MAN-ON, Karleen Gayle M.

First Year | Aristotle

Activity | Case Synthesis

DUE PROCESS

Due process is a fundamental right that is being guaranteed by our Constitution.

Citing Daniel Webster’s argument, the Supreme Court emphasizes that due process is a right
embedded in the basic law of the land. “The law of the land is more clearly intended the general
law, a law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment
only after trial” (United States vs. Ling Su Fan, 10 Phil., 104).

In Ynot vs. IAC, 148 SCRA 659, the Supreme Court notes that the minimum requirements for due
process is notice and hearing which may not always be dispensed with because they are intended
as a safeguard against official arbitrariness.

Additionally, the Court, in Albert vs. University Publishing Co., Inc., 13 SCRA 84, defined due
process as a law which hears before it condemns. Specifically, due process of law contemplates
notice and opportunity to be heard before judgement is rendered, affecting one’s person or
property. The “due process” clause of the Constitution is designed to secure justice as a living
reality; not to sacrifice it by paying undue homage to formality.

In the case of Secretary of Justice vs. Lantion, 322 SCRA 160, the Supreme Court explains due
process according to its two components--(1) the substantive due process which requires intrinsic
validity of the law in interfering with the rights of the person to his life, liberty, or property; and the
(2) procedural due process which consists of the two basic rights of notice and hearing, as well
as the guarantee of being heard by an impartial and competent tribunal. In addition, it expounds
that part of adhering to the mandate of due process, the basic rights of procedural due process
pervade not only in criminal and civil proceedings, but in administrative proceedings as well. The
Supreme Court further observes that the due process guarantee imposes two related but distinct
restrictions on government, that is the procedural and the substantive. Due process is not only
confined in the latter. For if that is the case, there would arise an absurd situation of arbitrary
government action, provided that proper formalities were followed. The inclusion of substantive
due process completes the protection envisioned by the due process clause (White Light
Corporation vs. City of Manila, 576 SCRA 416, 2009).

The common issue that these cases (United States vs. Ling Su Fan, 10 Phil., 104; Ynot v. IAC,
148 SCRA 659; Albert v. University Publishing Co., Inc., 13 SCRA 84; Justice vs. Lantion, 322
SCRA 160; White Light Corporation vs. City of Manila, 576 SCRA 416, 2009) contend revolves
around the question, what matters more? A citizen’s right to due process or the government’s
duties as stipulated under law?

In a case where the plaintiff’s carabao was confiscated pursuant to an Executive Order prohibiting
interprovincial movement of carabaos, and where the Executive Order’s constitutionality is being
questioned insofar as it authorizes outright confiscation of carabao without affording the owner
his right to be heard, the Court ruled that that the E.O. is unconstitutional as due process was
violated because the owner of the confiscated property was denied the right to be heard in his
defense and is immediately condemned and punished (Ynot vs. IAC, 148 SCRA). In a similar
case where an Ordinance prohibiting the operation of motels and inns, among other
establishments from offering short-time admission, as well as pro-rated or "wash up" rates, the
Supreme Court held to uphold the citizen’s constitutional rights to liberty, due process, and equal
protection of the law (White Light Corporation vs. City of Manila, 576 SCRA 416, 2009).

In another case where an Executive Order prescribing the procedure for the extradition of persons
who have committed crimes in a foreign country, and where a private respondent’s request for
access of his extradition documents, and to afford him an opportunity to comment on, or oppose,
the extradition request, and thereafter to evaluate the request impartially, fairly and objectively
was denied, the Court ruled that “when the individual himself is involved in official government
action because said action has a direct bearing on his life, and may either cause him some kind
of deprivation or injury, he actually invokes the basic right to be notified under Section 1 of the Bill
of Rights” (Secretary of Justice vs. Lantion, 322 SCRA 160).

On a different note, when the government has already afforded an individual his right to due
process, as in the opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered, the latter cannot anymore
invoke beyond what the Constitution affords (Albert vs. University Publishing Co., Inc., 13 SCRA
84).

In conclusion, “due process” is an individual’s fundamental right. The Government is obliged to

afford every citizen his right to be heard before judgment is rendered. However, when a person
is clearly given the opportunity to be heard, he cannot anymore invoke beyond what the law
affords as it will render in violation of the Government’s duties to its citizens.