C O N S T I T U T I O N A L L AW

DUE PROCESS
POSTED BY FRUITYTRUTHY JULY 27, 2011 POST A COMMENT
SECTION ONE of Article III of 1987 Constitution Due Process

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of

law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
(Lets try to understand the provision)
Q: What does the law mean when it says PERSON
A: All person.
1.
2.

Natural (Citizen or Alien)

Juridical ex. corporations and parnership See: ?? Constitutional Law, Cruz pp. 101]

Q: So what does this provision have to do with persons?

A: It guarantees all persons security against deprivation of their life, liberty (freedom) or property without due process.
That natural or juridical person may invoke this right whenever the government deprives them of such rights.
Q: What does the law mean when it says deprive?
A: To deprive is to take forcibly, to prevent from possessing, enjoying, or using something. Denial of right to life, liberty,
property. Deprivation per se is not necessarily unconstitutional but deprivation of life, liberty and property WITHOUT
DUE PROCESS is unconstitutional.
Q: What are the protected rights under this section?
A: Life, Liberty and Property
Q: What does law mean when it says LIFE
A: It means the integrity of the physical person, the individual or any part of his body. [Cruz] It also means good
life or quality living or a decent standard of living. See: ?? The 1987 Constitution A comprehensive reviewer, Fr.
Joaquin Bernas, pp. 24]
:right of an individual to his body in its completeness, free from dismemberment and extends to the use of his Godgiven faculties, which makes life enjoyable. Read : ??Buck vs. Bell 274 SCRA 200
Q: Does this include the life of the unborn?
A: Yes. Article II, section 12 says the state shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from
conception.

Q: What does law mean when it says LIBERTY

A: Mabini once said, Liberty is the freedom to do right and never wrong. <There is no such thing as freedom to sin or
to do wrong as the consequence of the latter is not just shame but even slavery and condemnation. Slavery and
condemnation are inherent in every wrong or sin no matter how freely youve done it. So there is really no freedom in
sinning or doing wrong.
Hence, the law speaks of liberty regulated by law. ??Cruz
Liberty includes the right to exist free from arbitrary personal restraint or servitude. Read: ??Rubi vs. Provincial Board
ofMindoro, 39 Phil 660
Limitation: We may freely exercise our rights or perform duties so long as we do not violate the law or injure the
rights of others.Remember the Latin: Salus Populi Est Suprema Lex The welfare of the people is the supreme law
Q: In ?? Block vs. Rutherford, 468 U.S. 576, military detainees question the correctness of the jails policy of denying
them contact visits with spouses, children, relatives and friends. (In relation to denying detainees the liberty to meet
with their families and friends without due process of law)
A: The U.S. Supreme court upheld the blanket restriction on contact visits as entirely reasonable response to
legitimate security reasons. Contact visits invite security problems and expose the detention facility to drug, weapon
or contraband introductions. Nothing in the constitution requires detainees to be allowed such visits.
Q: What does law mean when it says PROPERTY
A: Anything that can come under the right of ownership and be the subject of a contract; it includes the right to
secure, use and dispose. ALL THINGS: Real, Personal, Tangible and Intangible within the commerce of man. ??Cruz
Q: Employment, profession or trade property right?
A:Yes. Read?? Crespo vs. Provincial Board 160 SCRA 66
Q: Are licenses property rights?
A: Licenses (mere privilege) are not property rights and may be revoked at will; Read?? Pedro vs. Provincial Board of
Rizal, 53 Phil 123
However, a mere privilege may evolve into a property right as when a privilege has been enjoyed for so long, has been
subject of substantial investment and has become the source of employment for thousands. Read?? American Inter
Fashion Corp. vs. Office of the President, 197 SCRA 409
Q: May the license of harbor pilot be cancelled without due process (hearing)?
A: No. ??Corona vs. United Harbor Pilots Association of the Phils.

