Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Section 1 Person:
No person shall be deprived of life liberty and property • Natural persons like human beings, protection includes
without due process of law, nor shall the person be denied protection of property, individual freedom, life or animal
equal protection of the law. existence, not only Filipino Citizens but also foreigners
inside our territorial jurisdiction and
Justice Cruz: The concept of Due Process was executed by • Juridical persons like corporations or partnerships but
God at the Garden of Eden, after Adam and Eve ate the only limited to the protection of property rights.
forbidden fruit, summoned them to a hearing although he
already knew what happened but still afforded them a chance Deprivation:
to explain themselves. God instituted the concept of due • If property is taken away, there is deprivation of property
process. right
• If the life is taken away, there is deprivation of the life of
Concept or origin in England, as enshrined Magnacarta, the person
centered mainly on the procedural aspects of due process, • How about if there is merely an imposition of a
thrust is centered more on the implementation of the law. prohibition in the exercise of ones right, with respect to
the enjoyment of the thing, would that amount to
Concept was exported to the US such that it assumes two deprivation? YES, does not only mean actual
aspects: dispossession.
1. Substantive aspect
2. Procedural aspect Note: what is prohibited is deprivation WITHOUT due
process. Sec1 allows deprivation of life, liberty or property
What is due process? PROVIDED that there is observance of due process. Similarly,
• If we exam the constitutions, you cannot find any if property is taken for public use upon payment of just
particular provision on what due process is. compensation, deprivation that is allowed, there is
• There is no particular definition of the term due process. observance of due process (payment of just compensation)
Lagman vs Ochoa
• Equal protection includes juridical and natural persons Sc: there is no substantial distinction between arroyo
• Foreigners are afforded equal protection of the law admin and past administrations.
• The term is not particularly defined, intended by the
framers as not to restrict the application and to give Chavez vs Pcgg
leeway to judges on the application. Of every case. Sc: nullified compromise agreement between heirs of
• Does not mean that it should be given universal Marcos and PCGG
application, not applicable to all persons, if so, it would
result to inequality. 2. Germane to purpose of the law
Served where there is equality among equals. There must be relevance to the purpose of the legislation
Persons or things belonging to the same class must be treated
alike. Dunglao vs comelec
Would permit a valid classification, but peripheral or Law prohibiting elected public officials who already
superficial distinction is not a valid classification. retired from service, and been paid their retirement
benefits, prohibited from running for the same position.
If the distinction is based on substantial difference
Substantive quality is not enough, may be invalid if in the
application there is inequality. 3. Must not be limited to existing conditions
Justice Cruz,
Ormoc sugar company inc
Yeko vs hopkins Particulalry singled out under the questioned ordinance,
Even if the law appears in its face valid, if there is inequality in violation of the equal protection of the law
the application or enforcement, it will be declared as invalid
Lutes vs araneta
People vsVera Special assessment tax was imposed for the rehabilitation
Grants to apply for probation, but in the implementation, to of the whole sugar company.
provide salary of the probation officer,
sC: while the act may be valid in
4. Must be equally applied to all members of the same class
Doctrine: substantive quality is not enough
Lagman vs ochoa
Generally, superficial differences is not a valid ground in such Past administration of arroyo was singled out
classification Sc: there should not be any further classification among
those of the same class
Exceptions/Instances where physical differences is valid
Ex. Women is prohibited in working in port areas Leipo vs hopkins
Recruitment of members of the armed forces, regulation in Sc: law is valid on its face, but in the implementation, it
height which must be at least 5'4, valid. allows further classification, there is unfairness, or
May be regarded as valid arbitrariness in the implementation or application of the
laws.
After all, equal protection of the law, requirements:
Tatad vs GR 124360
1. Classification must be based on substantial distinction Validity if RA8180 sec5
Imported crude oil to the Philippines tax rate 3%
Inchong vs Hernandez If finished product tax imposed is 7%
SC: held validity in prohibiting aliens from owning Sc: violative of equal protection clause to the new players
business of those that must import finished product, differential is
prejudicial to the interest of the new players in the oil
Quinto vs comelec industry
Sc: there is valid differentiation between an elected and
appointed public official