relation to the Aruego, The Framing of the Philippine Constitution, quoted on pages
subject sought to be attained. . . . . 66 and 67 of the Memorandum for the Petitioner.)

Adoption of Economic Policy in relation to Due Process PHILIPPINE PHOSPHATE FERTILIZER CORP. vs. TORRES
So far as the requirement of due process is concerned and in the Essence of Due Process
absence of other constitutional restriction a state is free to adopt The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard or, as
whatever economic policy may reasonably be deemed to promote applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one's
public welfare, and to enforce that policy by legislation adapted to its side or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling
purpose. The courts are without authority either to declare such policy, complained of. Where, as in the instant case, petitioner PHILPHOS
or, when it is declared by the legislature, to override it. If the laws agreed to file its position paper with the Mediator-Arbiter and to
passed are seen to have a reasonable relation to a proper legislative consider the case submitted for decision on the basis of the position
purpose, and are neither arbitrary nor discriminatory, the requirements papers filed by the parties, there was sufficient compliance with the
of due process are satisfied, and judicial determination to that effect requirement of due process, as petitioner was afforded reasonable
renders a court functus officio. . . . opportunity to present its side.

Necessity of the Bill applying the Test of Reasonableness YNOT vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT
The test of reasonableness of a law is the appropriateness or adequacy Why is the Due Process Clause kept ambiguous?
under all circumstances of the means adopted to carry out its purpose The due process clause was kept intentionally vague so it would remain
into effect (Id.) Judged by this test, disputed legislation, which is not also conveniently resilient. This was felt necessary because due
merely reasonable but actually necessary, must be considered not to process is not, like some provisions of the fundamental law, an "iron
have infringed the constitutional limitation of reasonableness. rule" laying down an implacable and immutable command for all
seasons and all persons. Flexibility must be the best virtue of the
The necessity of the law in question is explained in the explanatory guaranty. The very elasticity of the due process clause was meant to
note that accompanied the bill, which later was enacted into law: make it adapt easily to every situation, enlarging or constricting its
protection as the changing times and circumstances may require.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II NOTES & DOCTRINES 2

Aware of this, the courts have also hesitated to adopt their own specific Instances when the need for expeditions action will justify omission
description of due process lest they confine themselves in a legal of these requisites of notice and hearing:
straitjacket that will deprive them of the elbow room they may need to 1. Summary abatement of a nuisance per se, like a mad dog on
vary the meaning of the clause whenever indicated. Instead, they have the loose, which may be killed on sight because of the
preferred to leave the import of the protection open-ended, as it were, immediate danger it poses to the safety and lives of the
to be "gradually ascertained by the process of inclusion and exclusion people.
in the course of the decision of cases as they arise." 2. Pornographic materials, contaminated meat and narcotic
drugs are inherently pernicious and may be summarily
Thus, Justice Felix Frankfurter of the U.S. Supreme Court, for destroyed.
example, would go no farther than to define due process and in so 3. The passport of a person sought for a criminal offense may
doing sums it all up as nothing more and nothing less than "the be cancelled without hearing, to compel his return to the
embodiment of the sporting Idea of fair play." country he has fled.
4. Filthy restaurants may be summarily padlocked in the
The solemn vow that King John made at Runnymede in 1215 interest of the public health and bawdy houses to protect the
When the barons of England extracted from their sovereign liege the public morals.
reluctant promise that that Crown would thenceforth not proceed
against the life liberty or property of any of its subjects except by the Reason for such exceptions: In such instances, previous judicial
lawful judgment of his peers or the law of the land, they thereby won hearing may be omitted without violation of due process in view of the
for themselves and their progeny that splendid guaranty of fairness that nature of the property involved or the urgency of the need to protect
is now the hallmark of the free society. The solemn vow that King John the general welfare from a clear and present danger.
made at Runnymede in 1215 has since then resounded through the
ages, as a ringing reminder to all rulers, benevolent or base, that every No guarantee of fair play in the instant case
person, when confronted by the stern visage of the law, is entitled to In the instant case, the carabaos were arbitrarily confiscated by the
have his say in a fair and open hearing of his cause. police station commander, were returned to the petitioner only after he
had filed a complaint for recovery and given a supersedeas bond of
The closed mind has no place in the open society. It is part of the P12,000.00, which was ordered confiscated upon his failure to produce
sporting Idea of fair play to hear "the other side" before an opinion is the carabaos when ordered by the trial court. The executive order
formed or a decision is made by those who sit in judgment. Obviously, defined the prohibition, convicted the petitioner and immediately
one side is only one-half of the question; the other half must also be imposed punishment, which was carried out forthright. The measure
considered if an impartial verdict is to be reached based on an informed struck at once and pounced upon the petitioner without giving him a
appreciation of the issues in contention. It is indispensable that the two chance to be heard, thus denying him the centuries-old guaranty of
sides complement each other, as unto the bow the arrow, in leading to elementary fair play.
the correct ruling after examination of the problem not from one or the