Vested right to a public office is not regarded as property. However, salaray already earned is considered as
property. ??Cruz
Q: On classification of property into historical treasures.
A: Should be done with both substantive and procedural due process because it involves imposition of limits on
ownership.
Q: Right to collect pension plan
A: Employees have contractual or vested rights in the pension where the pension is part of the terms of
employment. ?? GSIS vs. Montescarlos, GR no. 146494, July 14, 2004
*Human rights enjoy a higher status than property rights.
Q: What is Due Process?
A: It is a law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and render judgment only after trial.
Two Kinds of Due Process:
1. Substantive due process -requires that the law itself is FAIR, REASONABLE and JUST (FRJ)
-done in due process if under the authority of a valid law; requires the intrinsic validity of the law (Cruz)
-did the law itself comply with the constitution as to its validity and effectiveness? is the law valid and
unconstitutional?
-it is a prohibition of arbitrary laws (Bernas)
-heart is reasonableness and absence of exercise of arbitrary power of the government
Requisites:

Valid governmental objective Public interest

Means employed (intrinsic procedure how the law will be enforced) are reasonably related and necessary for
accomplishment of purpose and not unduly oppressive

Presumption on states act interfering with life, liberty and property:

GR: Valid
XPN: In case of prior restraint

Void-for-vagueness rule a criminal statute that fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his
contemplated conduct is forbidden by the statute, or is so indefinite that it encourages arbitrary and erratic arrests

and convictions is void for vagueness. Constitutional vice is the injustice to the accused in placing him on trial for an
offense, the nature of which he is given no fair warning.
Law is vague when it lacks comprehensible standards that men of oridnary intelligence must guess as to the meaning
and as to the application.
Vague law is repugnant to Constitution in 2 aspects:
1. Violates due process for failure to accord persons, especially the parties targeted by it, fair notice of the conduct to
avoid.
2. It leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions and it can become an arbitrary flexing of
the government muscle.

Overbreadth doctrine - decrees that a governmental purpose may not be achieved by means which sweep
unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the are of protected freedoms.

Facial Challenge - allowed to be made to a vague statue and to one which is overbroad because of possible chilling
effect upon protected speech.

On its face invalidation - results in striking them down entirely on the ground that they might be applied to parties
not before the Court whose activities are constitutionally protected.
Conclusive Presumption of knowledge of law presupposes that law has been published. (Art. 3, NCC)
2. Procedural Due Process - refers to method or manner by which the law is enforced
- Strike, but hear me first. -Themistocles
Twin requirements:

2 Kinds of Procedural Due Process

1. Notice

1. Judicial

2. Hearing

2. Administrative

Judicial Due Process:

1. Impartial court or tribunal clothed with judicial power to hear and determine the matter before it
2. Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person of the defendant and over the property which is the subject
matter

over person (civil) through valid service of summons -w/o this judgment will be unconstitutional; (criminal)

during arraignment the court acquires jurisdiction of the accused

over subject matter determined by Congress through law (Law may attribute jurisdiction to RTC, MTC)

3. Notice and Hearing - right to adduce its own evidence and to meet and refute the evidence submitted by the other
party
4. Judgment must be rendered upon lawful hearing decision based on the merits, evidence presented

Administrative Due Process:

1. notice and hearing (may or may not be assisted by a counsel)
2. court with competent jurisdiction
3. judgment upon lawful trial
Difference between the Judicial notice and hearing and that of Administrative:
Judicial: needs public trial
Administrative: no trial type proceedings, submission of position papers only; exception is Dept. of Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board which requires trial and hearing
**if the rule of any quasi-judicial proceeding requires trial type then it should be followed otherwise there will be NO
due process
Quasi-judicial function notice and hearing are required
Executive/legislative function not required
Q: Is appeal part a natural right and part of due process?
A: No. GR: may be allowed or denied by legislature; XPN: where Constitution gives the person right to appeal, denial of
such right is a violation of due process
Q: Is preliminary investigation a right
A: No. May be waived expressly or by failure to invoke it.
EXTRADITION delivery of an accused or a convicted individual to the requesting state in whose territory he is alleged
to have committed a crime
>There is no legal obligation to surrender a fugitive unless theres a treaty
>Religious or Political offenses are generally NOT extraditable
Q: Is an extraditee entitled to a notice and hearing before the issuance of the warrant of arrest once the petition for
extradition is filed in court?

