You are on page 1of 9

Equal Protection and Due Process Clause

Wednesday, 17 January 2018


1:37 PM
It is found in Sec 1 under the Constitution that provides that no person shall be deprived of due
process or denied equal protection.

In his book, Justice Cruz put forth the idea that due process was instituted by God in the Garden
of Eden. He created Adam and Eve, but when God gave them dominion, he prohibited them
from eating a particular fruit. As stated in the Bible, they disobeyed God and ate the fruit. He is
omnipotent and omniscient, but even then, He still allowed Adam and Eve to sin…. Bible
analogy.

Due process means that one should be given an opportunity to be heard. Equal protection was
likewise instituted by God in the Garden of Eden.

Due process originated in England. This concept was run by the friars of England by King John, to
the end that there was a decree that no man shall be deprived of his liberty or property unless
from the judgment of his peers. Contemplated a hearing. Context of this was articulated in
Statute 28, written by King Edward the III, decreeing that no person shall be imprisoned without
due process of law.

Note: Kind of due process then observed was only procedural due process. It was then that this
concept was transported to the US that it was given another dimension - substantive element.

Filipinos patterned their Consti to the US. We not only have procedural but also substantive due
process.

If you look at Sec 1 or the 1987 Consti itself, you can never find any particular provision that
defines due process.

Case: Justice Frankfurter described due process as the embodiment of fairplay. Our own SC said
that it was responsiveness to the supremacy of reason and obedience to the dictates of justice.

Is this the result of inadvertence? It was an intentional act. Our framers did not give a definition,
lest that any definition may become a legal straitjacket. They wanted the courts to have
enough leeway for due process. Take note that no two cases are the same. Court is given
enough leeway to due process for each case since it may vary from time to time.

Mentions that all persons must be afforded of this. Term person does not only refer to natural
persons or human beings. The term person involves juridical persons like corporations or
partnerships. It should not only be accorded to natural persons but also juridical persons. It is not
only Filipinos who should be accorded due process. Foreigners are likewise protected.

Sec 1 - what is prohibited therein is the deprivation of life, liberty, or property WITHOUT due
process. It can be deprived if there is an observance of due process. Where a person is charged
with a criminal offense and proven, he may be deprived of his liberty.

If Congress reimposes death penalty, a person that is a criminal may be deprived of his life. If the
State takes away property with just compensation, it is allowed. It is the taking of these 3 without
observance of due process.
It mentions about life. Does that mean our physical existence only? The term guarantees us our
protection of our character as well as our existence. That is why defamation is not allowed. It
includes our human integrity.

It talks about property. It not only includes real property but also tangible and intangible
property. What about a license? The answer enunciated in the case of:

Garin v. MMDA - SC said that a license is a privilege which can be revoked by the State.

Chavez v. Romulo - Franchise is a privilege which can be revoked. It is provided for under Sec 11
Art 12 of the 1987 Constitution.

We adhere to substantive due process as well as procedural due process. What is substantive
due process?

 When we speak of substantive due process, an aspect of due process, it means that there
should be a lawful governmental objective, or that any law seeking to affect the property
rights etc. should have a lawful subject/subject matter. As what we discussed on police
power, it is required that any act or regulation issued by the State should have a lawful
governmental objective.

If a state enacts a law to regulate the way we think, it can be assailed for being violative of
substantive due process. If Congress enacts a law from singing our favorite song in our
bathroom, any such law is invalid. It has no business regulation activities within the confines of
our own bathroom.

Huxing v. City of Manila - Regulation prohibiting the issuance of business receipts other than
those in English or Spanish. Primary reason is to prohibit receipts in Chinese characters. SC said
that there was a valid governmental objective. People could hardly read Chinese characters.
Not a total prohibition.

Yu Kong King v. Trinidad - Regulation prohibiting any merchant from having any financial record
book that is not written in English or Spanish. SC invalidated this saying that state has no business
in regulating book or record that is written in a dialect other than that English or Spanish.
Absolute prohibition against financial books in Chinese. SC cannot prohibit us from preparing our
books in Chinese, as long as we also prepare books in English.