JAMES BRYAN SUAREZ DEANG 2017 (09265563619/jbsdeang.jbd@gmail.com)


other perspective only but in its totality. A judgment based on less that Due Process is violated in the case at bar
this full appraisal, on the pretext that a hearing is unnecessary or Due process is violated because the owner of the property confiscated
useless, is tainted with the vice of bias or intolerance or ignorance, or is denied the right to be heard in his defense and is immediately
worst of all, in repressive regimes, the insolence of power. condemned and punished. The conferment on the administrative
authorities of the power to adjudge the guilt of the supposed offender
Minimum Requirements of Due Process is a clear encroachment on judicial functions and militates against the
The minimum requirements of due process are notice and doctrine of separation of powers.
hearing which, generally speaking, may not be dispensed with because
they are intended as a safeguard against official arbitrariness. It is a ALONTE vs. SAVELLANO
gratifying commentary on our judicial system that the jurisprudence of Mandatory and Indispensable Requirements of Due Process in
this country is rich with applications of this guaranty as proof of our Criminal Proceedings
fealty to the rule of law and the ancient rudiments of fair play. (a) that the court or tribunal trying the case is properly clothed
with judicial power to hear and determine the matter before
Law of the Land Defined it;
We have consistently declared that every person, faced by the (b) that jurisdiction is lawfully acquired by it over the person of
awesome power of the State, is entitled to "the law of the land," which the accused;
Daniel Webster described almost two hundred years ago in the famous (c) that the accused is given an opportunity to be heard; and
Dartmouth College Case, as "the law which hears before it condemns, (d) that judgment is rendered only upon lawful hearing.
which proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment only after trial." It
has to be so if the rights of every person are to be secured beyond the Principle: The principles find universal acceptance and are tersely
reach of officials who, out of mistaken zeal or plain arrogance, would expressed in the oft-quoted statement that procedural due process
degrade the due process clause into a worn and empty catchword. cannot possibly be met without a "law which hears before it condemns,
which proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment only after trial.
Are notice and hearing imperative in every case? NO
This is not to say that notice and hearing are imperative in every case Constitutional presumption of innocence
for, to be sure, there are a number of admitted exceptions. The "x x x each step in the trial process serves a specific purpose. In the
conclusive presumption, for example, bars the admission of contrary trial of criminal cases, the constitutional presumption of innocence in
evidence as long as such presumption is based on human experience or favor of an accused requires that an accused be given sufficient
there is a rational connection between the fact proved and the fact opportunity to present his defense. So, with the prosecution as to its
ultimately presumed therefrom. evidence.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II NOTES & DOCTRINES 3

