Outline in Constitutional Law II-Isagani Cruz
Natural-citizen and alien
Chapter 8
Due Process of Law
Law of the land meant "the general law, a law which hears before it condemns which
proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment only after trial." (Daniel Webster)
-As long as the legislature willed it, it was the law of the land and therefore had to be obeyed.
-underwent substantial transformation (3 separate branches of the government)
Chief Justice John Marshall-judiciary the power not only to see to it that the executive
was enforcing the law properly but also to determine whether or not the law as enacted by
Congress was valid in the first place.
Due process thus assumed another facet, to wit, the substantive, as a limitation on the
legislature itself.
Bill of Rights- patterned after American Constitution
Constitutional Safeguard- No person shall be deprived of life, liberty and property without
due process of law.
 no attempt to spell out meaning, as per Jose P. Laurel, might prove constricting and
prevent the judiciary from adjusting it to the circumstances of particular cases and to the
ever-changing conditions of society.
 continues to be dynamic and resilient, adaptable to every situation calling for its
application, enlarges rights to life, liberty and property
 courts: gradually ascertained by the process of inclusion and exclusion in the course of the
decisions of cases as they arise
 J. Fernando: responsiveness to the supremacy of reason, obedience to the dictates of
justice."
 J. Frankfurter (US)- the embodiment of the sporting idea of fair play."
Due process- a guaranty against any arbitrariness on the part of the government, whether
committed by the legislature, the executive, or the judiciary. If the law itself unreasonably
deprives a person of his life or his liberty or his property, he is denied the protection of due
process. If the enjoyment of his rights is conditioned on an unreasonable requirement, due
process is likewise violated. Whatsoever be the source of such rights, be it the Constitution
itself or merely a statute, its unjustified withholding would
also be a violation of due process. Any government act that militates against the ordinary
norms of justice or fair play is considered an infraction of the great guaranty of due process;
and this is true whether the denial involves violation merely of the procedure prescribed by
the law or affects the very validity of the law itself.
PERSON- all persons, natural as well as artificial.
1.
*Villegas v. Hiu Chong-"while it is true that the Philippines as a State is not obliged to admit
aliens within its territory, once an alien is admitted, he cannot be deprived of life without due
process of law. This guarantee includes the means of livelihood."
2. Artificial Person-corporations and partnership insofar as their property is
concerned.
Deprivation- take away forcibly, to prevent from possessing, enjoying or using something.
-denial of the right to life,liberty or property WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW
Person’s life may be validly claimed by law.
-ie. render services in defense of the State; commission of heinous offense
Restriction of liberty would be valid:
ie. Minors not allowed to intoxicating beverages; passing before practice of profession
Private property may be validly taken:
Ie. Demolishing building for the interest of public safety.
Except: ordinance prohibiting the construction on residential land of any building that might
obstruct the view of the public plaza from the high
way.
A. LIFE-integrity of the physical person
-it is not permissible for the government to deprive the individual of any part of his body,
and this is true even if it be as punishment for crime.
SC: “should not be dwarfed into mere animal existence"; the enjoyment by the individual of
all the God-given faculties that can make his life worth living; right to give full rein to all his
natural attributes, to expand the horizons of his mind, to widen the reach of his capabilities,
to enhance those moral and spiritual values that can make his life more meaningful and
rewarding.
B. LIBERTY- freedom to do right and never wrong (Mabini)
-person is free to act but he may exercise his rights only in such manner as not to injure the
rights of others.
-the individual, as a creature of society, should be prepared to surrender part of his freedom
for the benefit of the greater number (solus populi est supremo lex)
-Subject only to the reasonable restrictions of the law, a person is free to do as he pleases.
C. PROPERTY- anything that can come under the right of ownership and be the
subject of contract (real, personal, tangible and intangible—that
are within the commerce of man.)
-one cannot have a vested right to a public office, as this is not regarded as property; may be
abolished by legislature at any time (if sal. has already been earned, cannot be reduced.)
-some privileges are not property right and may be revocable at will (ie. Cockpits, liquor
store)
-property right in operation of law may be repealed, amended, modified or reversed
Dual Aspects of Due Process
A. Substantive- requires intrinsic validity of the law in interfering with the rights of the
person to his life, liberty or property; inquiry in this regard is not whether or not the
 law is being enforced in accordance with the prescribed manner but whether or not, to
begin with, it is a proper exercise of legislative power.