Three tests of validity of a regulation on property/liberty:

1. Rational Basis Test - Employed to check validity of law dealing with economic legislation.
Point of consideration: if Court finds a rational basis on advancing a legitimate
government objective is legitimate, it is okay.

2. Intermediate Review Test (?) - validity of any regulation on gender. It was employed in the
case of Garcia v. Drilon, which upheld the validity of RA 9262. That law no doubt was
based on gender classification that only women may avail of the protection order.
Determination of governmental objective and availability of less restrictive measures. Our
SC was of the view that driving out a husband from the conjugal dwelling is a less restrictive
measure - better than cutting off the marital bonds/ties.

3. Strict Scrutiny test - Point of determination is compelling government interest and absence
of a less restrictive measure. Normally employed on the regulation on freedom of mind,
press and speech, and political processes. Test employed in reviewing the revocation of
articles of incorporation of Rappler.

When we speak of substantive due process, it is the intrinsic validity of the law.

When we speak of procedural due process - manner by which law or regulation is being
enforced. It refers to the extrinsic validity of the law. Essence of procedural due process is
expressed in the immortal cry of Themostecles. Strike but hear me first.

Webster - Due process hears before it condemns. Renders judgment only after trial.

It denotes that there be prior notice and hearing. So speaking of procedural due process, it
requires this. Absent which, process may be assailed of as invalid.

Lim v. CA - Lim revoked permits of establishments by Mr. Regale. Violations on the conditions of
the permits were committed by the restaurants by Mr. Pigale. While it's true there were violations,
SC said that Mayor Lim did not give them a chance to be heard on this particular situation.

Ynot v. IAC - EO 626-A which confiscated carabaos. It was void because it violated procedural
due process. It would confiscate carabaos without even being heard.

Just like any other rule, this requirement of prior notice and hearing admits of some exceptions:

1. Abatement of Nuisance per Se

Cabrera v. Lapid - It was valid to destroy fishpond because it was a nuisance per se. It did not
require prior notice and hearing. Impelled by urgency if not necessity.

2. Meeting out preventive suspension on any government officer facing a criminal case in
the Sandiganbayan.

Libanan v. Sandiganbayan - SC said while case is pending, public officer may already be
preventively suspended. Not akin to a bill of attainder since it was not imposed by penalty but as
a precautionary measure. If he is acquitted, he will be paid salaries that were previously
withheld.

3. Issuance of a Warrant of Arrest

USA v. Purganan - SC said that Sec 2 Art 3 of the 1987 Consti allows judge to issue warrant of
arrest even without affording accused a chance to be heard. Logical because it gives him a
chance to abscond or escape, defeating the ends of justice.

4. Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order

Marohombsar v. Judge Adiong - Issuance of a TRO is allowed without prior notice and hearing
since it is impelled by necessity and urgency. If there is a showing of affidavits attached that the
complainant will suffer injury if the TRO be issued with hearing.

5. Cancellation of a passport of a person wanted for commission of offense

After all, he is a fugitive.


6. Restraint of Properties in the Event that there is Tax Delinquency

This happened to Manny Pacquiao where his accounts were frozen without prior notice or
hearing. This is impelled by necessity. If you notify without freezing, the person may already
dissipate or convey his properties, leaving them with nothing to take.

7. Padlocking of Restaurants that are Found to be Unsanitary and Closure of Movie Houses
that Show Lewd or Obscene Shows/Events

Officers of DOH were investigating restaurants and find it unsanitary, they can padlock it. While
due process requires hearing, it allows exceptions.

Question: How is due process observed in judicial proceedings? Requirements before we can
say due process is observed in a judicial proceeding?

1. There should be an impartial tribunal/body clothed with the power to resolve the matter
that is pending before it.

What is the use of having a trial if the proceeding is already pre-determined.

Tumi v. Ohio - Law in the US which provided that the judge hearing a criminal case is allowed to
deduct 12 dollars from the fine that he may impose upon the accused facing a criminal case
before his court. No doubt, that regulation was declared void. Reason is plain and evidence.
Where there is that law, judge will impose this upon accused and his salary would be increased.
US SC said that it was violative of procedural due process. It was ruled that the judge could not
be expected to remain impartial if law is to be upheld.

Case: 2nd division of COMELEC said that it was void because the Commissioner should have
prohibited himself.