"Hence, any deviation from the regular course of trial should always right; it is a substantive right . . . . [T]he right to an opportunity to avoid
take into consideration the rights of all the parties to the case, whether a process painful to anyone save, perhaps, to hardened criminals is a
in the prosecution or defense. In the exercise of their discretion, judges valuable right. To deny petitioner's claim to a preliminary investigation
are sworn not only to uphold the law but also to do what is fair and would be to deprive him of the full measure of his right to due process.
just. The judicial gavel should not be wielded by one who has an
unsound and distorted sense of justice and fairness. Is the filing of a motion for reconsideration with COMELEC can be
considered as a waiver of his claim to a separate preliminary
Standard of Waiver (example: of the right to confront and cross- investigation? NO
examine the witnesses) The motion itself expresses petitioner's vigorous insistence on his
The standard of waiver requires that it "not only must be voluntary, but right. Petitioner's protestation started as soon as he learned of his
must be knowing, intelligent, and done with sufficient awareness of the inclusion in the charge, and did not ease up even after COMELEC's
relevant circumstances and likely consequences." Mere silence of the denial of his motion for reconsideration. This is understandably so
holder of the right should not be so construed as a waiver of right, and since the prohibition against carrying firearms bears the penalty of
the courts must indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver. imprisonment of not less than one (1) year nor more than six (6) years
without probation and with disqualification from holding public office,
Deviations found by the Solicitor General from the regular course and deprivation of the right to suffrage. Against such strong stance,
of the trial petitioner clearly did not waive his right to a preliminary investigation.
(1) Petitioners have not been directed to present evidence to
prove their defenses nor have dates therefor been scheduled SPOUSES ROMUALDEZ vs. COMELEC
for the purpose; No denial of due process in the instant case
(2) the parties have not been given the opportunity to present Petitioners cannot be said to have been denied due process on the claim
rebutting evidence nor have dates been set by respondent that the election offenses charged against them by private respondent
Judge for the purpose; and are entirely different from those for which they stand to be accused of
(3) petitioners have not admitted the act charged in the before the RTC, as charged by the COMELEC. In the first place, there
Information so as to justify any modification in the order of appears to be no incongruity between the charges as contained in the
trial. Complaint-Affidavit and the Informations filed before the RTC,
notwithstanding the denomination by private respondent of the alleged
Can there be a shortcut in the legal process? NONE violations to be covered by Section 261(y)(2) and Section 261(y)(5) of
There can be no short-cut to the legal process, and there can be no the Omnibus Election Code and Section 12 of Republic Act No. 8189.
excuse for not affording an accused his full day in court. Due process, Evidently, the Informations directed to be filed by the COMELEC
rightly occupying the first and foremost place of honor in our Bill of against petitioners, and which were, in fact, filed with the RTC, were
Rights, is an enshrined and invaluable right that cannot be denied even based on the same set of facts as originally alleged in the private
to the most undeserving. respondents Complaint-Affidavit.

JAMES BRYAN SUAREZ DEANG 2017 (09265563619/jbsdeang.jbd@gmail.com)


Affidavit of Desistance and Retractions Petitioners were afforded due process because they were granted the
Thus, we have declared that at most the retraction is an afterthought opportunity to refute the allegations in private respondents
which should not be given probative value. It would be a dangerous Complaint-Affidavit. On 2 April 2001, in opposition to the Complaint-
rule to reject the testimony taken before the court of justice simply Affidavit, petitioners filed a Joint Counter-Affidavit with Motion to
because the witness who has given it later on changed his mind for one Dismiss with the Law Department of the COMELEC. They similarly
reason or another. Such a rule will make a solemn trial a mockery and filed a Memorandum before the said body.
place the investigation at the mercy of unscrupulous
witnesses. Because affidavits of retraction can easily be secured from Elementary Rule of the jurisdiction of the court
poor and ignorant witnesses, usually for monetary consideration, the In Lacson, we underscored the elementary rule that the jurisdiction of
Court has invariably regarded such affidavits as exceedingly a court is determined by the allegations in the Complaint or
unreliable. Information, and not by the evidence presented by the parties at the
trial.
ANIAG vs. COMELEC
Non-disclosure of the City Prosecutor violative of Due Process Real Nature of the Criminal Charge
The non-disclosure by the City Prosecutor to the petitioner that he was Indeed, in Lacson, we articulated that the real nature of the criminal
a respondent in the preliminary investigation is violative of due process charge is determined not from the caption or preamble of the
which requires that the procedure established by law should be obeyed. Information nor from the specification of the provision of law alleged
to have been violated, they being conclusions of law, but by the actual
Substantive and Procedural Right recital of facts in the Complaint or Information.
Due process guarantees the observance of both substantive and
procedural rights, whatever the source of such rights, be it the In fact, the nature of the criminal charges in private respondents
Constitution itself or only a statute or a rule of court. Complaint-Affidavit and that of the charges contained in the
Informations filed with the RTC, pursuant to the COMELEC
Right to Preliminary Investigation as a component part in criminal Resolution En Banc are the same, such that, petitioners cannot claim
justice that they were not able to refute or submit documentary evidence
While the right to preliminary investigation is statutory rather than against the charges that the COMELEC filed with the RTC.
constitutional in its fundament, since it has in fact been established by
statute, it is a component part of due process in criminal justice. The Who designates the proper offense?
right to have a preliminary investigation conducted before being bound Citing Orquinaza vs. People: On a claim that there was deprivation of
over to trial for a criminal offense and hence formally at risk of due process, therein petitioner argued that the Information for acts of
incarceration or some other penalty is not a mere formal or technical lasciviousness was void as the preliminary investigation conducted
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II NOTES & DOCTRINES 4