-the law must have a valid governmental objective, i.e., the interests of the public
generally as distinguished from those of a particular class require the intervention of
the State; objective pursued in a lawful manner and not oppressive.
 Kwong Sing v. City of Manila-Supreme Court sustained the measure of issuing
receips in Spanish or English, noting that it was intended to protect the public from
deceptions and misunderstandings that might arise from their accepting receipts in
Chinese characters that they did not understand.
 Yu Cong Eng v. Trinidad-it shall be unlawful for any person, company or partnership
or corporation engaged in commerce, industry or any other activity for the purpose of
profit in the Philippine Islands, in accordance with existing law, to keep its account
books in any language other than English, Spanish or any local dialect."
 Ichong v. Hernandez-State was entitled to take adequate steps to relax the foreign
stranglehold on a vital artery of the national economy; to free the national economy
from alien control and dominance; if political independence is a legitimate aspiration
of a people, then economic independence is nonetheless legitimate.
B. Procedural - "which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and
renders judgment only after trial” (Daniel Webster)
Essential Elements:
1. Notice - to adduce its own evidence and to meet and refute the evidence
submitted by the other party. Every litigant is entitled to his day in court
2. Hearing
*David v. Aquilizan-decision rendered without a hearing is null and void ab initio and may
be attacked directly or collaterally.
*Lorenzana v. Cayetano- writ of execution be enforced against her since was not afforded
her day in court in said ejectment cases.
*Caoile v. Vivo-law does not require another notice and hearing for a review of the decision
of the board of special inquiry on the basis of evidence previously presented
*Lobete v. Sundiam- right to appeal was held not unlawfully withheld where it was lost as a
result of the appellant's neglect
*People v. Beriales- defense counsel did not cross-examine the witnesses presented by the
private prosecutor and, after the prosecution had rested, refused to submit any evidence for
the accused, reiterating his manifestation that the accused were not agreeing to the trial of the
case unless they first received the report of the reinvestigation
Marcos v. Garchitorena-Anent the argument that due process requires the presence of the
defendants as long as they desire to be present, let it be stated that the right of confrontation
does not necessarily mean a physical face-to-face confrontation of the adversaries in the
court. The right of confrontation merely means the right to be given an opportunity to cross-
examine and this right of course can be done through the parties' counsel
Section 1. Disqualification of judges.—No judge or judicial officer shall sit in any case in
which he or his wife or child is pecuniarily interested as heir, legatee, creditor, or otherwise,
or in which he is related to either party within the sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity,
or to counsel within the fourth degree, computed according to the rules of the civil law, or in
which he has been executor, administrator, guardian, trustee or counsel, or in which he has
presided in any inferior court when his ruling or decision is the subject of review, without the
written consent of all parties in interest, signed by them and entered upon the record.
A judge may, in the exercise of his sound discretion, disqualify himself from sitting in a case,
for just or valid reasons other than those mentioned above.
Competent court-one with jurisdiction
JURISDICTION-
*actions in personam-jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired by the court by his
voluntary appearance or through service of summons upon him; may be effected personally
or by substituted service/by publication. (ie. Recovery of loan)
*actions in rem/ quasi in rem- the jurisdiction of the court is derived from the power it may
exercise over the property. Jurisdiction over the person is not essential, provided the relief
granted by the court is limited to such as can be enforced against the property itself. Notice
by publication is sufficient in these cases. (ie. land registration proceedings or the foreclosure
of a real estate mortgage)
APPEAL- not essential to the right to a hearing; not essential to the right to a hearing; denial
of appeal is denial of due process
*Calano v. Cruz- appeal to SC as election protest- rejected because appeal was based on a
pure question of law, which came under the irreducible review powers of the Supreme Court
CASES NOTICE AND HEARING MAY BE OMITTED:
- cancellation of the passport of a person sought for the commission of a crime
- the preventive suspension of a civil servant facing administrative charges
-the distraint of properties for tax delinquency
-the padlocking of restaurants found to be insanitary
-theaters showing obscene movies
-abatement of nuisances per se
NUISANCE PER SE- objectionable under any and all circumstances because it presents an
immediate danger to the welfare of the community; may be abated summarily (w/o judicial
authorization) ie. Mad dog running loose
NUISANCE PER ACCIDENS- objectionable only under some but not all circumstances;
there being situations when it is perfectly legitimate and acceptable; "the right thing in the
wrong place," (ie. Patis factory in a residential area)
PRESUMPTIONS- does not deny the right to a hearing insofar provided there is a rational or
natural connection between the fact proved and the fact ultimately presumed from such fact.