Cruz v. Civil Service Commission - It was argued that CSC acted as the complainant,
prosecutor, and etc. at the same time. SC did not uphold this.

Rule 37 - Legal Ethics discussion about judges inhibiting himself from handling the case…

What if you are a lawyer but you think the judge is biased. How will you seek the inhibition of the
judge? He has no pecuniary interest in the case, but you think there is already a bias. How will
you pray for his inhibition?

(BACKSTORY OF ATTY GALEON'S CASE) Special power of attorney - judge will not honor SPA
stating that the client should personally appear before the court. Did not recognize SPA on their
favor. Judge cited their client in contempt of court and issuing a warrant for arrest of their client.
It was a civil case. What we did was that we filed a MFR, and in the prefatory statement that
where the judge was ignorant of the law.

Where order of arrest came out, judge took back warrant issued against the client. With that,
they filed a motion for inhibition. She would not inhibit herself. They argued with the judge. Filed a
certiorari in the SC, and it was legal engineering.

IF YOU CANNOT FIND A GROUND, YOU MAY WANT TO RESORT TO THIS.


2. Tribunal must acquire jurisdiction over person - defendant, respondent, accused - as the
case may be.

AS for the plaintiff, where a complaint is filed, then the tribunal already acquires jurisdiction over
the plaintiff. As for the defendant, tribunal will only get jurisdiction once they have given him
summons. If the case is an action in rem, where whole world is involved like registration of
property, in such situation, jurisdiction may be acquired by publication of complaint. In an
action for nullity of marriage where person could not be summoned for being in another state,
there are summons in publication. Done only to acquire jurisdiction.

Doctrine to the end that the person cannot be prejudiced in action when he is not given his day
in court. In criminal cases, jurisdiction is acquired when accused is arrested pursuant to the
warrant of arrest issued by proper authority. It is not acquired through arraignment.

3. Parties must be given a chance to be heard.

Underscore this fact that it is the giving of an opportunity to be heard. Where party is given a
chance but he did not use it by not filing an answer or answering the summons, a judgment of
default can be issued against him. It cannot be questioned since he was already given a
chance to be heard. Where accused is given chance to prove evidence but did not avail of it,
he can be convicted. It is just the opportunity to be heard.

In some cases, a trial type hearing is not required. One where party disputant presents his
witnesses, and the other party is given a chance to cross-examine. Normally observed in criminal
and civil cases. Times when it is not required:

a. Ejectment cases - A trial type hearing is not required. What is required is submission of
papers as well as documentary evidence. Although it is a civil case and pending before
courts of law, trial type hearing is not required.

b. Small claims cases - Complainant must fill out form and defendant must also fill out pro-
forma answer. There will be mediation where judge will render judgment. No trial type
hearing, but it is valid.

c. Labor cases - on the basis of position papers, a decision is rendered.

Even the filing for the MFR may already be considered as substantial compliance as in the case
of Marohombsar.

4. Decision must be rendered only after trial.

Provision under Consti. that a decision must set forth facts of the case as well as the laws in
support of that decision. Take note that while Sec 14 Art 8 requires that the facts of the case be
stated, normally our SC would just issue a minute resolution. It throws out petition for certiorari on
the basis that there is no showing that respondent court was in abuse of discretion. It satisfies
requirements under Sec 14 Art 8. Where petition has not merit, that says it all. Wala gyuy nada
imo petition.

How about publication of laws? Is that an integral component of due process?


Yes. Tanada v. Tuvera - Ruled that this is required before a law will become effective. It is plain
and evident. Art. 3 of CC - ignorance of the law excuses no one. We are charged with the
knowledge of the law that we cannot feign ignorance.

How about preliminary investigations in criminal cases? Integral component?

Uy v. Sandiganbayan - Argued that he was not given due process since he wasn't given PI. It
really depends. Although in this case SC said that PI is a matter of right, it actually depends on
penalty imposable on the person. Where penalty is imprisonment of at least 4 years, 2 mos, 1
day, then preliminary investigation is A MATTER OF RIGHT. A denial thereof is a denial of due
process. If it is less than this, then the absence of preliminary investigation is not considered
violative of the due process. PI is not required.