was for sexual harassment. The court held that the designation by the same applies exclusively to petitioner herein. What is more, it is
police officer of the offense is not conclusive as it is within the predicated upon the finding of fact-based upon a report submitted by
competence of the prosecutor to assess the evidence submitted and the General Auditing Office-that petitioner is making a profit of more
determine therefrom the appropriate offense to be charged. than 12% of its invested capital, which is denied by petitioner.
Obviously, the latter is entitled to cross-examine the maker of said
Void-for-vagueness Doctrine report, and to introduce evidence to disprove the contents thereof
The void-for-vagueness doctrine holds that a law is facially invalid if and/or explain or complement the same, as well as to refute the
men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and conclusion drawn therefrom by the respondent. In other words, in
differ as to its application. making said finding of fact, respondent performed a function partaking
of a quasi-judicial character, the valid exercise of which demands
Is facial invalidation of criminal statutes appropriate? NO previous notice and hearing.
In sum, the doctrines of strict scrutiny, overbreadth, and vagueness are
analytical tools developed for testing "on their faces" statutes in free If the nature of the administrative agency, are notice and hearings
speech cases or, as they are called in American law, First Amendment necessary? NO
cases. They cannot be made to do service when what is involved is a 'If the nature of the administrative agency is essentially legislative, the
criminal statute. With respect to such statute, the established rule is that requirements of notice and hearing are not necessary. The validity of a
'one to whom application of a statute is constitutional will not be heard rule of future action which affects a group, if vested rights of liberty or
to attack the statute on the ground that impliedly it might also be taken property are not involved, is not determined according to the same
as applying to other persons or other situations in which its application rules which apply in the case of the direct application of a policy to a
might be unconstitutional.' specific individual.

Indeed, an "on-its-face" invalidation of criminal statutes would Notice and Hearing in Administrative Proceedings
result in a mass acquittal of parties whose cases may not have even In so far as generalization is possible in view of the great variety of
reached the courts. Such invalidation would constitute a departure administrative proceedings, it may be stated as a general rule that
from the usual requirement of "actual case and controversy" and notice and hearing are not essential to the validity of administrative
permit decisions to be made in a sterile abstract context having no action where the administrative body acts in the exercise of executive,
factual concreteness. administrative, or legislative functions; but where a public
administrative body acts in a judicial or quasi-judicial matter, and its
For this reason, generally disfavored is an on-its-face invalidation acts are particular and immediate rather than general and prospective,
of statutes, described as a "manifestly strong medicine" to be the person whose rights or property may be affected by the action is
employed "sparingly and only as a last resort." In determining the entitled to notice and hearing.
constitutionality of a statute, therefore, its provisions that have
allegedly been violated must be examined in the light of the The order in the case bar is that one of a quasi-judicial adjudication

