ANNOTATION

REVISITING FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS

IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

By
DAVID ROBERT C. AQUINO, CSEE*
___________________
The case under annotation—Bureau of Customs
Employees Association (BOCEA) vs. Teves1—allowed the
High Court the opportunity to revisit several fundamental
concepts in Constitutional Law which to date have been
relegated to mere catch phrases in our local political
history.
Phrases such as “due process,” “equal protection,”
“separation of powers,” and even the “bill of attainder”
have, in recent years been relegated to mere bywords used
by politicians, the media and even the ordinary man on the
street. Thus, it is now deemed part of one’s daily milieu to
hear these phrases uttered by everyone—be it on
television, in a newspaper, on radio or in daily everyday
conversation.
Although the focal issue of the case under annotation is
the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of the Attrition
Law, the grounds raised and relied by Petitioner were basic
concepts in Constitutional Law. Thus, unlike the usual fare
of reading interwoven concepts that stretch its argument to
fit

_______________
*  Atty. Aquino is a practicing lawyer and law book author. Prior to
private practice, he served in Director-level positions in various
government offices and was a member of the Sub-Committee on the
Revision of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.
1 G.R. No. 181704, 661 SCRA 589 (2011), penned by Justice Villarama.

662

662 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Revisiting Fundamental Concepts in Constitutional Law
their theory of the case, the case at hand provides us with a
fresh outlook on such concepts—reminiscent of one’s initial
foray into legal studies.
This humble annotation, therefore, revisits four (4)
fundamental and well-known concepts in Constitutional
Law—due process, equal protection, bill of attainder and
separation of powers. Interestingly enough, the petitioners
in the case under annotation chose concepts found in just
one article of the Constitution—the Bill of Rights.2 Their
choice of relying on the Bill of Rights is not surprising
considering this part of the Constitution is dedicated
primarily to limit the awesome powers of the government
and serves as a check on its unreasonable use and
application.
Serving to offset the tremendous powers of the State, the
Bill of Rights serves to protect the individual liberties of its
citizens. It is a statement of individual liberties which
citizens, residents, and certain sojourners in the country
enjoy against exertions of government power.3 The Bill of
Rights does not concern itself with the relation between a
private individual and another individual—the Bill of
Rights “is a charter of liberties for the individual and a
limitation upon the power of the State.”4
In a leading Philippine case—Rubi vs. Provincial Board5
—liberty as guaranteed by the Constitution was defined by
Justice Malcolm to include “the right to exist and the right
to be free from arbitrary personal restraint or servitude. The
term cannot be dwarfed into mere freedom from physical
restraint of the person of the citizen, but is deemed to
embrace the right of man to enjoy the facilities with which
he has been endowed

_______________
2 Article III, 1987 Philippine Constitution.
3 Garcia vs. Philippine Tuberculosis Society [1978].
4 BPI vs. Casa Montessori Internationale, 430 SCRA 261.
5 39 Phil. 660 [1919].

663

VOL. 663, JANUARY 24, 2012 663

Revisiting Fundamental Concepts in Constitutional Law

by his Creator, subject only to such restraint as are

necessary for the common welfare.”6
The Supreme Court in Morfe vs. Mutuc,7 citing several
legal luminaries, continued to state that—the liberty to be
safeguarded is, as pointed out by Chief Justice Hughes,
liberty in a social organization, implying the absence of
arbitrary restraint not immunity from reasonable
regulations and prohibitions imposed in the interest of the
community. It was Linton’s view that “to belong to a society
is to sacrifice some measure of individual liberty, no matter
how slight the restraints which the society consciously
imposes.” The above statement from Linton, however,
should be understood in the sense that liberty, in the
interest of public health, public order or safety, of general
welfare, in other words through the proper exercise of the
police power, may be regulated. The individual though, as
Justice Cardozo pointed out, has still left a “domain of free
activity that cannot be touched by government or law at all,
whether the command is specially against him or generally
against him and others.”
Thus, it can be said that the Bill of Rights serves as the
bedrock of constitutional government—contained as it is in
Article III of the Constitution, and occupies a position of
primacy in the fundamental law way above the articles on
government power.8 The paragraphs found in the
Philippine Bill of Rights are not threadbare verbiage. The
language carries with it all the applicable jurisprudence of
great English and American Constitutional cases.9
These provisions therefore are primarily limitations on
government, declaring rights that exist without any
governmental grant, that may not be taken away by
government and that government has the duty to protect.