How about the remedy of appeal? Is this an integral component of procedural due process?

Lacson v. Sandiganbayan - Argued that he would be denied due process because his two-
tiered appeal would be removed, giving him only one appeal. In this case, appeal is nothing but
a statutory right. Where no remedy of appeal is provided for under law, then this cannot be
demanded as a matter of right. In small claims cases and Administrative Circular of the SC, there
is no remedy of an appeal. NOT PROVIDED FOR IN SMALL CLAIMS CASES.

Take note: There are cases in which remedy of appeal is guaranteed by no less than the
Constitution. While in our jurisdiction, it is just a statutory right, there are cases that appeal is
guaranteed by the Constitution. Sec 5 Par 2 Art 8 of the 1987 Constitution.

1. Guaranteed in the case which involves validity/constitutionality of a treaty, international


executive agreements, ordinances, regulations, and etc.

Where the case involves the question of law, then remedy of appeal is guaranteed under
Constitution.

2. A case in which what is involved is validity of any tax, assessment, toll, provided for therein.
3. Question pertains to jurisdiction of lower court.
4. In a criminal case, penalty imposed by court is reclusion perpetua or higher.

It is considered automatic appeal. No need to file appeal because it will be reviewed


automatically by the CA and SC.

5. Issue is a pure question of law.

Where there are only four requirements, what then are the requirements of procedural due
process in administrative proceedings like the NLRC, CSC, Ombudsman (finding of probable
cause)?

Several requirements:

a. There should be a hearing including the right of parties to present or adduce evidence in
support of their case.
b. The tribunal must consider the evidence presented by parties.
c. Any such evidence presented therein must be substantial. SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE.
d. The decision must have something to support itself. (Takes in the form of other requirement
that evidence must be presented in the course of hearing or attached to records and
disclosed to the parties. This was not met in Ombudsman in the case of Mr. Uy - While there
was a PI, this was not compliant with procedural process. Identification documents were
not presented during hearing nor disclosed to MR. Uy.
e. Judge must act on his own accord. Must not rely on the findings of his subordinates. Officer
to promulgate decision must come up with his own findings.
f. In coming up with the decision, the administrative body concerned must render such that
parties must know the facts and the reasons for the decisions therein.

IMPERATIVE: REMEMBER TO ASPECTS. REMEMBER REQUIREMENTS IN JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS AND


ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS.'

 EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE -

Equal Protection is provided for under Sec 1 Art 3. The term person as used therein does not refer
to natural persons only, but also to juridical persons.

It is also not defined in the Constitution. The reason for this is because equal protection is
DYNAMIC. It evolves with time. This was illustrated in the case of:

Pastry v. Ferguson - separate but equal rights.

Brown v. Secretary of Education - There is no such thing as segregation. If at all, there should be
integration. SC outlawed racism. It was based on the provision in their Constitution which did not
face revision. The same provision in the case of Ferguson.

The term equal protection does not mean that any and all laws should be given universal
application. There are situations where the giving of the law a universal application would result
in an inequality. If prohibition and sale of blue pills is denied to minors, any such prohibition is
considered valid. Not all laws should be given universal application.

There should be equality among equals. There may be a valid classification, notwithstanding the
so-called equal protection clause.

1. It must be substantive distinction, and it must be applied equally. Substantive equality is not
enough.
2. It must be fair upon its face and must be applied equally and fairly.

Yip Wo v. Hopkins - (check transcript) US SC struck down law for being violative of equal
protection.

People v. Vera - There was the old probation act that provided that the act would be made
applicable where the provincial board concerned would …. (X) On its face, the law is fair, but if
it is applied then there is already discrimination. For provinces that could not allocate funds for
provincial officers, then it would not apply to them much to their prejudice. It is violative of the
equal protection clause.