JAMES BRYAN SUAREZ DEANG 2017 (09265563619/jbsdeang.jbd@gmail.com)


conduct with which the defendant has been charged. The order in question which was issued by respondent Alcuaz no doubt
contains all the attributes of a quasi-judicial adjudication. Foremost is
Facial Overbreadth Adjudication the fact that said order pertains exclusively to petitioner and to no
But the plain import of our cases is, at the very least, that facial other. Further, it is premised on a finding of fact, although patently
overbreadth adjudication is an exception to our traditional rules of superficial, that there is merit in a reduction of some of the rates
practice and that its function, a limited one at the outset, attenuates as charged- based on an initial evaluation of petitioner's financial
the otherwise unprotected behavior that it forbids the State to sanction statements-without affording petitioner the benefit of an explanation
moves from pure speech toward conduct and that conduct even if as to what particular aspect or aspects of the financial statements
expressive falls within the scope of otherwise valid criminal laws that warranted a corresponding rate reduction. No rationalization was
reflect legitimate state interests in maintaining comprehensive controls offered nor were the attending contingencies, if any, discussed, which
over harmful, constitutionally unprotected conduct. prompted respondents to impose as much as a fifteen percent (15%)
rate reduction.
Prosecutorial power of the COMELEC
It is also well-settled that the finding of probable cause in the Hearing is essential in the case at bar
prosecution of election offenses rests in the COMELEC's sound It is thus clear that with regard to rate-fixing, respondent has no
discretion. The COMELEC exercises the constitutional authority to authority to make such order without first giving petitioner a hearing,
investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute cases for violation of whether the order be temporary or permanent, and it is immaterial
election laws, including acts or omissions constituting election frauds, whether the same is made upon a complaint, a summary investigation,
offense and malpractices. Generally, the Court will not interfere with or upon the commission's own motion as in the present case. That such
such finding of the COMELEC absent a clear showing of grave abuse a hearing is required is evident in respondents' order of September 16,
of discretion. This principle emanates from the COMELEC's exclusive 1987 in NTC Case No. 87-94 which granted PHILCOMSAT a
power to conduct preliminary investigation of all election offenses provisional authority "to continue operating its existing facilities, to
punishable under the election laws and to prosecute the same, except render the services it presently offers, and to charge the rates as
as may otherwise be provided by law. reduced by them "under the condition that "(s)ubject to hearing and the
final consideration of the merit of this application, the Commission
PHILIPPINE COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE CORP. vs. may modify, revise or amend the rates ..."
ALCUAZ
Quasi-judicial performance demands notice and hearing While it may be true that for purposes of rate-fixing respondents may
Moreover, although the rule-making power and even the power to fix have other sources of information or data, still, since a hearing is
rates- when such rules and/or rates are meant to apply to all enterprises essential, respondent NTC should act solely on the basis of the
of a given kind throughout the Philippines-may partake of a legislative evidence before it and not on knowledge or information otherwise
character, such is not the nature of the order complained of. Indeed, the
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II NOTES & DOCTRINES 5

acquired by it but which is not offered in evidence or, even if so (7) The Court of Industrial Relations should, in all controversial
adduced, petitioner was given no opportunity to controvert. questions, render its decision in such a manner that the
parties to the proceeding can know the various issues
Justice Gutierrez Concurring Opinion RE The Necessity of involved, and the reasons for the decision rendered. The
Hearings in Administrative Agencies performing Quasi-Legislative performance of this duty is inseparable from the authority
functions conferred upon it.
I believe that in the exercise of quasi-legislative powers, administrative
agencies, much, much more than Congress, should hold hearings and ATENEO DE MANILA vs. CAPULONG
should be given guidelines as to when notices and hearings are Students Rights in a school disciplinary proceeding were respected
essential even in quasi-legislation. On the contrary, respondent students' rights in a school disciplinary
proceeding, as enunciated in the cases of Guzman v. National
ANG TIBAY vs. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS University, Alcuaz v. PSBA, Q.C. Branch and Non v. Dames II have
What is the Court of Industrial Relations? been meticulously respected by petitioners in the various investigative
The Court of Industrial Relations is a special court whose functions are proceedings held before they were expelled.
specifically stated in the law of its creation (Commonwealth Act No.
103). It is more an administrative than a part of the integrated judicial The minimum standards to be satisfied in the imposition of
system of the nation. It is not intended to be a mere receptive organ of disciplinary sanctions in academic institutions
the Government. Unlike a court of justice which is essentially passive, From the Guzman Case
acting only when its jurisdiction is invoked and deciding only cases (1) the students must be informed in writing of the nature and
that are presented to it by the parties litigant, the function of the Court cause of any accusation against them;
of Industrial Relations, as will appear from perusal of its organic law, (2) that they shall have the right to answer the charges against
is more active, affirmative and dynamic. It not only exercises judicial them with the assistance of counsel, if desired:
or quasi-judicial functions in the determination of disputes between (3) they shall be informed of the evidence against them
employers and employees but its functions in the determination of (4) they shall have the right to adduce evidence in their own
disputes between employers and employees but its functions are far behalf; and
more comprehensive and expensive. It has jurisdiction over the entire (5) the evidence must be duly considered by the investigating
Philippines, to consider, investigate, decide, and settle any question, committee or official designated by the school authorities to
matter controversy or dispute arising between, and/or affecting hear and decide the case.
employers and employees or laborers, and regulate the relations
between them, subject to, and in accordance with, the provisions of Hazing as a ground for disciplining students
Commonwealth Act No. 103 (section 1) Hazing, as a ground for disciplining a students, to the extent of
dismissal or expulsion, finds its raison d' etre in the increasing
Can the Court of Industrial Relations entirely ignore or disregard the frequency of injury, even death, inflicted upon the neophytes by their