_______________
6 Morfe vs. Mutuc, G.R. No. L-20387, 22 SCRA 424 [1968].
7 Ibid.
8 People vs. Tudtud, 412 SCRA 142.
9 US vs. Bustos, G.R. No. L-12592 [1918].

664

664 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Revisiting Fundamental Concepts in Constitutional Law

The Bill of Rights under the 1987 Constitution begins

with the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses.
Observe that the rest of the rights simply expands the
substantive and procedural requirements of the first
section of Article III.  
Due Process
 It should be noted that the concept of due process as well
as equal protection are both found in Section 1, Article III
of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
Simply put, due process guarantees that no person shall
be deprived of life, liberty or property without giving the
person an opportunity to be heard and defend himself.
Thus, before a person is permanently incarcerated, there
must be a trial. Same is true before private property is
appropriated by the State for public use.
To reiterate, the most basic tenet espoused in due
process is the right to be heard.10 To state it differently, it
is the right to be given an opportunity to be heard.
A famous case still cited today views due process ― as
one which hears before it condemns; which proceeds upon
inquiry, and renders judgment only after trial.11 It is
responsiveness to the supremacy of reason and obedience to
the dictates of justice.12 It is the embodiment of sporting
idea of fair play.13
It should be noted that the first section of this article
dealing with due process and equal protection provides a
blanket protection to the citizen. It has been observed that
even in the absence of all the other provisions under the
Bill of Rights—the first section alone would provide
adequate protection of a person’s rights.

_______________
10 Camarines Norte Electric Cooperative vs. CA, 345 SCRA 85.
11 Daniel Webster in the Darthmouth College case.
12 Justice Fernando, Philippine Supreme Court.
13 Justice Frankfurter.

665

VOL. 663, JANUARY 24, 2012 665

Revisiting Fundamental Concepts in Constitutional Law

The “due process of law” clause of the Constitution must

be understood to mean that no person shall be deprived by
any form of legislation or governmental action of life,
liberty, or property, except as a consequence of some
judicial proceeding, appropriately and legally conducted.
Stated differently, due process of law simply means that
before a man can be deprived of his life, liberty or property,
he must be given an opportunity to defend himself.14 When
one speaks of due process of law, a distinction must be
made between matters of procedure and matters of
substance—procedural due process “refers to the method or
manner by which the law is enforced,” while substantive
due process “requires that the law itself, not merely the
procedures by which the law would be enforced, is fair,
reasonable, and just.”15
Moreover, “due process of law” implies that whenever, in
a judicial proceeding, a judgment is rendered by a court of
justice affecting the liberty or condemning the property of
another person, he is entitled to have reasonable notice of
such procedure, trial or contest.16
Equal Protection
This simply refers to the equality in the enjoyment of
similar rights and privileges granted by law.17 Phrased
differently, the equal protection clause under the
Constitution means that “no person or class of persons shall
be deprived of the same protection of laws which is enjoyed
by other persons or other classes in the same place and in
like circumstances.”18
Moreover, it is well settled that the equal protection
clause applies only to persons or things identically situated
and does

_______________
14 Cornejo vs. Gabriel, 41 Phil. 200.
15 Associated Communications and Wireless Services vs. Dumlao, 392
SCRA 269.
16 City of Manila vs. Posadas, 48 Phil. 332.
17 Ceniza vs. COMELEC, 95 SCRA 763.
18 PHILRECA vs. DILG Secretary, 403 SCRA 558.

666

666 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Revisiting Fundamental Concepts in Constitutional Law

not bar a reasonable classification of the subjects of

legislation.
A classification is reasonable where: (1) it is based upon
substantial distinctions which make real differences: (2)
these are germane to the purpose of the law; (3) the
classification applies, not only to present conditions, but,
also, to future conditions which are substantially identical
to those of the present; and (4) the classification applies,
equally to all those who belong to the same class.19 This is
the argument which the High Court used to rebut the
argument propounded by the petitioners in the case under
annotation. While it is true that equal protection
guarantees a uniform or equal treatment to all, it, however,
admits of classifications to which the petitioners belong.
In one landmark case, the Supreme Court had the
occasion to define equal protection in this wise: “To all
persons and things similarly situated, the law shall be
applied equally, that is to be treated alike, both as to right
conferred and responsibilities imposed.”20
Note, however, that the Supreme Court had also warned
litigants that “equal protection” is not a talismanic formula
at the mere invocation of which a party to a lawsuit can
rightfully expect that success will crown his efforts.21
The law is anything but that. It proceeded to declare
that before this argument can be appreciated it has to be
“specially pleaded, insisted upon, and adequately argued.”
Bill of Attainder
A bill of attainder is a legislative act which convicts a
person of, and punishes him for a crime without the benefit
of a judicial trial.