A: No. See ??Govt of US vs. Purganan

CORONA VS UNITED HARBOUR PILOT GR NO 127980 CASE DIGEST

FACTS: : IN ISSUING ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 04-92 (PPA-AO NO.04-92), LIMITING THE TERM OF APPOINTMENT OF
HARBOR PILOTS TO ONE YEAR SUBJECT TO YEARLY RENEWAL OR CANCELLATION
ON AUGUST 12, 1992, RESPONDENTS UNITED HARBOUR PILOTSASSOCIATION AND THE MANILA PILOTS ASSOCIATION,
THROUGH CAPT.ALBERTO C. COMPAS, QUESTIONED PPA-AO NO. 04-92
ON DECEMBER 23, 1992, THE OP ISSUED AN ORDER DIRECTING THEPPA TO HOLD IN ABEYANCE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF PPAAO NO. 04-92ON
MARCH 17, 1993, THE OP, THROUGH THEN ASSISTANT EXECUTIVESECRETARY FOR LEGAL AFFAIRS RENATO C. CORONA,
DISMISSED THEAPPEAL/PETITION AND LIFTED THE RESTRAINING ORDER ISSUEDEARLIER
RESPONDENTS FILED A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION ANDINJUNCTION WITH PRAYER FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A
TEMPORARYRESTRAINING ORDER AND DAMAGES, BEFORE BRANCH 6 OF THEREGIONAL TRIAL COURT
ISSUE: WON PPA-AO-04-92 IS CONSTITUTIONAL
HELD: THE COURT IS CONVINCED THAT PPA-AO NO. 04-92 WAS ISSUEDIN STARK DISREGARD OF RESPONDENTS' RIGHT
AGAINST DEPRIVATIONOF PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW. THE SUPREME COURTSAID THAT IN ORDER TO FALL
WITHIN THE AEGIS OF THIS PROVISION,TWO CONDITIONS MUST CONCUR, NAMELY, THAT THERE IS ADEPRIVATION AND
THAT SUCH DEPRIVATION IS DONE WITHOUTPROPER OBSERVANCE OF DUE PROCESS. AS A GENERAL RULE, NOTICEAND
HEARING, AS THE FUNDAMENTAL REQUIREMENTS OFPROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS, ARE ESSENTIAL ONLY WHEN
ANADMINISTRATIVE BODY EXERCISES ITS QUASI-JUDICIAL FUNCTION. INTHE PERFORMANCE OF ITS EXECUTIVE OR
LEGISLATIVE FUNCTIONS,SUCH AS ISSUING RULES AND REGULATIONS, AN ADMINISTRATIVEBODY NEED NOT COMPLY
WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF NOTICE ANDHEARING
THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT PILOTAGE AS A APROFESSION HAS TAKENON THE NATURE OF A PROPERTY RIGHT. IT IS READILY
APPARENT THATPPA-AO NO. 04-92 UNDULY RESTRICTS THE RIGHT OF HARBOR PILOTSTO ENJOY THEIR PROFESSION BEFORE
THEIR COMPULSORYRETIREMENT

Diosdado Guzman vs. National University

Facts:

Petitioners Diosdado Guzman, Ulysses Urbiztondo and Ariel Ramacula, students of respondent National
University, seek relief from what they described as their school's "continued and persistent refusal to allow
them to enrol."
In their petition on August 7, 1984 for extraordinary legal and equitable remedies with prayer for
preliminary mandatory injunction, they alleged that they were denied due to the fact that they were active
participation in peaceful mass actions within the premises of the University.
The respondents on the other hand claimed that the petitioners failure to enroll for the first semester of
the school year 1984-1985 is due to their own fault and not because of their alleged exercise of their
constitutional and human rights. As regards to Guzman, his academic showing was poor due to his
activities in leading boycotts of classes. They said that Guzman is facing criminal charges for malicious
mischief before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila in connection with the destruction of properties of
respondent University.
The petitioners have failures in their records, and are not of good scholastic standing.
Issue:
Whether or Not there is violation of the due process clause.

Held:
Immediately apparent from a reading of respondents' comment and memorandum is the fact that they
had never conducted proceedings of any sort to determine whether or not petitioners-students had indeed
led or participated in activities within the university premises, conducted without prior permit from school
authorities, that disturbed or disrupted classes therein or perpetrated acts of vandalism, coercion and
intimidation, slander, noise barrage and other acts showing disdain for and defiance of University
authority. The pending civil case for damages and a criminal case for malicious mischief against petitioner
Guzman, cannot, without more, furnish sufficient warrant for his expulsion or debarment from reenrollment. Also, apparent is the omission of respondents to cite this Court to any duly published rule of
theirs by which students may be expelled or refused re-enrollment for poor scholastic standing.
To satisfy the demands of procedural due process, the following requisites must be met:
1.
the students must be informed in writing of the nature and cause of any accusation against them;
2.
they shag have the right to answer the charges against them, with the assistance of counsel, if
desired;
3.

they shall be informed of the evidence against them;

4.

they shall have the right to adduce evidence in their own behalf; and

5.
the evidence must be duly considered by the investigating committee or official designated by the
school authorities to hear and decide the case.
RULING:
The petition was granted wherein the respondents are directed to allow the petitioners (students) to reenrol without prejudice to any disciplinary proceedings.