JAMES BRYAN SUAREZ DEANG 2017 (09265563619/jbsdeang.jbd@gmail.com)


fundamental and essential requirements of due process in trials and insensate "masters." Assuredly, it passes the test of reasonableness and
investigations of an administrative character? NO absence of malice on the part of the school authorities. Far from
The fact, however, that the Court of Industrial Relations may be said fostering comradeship and esprit d' corps, it has merely fed upon the
to be free from the rigidity of certain procedural requirements does not cruel and baser instincts of those who aspire to eventual leadership in
mean that it can, in justifiable cases before it, entirely ignore or our country.
disregard the fundamental and essential requirements of due process in
trials and investigations of an administrative character. Exception to the Doctrine of Exhaustion of Remedies
It is accepted legal doctrine that an exception to the doctrine of
Primary Rights which must be respected in administrative trials and exhaustion of remedies is when the case involves a question of law, as
investigations in this case, where the issue is whether or not respondent students have
(1) The first of these rights is the right to a hearing, which been afforded procedural due process prior to their dismissal from
includes the right of the party interested or affected to petitioner university.
present his own case and submit evidence in support
thereof. Essential Academic Freedoms
(2) The tribunal must consider the evidence presented. (1) who may teach:
(3) "While the duty to deliberate does not impose the obligation (2) what may be taught;
to decide right, it does imply a necessity which cannot be (3) how it shall be taught; and
disregarded, namely, that of having something to support it (4) who may be admitted to study.
is a nullity, a place when directly attached." (Edwards vs.
McCoy, supra.) This principle emanates from the more Right to establish policies
fundamental is contrary to the vesting of unlimited power As corporate entities, educational institutions of higher learning are
anywhere. Law is both a grant and a limitation upon power. inherently endowed with the right to establish their policies, academic
(4) Not only must there be some evidence to support a finding and otherwise, unhampered by external controls or pressure. In
or conclusion but the evidence must be "substantial." the Frankfurter formulation, this is articulated in the areas of: (1) what
(5) The decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at shall be taught, e.g., the curriculum and (2) who may be admitted to
the hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed study.
to the parties affected.
(6) The Court of Industrial Relations or any of its judges, Academic Freedom in the 1987 Philippine Constitution
therefore, must act on its or his own independent In an attempt to give an explicit definition with an expanded coverage,
consideration of the law and facts of the controversy, and the Commissioners of the Constitutional Commission of the 1986
not simply accept the views of a subordinate in arriving at a came up with this formulation: "Academic freedom shall be enjoyed
decision. by students, by teachers, and by researchers." After protracted debate
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II NOTES & DOCTRINES 6