_______________
19 Felwa vs. Salas, G.R. No. L-26511, 18 SCRA 606 [1966].
20 The case of Ichong vs. Hernandez, 101 Phil. 1155.
21 Agustin vs. Edu, G.R. No. L-49112, 88 SCRA 195 [1979].

667

VOL. 663, JANUARY 24, 2012 667

Revisiting Fundamental Concepts in Constitutional Law

In an old case, the Supreme Court defined a bill of

attainder as a legislative act which inflicts punishment
without trial. Its essence is the substitution of a legislative
for a judicial determination of guilt. The constitutional ban
against bills of attainder serves to implement the principle
of separation of powers by confining legislatures to rule-
making and thereby forestalling legislative usurpation of
the judicial function.
History in perspective, bills of attainder were employed
to suppress unpopular causes and political minorities, and
it is against this evil that the constitutional prohibition is
directed. The singling out of a definite class, the imposition
of a burden on it, and a legislative intent, suffice to
stigmatize a statute as a bill of attainder.22  
Within the meaning of the Constitution, bills of
attainder include bills of pains and penalties. In these
cases the legislative body, in addition to its legitimate
functions, exercises the powers and office of judge; it
assumes, in the language of the textbooks, judicial
magistracy; it pronounces upon the guilt of the party,
without any of the forms or safeguards of trial; it
determines the sufficiency of the proofs produced, whether
conformable to the rules of evidence or otherwise; and it
fixes the degree of punishment in accordance with its own
notions of the enormity of the offense.23
Separation of Powers
Separation of powers refers to the relationship between
the three (3) branches of government—the executive, the
legislative, and the judiciary.
Each branch is considered as co-equal with each other
but whose functions are interwoven and interconnected.
While

_______________
22  People vs. Ferrer, G.R. Nos. L-32613-14, December 27, 1972, 48
SCRA 382.
23 Dissenting Opinion of Justice Fernando, Ibid.

668

668 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Revisiting Fundamental Concepts in Constitutional Law

admittedly, the executive and the legislative, seemingly

have more powers or is more pro-active in the discharge of
its functions and responsibilities under the Constitution, it
is the judiciary, however, on whose shoulders the
Constitution has reposed the power to check the excesses of
the other more “powerful” branches. This is called the
power of judicial review. A provision which has been
introduced by the 1987 Constitution is a definition, for the
first time in our fundamental law, of the term “judicial
power,” as such authority and duty of courts of justice “to
settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally
demandable and enforceable and to determine whether or
not there has been a grave abuse of discretion, amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction, on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government.”24
As the Constitution vests judicial power in one Supreme
Court and in such lower courts as may be established by
law—judicial power, by its nature, is the power to hear and
decide causes pending between parties who have the right
to sue and be sued in the courts of law and equity.25
Although holding neither purse nor sword and so regarded
as the weakest of the three departments of the government,
the judiciary is nonetheless vested with the power to annul
the acts of either the legislative or the executive or of both
when not conformable to the fundamental law.
This is the reason for what some quarters call it the
doctrine of judicial supremacy. Even so, this power is not
lightly assumed or readily exercised. The doctrine of
separation of powers imposes upon the courts a proper
restraint, born of the nature of their functions and of their
respect for the other

_______________
24 Kilosbayan vs. Morato, G.R. No. 118910, 246 SCRA 540 [1995].
25 Lamb vs. Phipps, 22 Phil. 559.

669

VOL. 663, JANUARY 24, 2012 669

Revisiting Fundamental Concepts in Constitutional Law

departments, in striking down the acts of the legislative

and the executive as unconstitutional.26
The ruling made by the High Court in the case under
annotation is illuminating, it states: the principle of
separation of powers ordains that each of the three great
branches of government has exclusive cognizance of and is
supreme in matters falling within its own constitutionally
allocated sphere.27
Although the petition failed to convince the High Court,
the case gave it the opportunity to take a fresh look at age-
old concepts that have been enshrined in our fundamental
law. It can be said that these fundamental concepts have
weathered the test of time, technological advancement,
political restructuring and social development. It has, for
all intents and purposes, serve as unwavering guideposts
for future generations as well as a beacon shining a light
for our political tomorrow.
——o0o——

_______________
26 Association of Small Landowners vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform,
G.R. No. 78742, 175 SCRA 343 [1989].
27 Citing Angara vs. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil. 139 [1936].
© Copyright 2017 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.