Tatad v. Dept. of Energy - RA 8180, if what was imported was crude oil, tariff rate is 3%, but if
refined petroleum products, it is 7%. On its face, nothing wrong with the law. 3% would only
benefit Caltex, Shell, and etc. It was voided by the SC for being violative of equal protection
clause. SUBSTANTIVE DISTINCTION IS NOT ENOUGH. IT MUST BE APPLIED EVENLY AND EQUALLY TO
MEMBERS BELONGING TO THE SAME CLASS.
Classification allowed:

1. Must be based on substantial difference.

Substantial as distinguished from superficial differences. No difference or distinction on the color


of eyes, hair, or skin, etc. In some respect, there may be a valid classification on one's
gender/sex. Case of Garcia v. Drilon - 9262 was enacted on the basis of classification by and
between men and women. Supposition that women are supposedly weaker than men, SC
validated this law. Substantial difference between men and women.

Quinto v. COMELEC - provisions that appointed public officials are deemed ipso facto resigned if
they file candidacy. Elected not ipso facto resigned. SC disagreed, noting that there is a
substantial difference between the two kinds of officials.

Lagman v. Ochoa - SC said that there is no substantial distinction between Gloria's administration
and the previous administrations. SC declared void the PTC. SC ruled in essence that the Gloria
administration should not be treated any differently from the other administration.

Chavez v. PCGG

International School Alliance of Educators v. Quisumbing - Struck down school's law on giving
perks to foreign based teachers. Assailed as violative of equal protection clause. Sustained. SC
said that there was no showing that foreign based teachers could teach better than local
professors.

While I mentioned earlier that there can be no valid basis. TRANSCRIPT Yrasugei v. PAL Case.

Equal protection can only be invoked against the state. But in the case of ISAE, it was a public
entity.

1. It must be germane to the purpose of the law.

Prohibiting women from enrolling in law schools, saying that only men can be legitimate legal
professionals. There are differences between men and women, but in this context, there is none.
Not only men can become good trial lawyers/litigators.

Dept. of Education, Culture, and Sports v San Diego - Those who flunked thrice in NMAT cannot
pursue medicine. Violative of equal protection; SC disagreed. There is a notable distinction
between those flunkers and non-flunkers. It is germane to purpose of law because it is not wise to
entrust our health to physicians who are better off as quack doctors.

1. Any such classification must not be limited to existing conditions only.

Ormoc Sugar Company Inc. (TRANSCRIPT) - enacting ordinance of tax. In that questioned
ordinance, the name of company… Violative of equal protection. Municipality of Ormoc stated
that there was only one sugar mill. SC sided with corporation, citing that such ordinance was
violative of equal protection. It was limited only to existing conditions. SC said that if there was
another sugar mill, it would not be covered.

XXX TRANSCRIPT NAPUD. Luz v. Araneta - Law does not specifically place names of companies.
Ruling in effect in the case of Lagman v. Ochoa where they said that the classification between
past administrations and Gloria administration was no different. They did not target the Gloria
administration. SC did not bide this argument. There was no guarantee that the other past
administrations would be included.

Cases where SC applied relative constitutionality (enunciates that law may be declared
valid/already declared invalid at some future time due to altered circumstances).

Central Bank Employees Association v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas - RA 7653 made a


classification ebtween high ranking officers vs. rank and file. High ranking officers belonged to
the SSL class while rank and file employees would be covered by Standardized Salary Law.
Assailed this. SC dismissed petition, saying that there was a valid distinction between the two.

Employees Association of Central Bank - Discrimination because as to other banking institutions,


there was no distinction. They argued that the law in question was invalid because it would
appear that they are the only ones covered by this. Earlier, SC said that it was valid. In second
petition, noted that indeed, other government financial institutions, there was no distinction, SC
nullified RA 7653 for being violative of equal protection.

People v. Kayat - Law prohibited member of a certain tribe from drinking wine because it would
appear that they would become berserk. Kayat was convicted, but in that case, SC sustained
validity of law. There was a substantial distinction between those covered by the provision with
those who aren't. Nowadays, it would probably not be valid.

1. Equally applied to all persons/things belonging to the same class.

This is both as to privilege and obligations imposed. If there is a valid distinction between local
and foreign cigarettes, then any tax rate or lower tax rate must be applied to the same class.

Tatad v. Dept. of Energy - RA 8180 invalid because of unfair treatment of new players of oil
industry. It would be made to pay higher tax rate. Sec 6 was likewise declared invalid because
new players would be hard put with complying with the minimum inventory requirements.

MEMORIZE THESE 4 REQUIREMENTS BY HEART.