JUDGMENT-requires to be based upon lawful hearing previously conducted
Article VIII, Section 14- "no decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing
therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based."
ADMINISTRATIVE DUE PROCESS-
Requisites of Procedural Due Process
1. right to a hearing, which includes the right to present one's case and submit evidence in
support
2. tribunal must consider the evidence presented.
3. the decision must have something to support itself.
4. the evidence must be substantial.
5. decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained
in the record and disclosed to the parties affected.
6. tribunal or body or any of its judges must act on its or his own independent
consideration of the law and facts of the controversy and not simply accept the views of a
subordinate in arriving at a decision.
7. the board or body should, in all controversial questions, render its decision in such a
manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the various issues involved, and the
reason for the decision rendered
*Zambales Chromite v. Court of Appeals- affirming own decisions; mockery of justice
*Anzaldo v. Clave-presidential exec. Asst, affirming own decision as chairman of CSC.
EQUAL PROTECTION
-purpose of intentional ambiguity –provide for more adjustability to the “swiftly moving
facts” of the changing society.
-requires that all persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to rights
conferred and responsibilities imposed; similar subjects, in other words, should not be treated
differently, so as to give undue favor to some and unjustly discriminate against others.
-even if the law be fair and impartial on its face, it will still violate equal protection if it is
administered "with an evil eye and an uneven
hand," so as to unjustly benefit some and prejudice others (US SC)
*Yick Wo v. Hopkins- ordinance authorizing to license the establishment of laundries
annulled by SC after discriminating Chinese applicants
*this basic individual right sheltered by the Constitution is a restraint on all the three grand
departments of the government and on the subordinate instrumentalities and subdivisions
thereof, and on many constitutional powers
PERSONS PROTECTED- available to all natural as well as juridical (only as to property)
CONSTITUTIONAL RESERVATION- certains rights are enjoyed by the citizens
-does not require universal application of laws, it operates on all the people without
distinction; the law is not required to provide for equality among persons if not similarly
situated; Constitution requires equality among equals
CLASSIFICATION- allows legislature to classify subjects of classification; "this basic
individual right sheltered by the Constitution is a restraint on all the three grand departments
of the government and on the subordinate instrumentalities and subdivisions thereof, and on
many constitutional powers
Ie. Men v. women; minors from adults, bantam v. heavy,
REQUIREMENTS for Classification- must not be arbitrary
(1) It must be based upon substantial distinctions-ie. Men v. women, alien v. citizens, minors
v. adults, public v. private corp.
(2) It must be germane to the purposes of the law
(3) It must not be limited to existing conditions only
(4) It must apply equally to all members of the class
*Nunez v. Sandiganbayan- SC held that PD 1606 did not discriminate against persons
convicted by the Sandiganbayan in giving them only the
remedy of certiorari with the Supreme Court as distinguished from those convicted by other
trial courts, who could appeal to the Intermediate Appellate Court and even the Supreme
Court and so would have more prospects of reversal of the decision against them. Trial in the
Sandiganbayan is conducted by the three justices constituting each division, and their
unanimous vote is needed for a decision, which conceivably will be more carefully reached
than that of the other trial courts.
*International School Alliance of Educators v. Quisumbing- The pemployer has
discriminated against that employee in terms of giving different salary; it is for the employer
to explain why the employee is treated unfairly.
*DECS Case –three flunk rule- The medical profession directly affects the very lives of the
people, unlike other careers which, for this reason, do not require more vigilant regulation
*Tatad v. Secretary of Energy-SC declared as unconstitutional the law deregulating the oil
industry on the ground inter alia that it discriminated against the "new players
DURATION- must be enforced not only for the present but as long
as the problem sought to be corrected continues to exist.
IE. OrmocSugar Co., Inc. v. TreasurerofOrmoc City- classification, to be reasonable, should
be in terms applicable to future conditions as well. The taxing ordinance should not be
singular and exclusive as to exclude any subsequent established sugar central, of the same
class as plaintiff, for the coverage of the tax.
APPLICABILITY TO ALL- mere fact that an individual belonging to a class differs from
the other members, as long as that class is substantially distinguishable from all others, does
not justify the non-application of the law to him
Hiu Chiong Case,- SC annulled ordinance that imposed a work permit fee of P50.00 upon all
aliens desirous of obtaining employment in the City of Manila