and ringing speeches, the final version which was none too different overbreadth analysis, those rules give way; challenges are permitted to
from the way it was couched in the previous two (2) Constitutions, as raise the rights of third parties; and the court invalidates the entire
found in Article XIV, Section 5(2) states: "Academic freedom shall be statute "on its face," not merely "as applied for" so that the overbroad
enjoyed in all institutions of higher learning." In anticipation of the law becomes unenforceable until a properly authorized court construes
question as to whether and what aspects of academic freedom are it more narrowly. The factor that motivates courts to depart from the
included herein, ConCom Commissioner Adolfo S. Azcuna explained: normal adjudicatory rules is the concern with the "chilling;" deterrent
"Since academic freedom is a dynamic concept, we want to expand the effect of the overbroad statute on third parties not courageous enough
frontiers of freedom, especially in education, therefore, we shall leave to bring suit. The Court assumes that an overbroad laws "very
it to the courts to develop further the parameters of academic freedom." existence may cause others not before the court to refrain from
constitutionally protected speech or expression." An overbreadth
Religious aspect of education ruling is designed to remove that deterrent effect on the speech of those
In essence, education must ultimately be religious not in the sense third parties.(Emphasis in the original omitted; underscoring supplied.)
that the founders or charter members of the institution are sectarian or
profess a religious ideology. Rather, a religious education, as the Since a penal statute may only be assailed for being vague as
renowned philosopher Alfred North Whitehead said, is "an education applied to petitioners, a limited vagueness analysis of the definition
which inculcates duty and reverence." It appears that the particular of terrorism in RA 9372 is legally impermissible absent an actual or
brand of religious education offered by the Ateneo de Manila has been imminent charge against them
lost on the respondent students. It stressed that statutes found vague as a matter of due
process typically are invalidated only 'as applied' to a particular
SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE ENGAGEMENT NETWORK, INC. defendant.
vs. ANTI-TERRORISM COUNCIL
Doctrine of Vagueness and Doctrine of Overbreadth American jurisprudence instructs that vagueness challenges that do not
To be sure, the doctrine of vagueness and the doctrine of overbreadth involve the First Amendment must be examined in light of the specific
do not operate on the same plane. facts of the case at hand and not with regard to the statute's facial
validity.
A statute or act suffers from the defect of vagueness when it lacks
comprehensible standards that men of common intelligence must Does the law penalizes speech to give way for the invocation of the
necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application. laws invalidity using the facial challenge applicable only to free
speech cases? NO
It is repugnant to the Constitution in two respects: What the law seeks to penalize is conduct, not speech.
(1) it violates due process for failure to accord persons,
especially the parties targeted by it, fair notice of the conduct Before a charge for terrorism may be filed under RA 9372, there must
to avoid; and first be a predicate crime actually committed to trigger the operation of

JAMES BRYAN SUAREZ DEANG 2017 (09265563619/jbsdeang.jbd@gmail.com)


(2) it leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out the key qualifying phrases in the other elements of the crime, including
its provisions and becomes an arbitrary flexing of the the coercion of the government to accede to an unlawful
Government muscle. demand. Given the presence of the first element, any attempt at
singling out or highlighting the communicative component of the
The overbreadth doctrine, meanwhile, decrees that a governmental prohibition cannot recategorize the unprotected conduct into a
purpose to control or prevent activities constitutionally subject to state protected speech.
regulations may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily
broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms. Utterances not elemental but inevitably incidental to the doing of the
criminal conduct alter neither the intent of the law to punish socially
As distinguished from the vagueness doctrine, the overbreadth doctrine harmful conduct nor the essence of the whole act as conduct and not
assumes that individuals will understand what a statute prohibits and speech. This holds true a fortiori in the present case where the
will accordingly refrain from that behavior, even though some of it is expression figures only as an inevitable incident of making the element
protected. of coercion perceptible.

Facial challenge and As-applied Challenge


Distinguished from an as-applied challenge which considers
only extant facts affecting real litigants, a facial invalidation is an
examination of the entire law, pinpointing its flaws and defects, not
only on the basis of its actual operation to the parties, but also on the
assumption or prediction that its very existence may cause others not
before the court to refrain from constitutionally protected speech or
activities.

Distinctive feature of the overbreadth technique


The most distinctive feature of the overbreadth technique is that it
marks an exception to some of the usual rules of constitutional
litigation. Ordinarily, a particular litigant claims that a statute is
unconstitutional as applied to him or her; if the litigant prevails, the
courts carve away the unconstitutional aspects of the law by
invalidating its improper applications on a case to case
basis. Moreover, challengers to a law are not permitted to raise the
rights of third parties and can only assert their own interests. In