ESTRADA v SANDIGANBAYAN
Facts:
Petitioner Joseph Estrada who was prosecuted to An Act Defining and Penalizing the Crime of Plunder,
assailed that law is so defectively fashioned that it crosses that thin but distinct line which divides the valid
from the constitutionally infirm.
His contentions are mainly based on the effects of the said law that it suffers from the vice of vagueness;
it dispenses with the "reasonable doubt" standard in criminal prosecutions; and it abolishes the element of
mens rea in crimes already punishable under The Revised Penal Code saying that it violates the
fundamental rights of the accused.
The focal point of the case is the alleged vagueness of the law in the terms it uses. Particularly,
this terms are: combination, series and unwarranted. Because of this, the petitioner uses the facial
challenge on the validity of the mentioned law.
Issue:
Whether or Not the petitioner possesses the locus standi to attack the validity of the law using the facial
challenge.
Held:
On how the law uses the terms combination and series does not constitute vagueness. The petitioners
contention that it would not give a fair warning and sufficient notice of what the law seeks to penalize
cannot be plausibly argued. Void-for-vagueness doctrine is manifestly misplaced under the petitioners

reliance since ordinary intelligence can understand what conduct is prohibited by the statute. It can only
be invoked against that specie of legislation that is utterly vague on its face, wherein clarification by a
saving clause or construction cannot be invoked. Said doctrine may not invoked in this case since the
statute is clear and free from ambiguity. Vagueness doctrine merely requires a reasonable degree of
certainty for the statute to be upheld, not absolute precision or mathematical exactitude. On the other
hand, over breadth doctrine decrees that governmental purpose may not be achieved by means which
sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms. Doctrine of strict scrutiny
holds that a facial challenge is allowed to be made to vague statute and to one which is overbroad
because of possible chilling effect upon protected speech. Furthermore, in the area of criminal law, the law
cannot take chances as in the area of free speech. A facial challenge to legislative acts is the most difficult
challenge to mount successfully since the challenger must establish that no set of circumstances exists.
Doctrines mentioned are analytical tools developed for facial challenge of a statute in free speech cas

es. With respect to such statue, the established rule is that one to who application of a statute is
constitutional will not be heard to attack the statute on the ground that impliedly it might also be taken as
applying to other persons or other situations in which its application might be unconstitutional. On its face
invalidation of statues results in striking them down entirely on the ground that they might be applied to
parties not before the Court whose activities are constitutionally protected. It is evident that the purported
ambiguity of the Plunder Law is more imagined than real. The crime of plunder as a malum in se is
deemed to have been resolve in the Congress decision to include it among the heinous crime punishable
by reclusion perpetua to death. Supreme Court holds the plunder law constitutional and petition is
dismissed for lacking merit.

Remedial Law: Francisco Chavez vs. PCGG et al., GR No. 130716,

December 09, 1998
Francisco Chavez vs. PCGG et al., GR No. 130716, December 09, 1998
Locus Standi
Facts:
Petitioner, instituted a case against public respondent to make public any negotiations and/or agreements pertaining to
the latter's task of recovering the Marcoses' ill-gotten wealth. The respondents argued that the action was premature
since he has not shown that he had asked the respondents to disclose the negotiations and agreements before filing the
case.
Issue:
Does the petitioner have the personality or legal standing to file the instant petition?
Held:
The instant petition is anchored on the right of the people to information and access to government records,
documents and papers- a right guaranteed under section 7, article III of the Philippine Constitution. The petitioner a
former solicitor general, is a Filipino citizen, and because of the satisfaction of the two basic requisites laid down by
decisional law to sustain petitioner's standing i.e
(1) ENFORCEMENT OF A LEGAL RIGHT
(2) ESPOUSED BY A FILIPINO CITIZEN
we rule, that the petition at bar be allowed.