CHAPTER VIII: DUE PROCESS OF LAW

Origin of due process It is traceable to prince john in 1215 no man shall be taken or imprisoned or disseized or outlawed, or in any manner destroyed; nor shall we go upon him, nor send upon him, but by lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land. Subsequently, in 1355, the more popular equivalent of the phrase law of the land was used the first time when in king Edward IIIs statute 28, it was declared that no man, of what state or condition whoever he be, shall be put out of his lands, or tenements, nor taken nor imprisoned, nor indicted, nor put to death, without he be brought in to answer by due process of law.

EVOLUTION OF DUE PROCESS Law of the land means the general law, a law which hears before it condemns which proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgement only after trial. (Dartmouth College case, Daniel Webster) This statement was in accord with the original understanding of the guaranty, which called only for the observance of the procedure laid down by the law, regardless of its intrinsic validity. When the due process guaranty was exported to the United States, however, it underwent a substantial transformation. A new form of government was established there providing for three separate branches among which legislative, executive and judicial powers were distributed.

The safeguard as thus expanded is the due process guaranteed by our constitution, whose bill of rights was patterned after the American constitution. Hence, as in the United States, due process of law in our country also has a dual aspect: the substantive and the procedural. MEANING OF DUE PROCESS Article III Section 1 of the Constitution provides: No person shall be deprived of life, liberty and property without due process of law nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws. There was no attempt to spell out the meaning of the due process clause as suggested by Delegate Jose P. Laurel, chairman of the committee of the bill of rights in the 1934 constitutional convention. His reason was that a precise definition of due process might prove constricting and prevent the judiciary from adjusting it to the circumstances or particular cases and to the ever changing conditions of the society. This was accepted by the body.

Due process therefore continues to be dynamic and resilient, adaptable to every situation calling for its application. As to the courts they had confine their specification in a legal strait jacket which provides Gradually ascertained by the process of inclusion and exclusion in the course of the decisions of cases as they rise. According to the Supreme Court speaking through justice Fernando, would describe due process merely as responsiveness to the supremacy of reason, obedience to the dictates of justice. According to the U.S. Supreme court speaking through Justice Frankfurter, would elaborate due process as the embodiment of the sporting idea of fair play. Due process is 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. 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 The due process clause protects all persons, natural as well as artificial. Natural person include both the citizen and the alien. Artificial persons like corporations and partnerships are also covered by the protection but only insofar as their property is concerned. The reason for the narrower scope is that the life and the liberty of the artificial person, a s a creature of law, are derived from and therefore subject to the control of the legislature.

DEPRIVATION To deprive is to take away forcibly, to prevent from possessing, enjoying or using something. As applied to due process, deprivation connotes denial of the right to life, liberty or property. Deprivation per se is not necessarily unconstitutional. What is prohibited is deprivation of life, liberty or property without due process of law. There would be unlawful deprivation if he were sentenced to death for conviction of a petty offense as the disparity between crime and punishment would make the law unreasonable.

There is no unlawful deprivation of liberty where a person afflicted with a disease is confines in a hospital or quarantines in his own home, or where a criminal is punished with imprisonment. Conversely, it would be violative of due process if a person is imprisoned without trial, or is prevented from criticizing the government in the exercise of his freedom of expression, or is forced to follow a particular religion. Private property may be validly taken where it is offensive to the public welfare, like a building on the verge of collapse, which may be demolished under the police power in the interest of the public safety. It may also be expropriated, after payment of just compensation, so it may be devoted to some public use; or it may be distrained and levied upon in case of tax delinquency of its owner.

LIFE Life as understood in the due process clause connotes in the first place the integrity of the physical person. The meaning is that 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. Accordingly, it will be unlawful to amputate his hands if he is a thief or castrate him if he is a rapist or strike out his eyes for unjust vexation or cut off his tongue for objectionable remarks he may have made.

Any measure that would even only endanger his health or subject him to unnecessary pain or to unreasonable physical exertion would also be subject to challenge. Thus, in sustaining the law requiring the sterilization of incurable hereditary imbeciles, the U.S. supreme court observed in Buck v. Bell, that the operation only involved a minimum of pain, or none at all, and did not endanger the imbeciles life or health. But according to our Supreme Court, should not be dwarfed into mere animal existence. In fact, the word should embrace the enjoyment by the individual of all the god0given faculties that can make his life worth living.

LIBERTY According to mabini, liberty is the freedom to do right and never wrong. Liberty, as guaranteed under the due process clause is not unbridled license; it is liberty regulated by law. Ones own liberty must be enjoyed consistently with the enjoyment of a like liberty by others. In other words, the individual, as a creature of society, should be prepared to surrender part of his freedom for the benefit of the greater number in recognition of the time-honored principle of salus populi est suprema lex.

In order to illustrate, ones freedom of expression cannot be used to unfairly destroy anothers reputation, or to incite rebellion, or to offend public morals; neither may he abuse the sanctity of his home by converting it into a den of criminality or a hotbed of disease; nor may he insist on selling his goods at black market prices, if they be prime necessities, to the detriment of the consuming public..

PROPERTY Property is anything that can come under the right of ownership and be the subject of contract. This will include all things real, personal, tangible and intangible that are within the commerce of man, like lands, jewellery, automobiles, buildings, goodwill, inheritance, intellectual creations, future earnings, works of art, animals, mortgages, insurance proceeds, etc. One cannot have a vested right to a public office, as this is not regarded as property. If created by statute, it may be abolished by the legislature at any time, even if the term of the incumbent therein has not yet expired. The only exception is where the salary has already been earned, in which case it cannot be reduced or withdrawn by a retroactive law as said salary has already accrued as a property right. It has also been held that mere privileges, such as a license to operate a cockpit or a liquor store, are not property rights and are therefore revocable at will.

SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS Substantive due process requires the intrinsic validity of the law in interfering with the rights of the person to his life, liberty and property. The 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 in example the interest of the public generally as distinguished from those of a particular class require the intervention of the state.

Furthermore, this objective must be pursued in a lawful manner, or in other words, the means employed must be reasonably related to the accomplishment of the purpose and not duly oppressive. Justice Labrador declared: the disputed law is deemed absolutely necessary to bring about the desired legislative objectiveto free the national economy from alien control and dominance. If political independence is a legitimate aspiration, then economic independence is nonetheless legitimate. Freedom and liberty are not real and positive if the people are subject to the economic control and domination of others, especially if not of their own race and country.

The law is reasonable, he added. It is made prospective and recognizes the rights and privileges of those already engaged in the occupation to continue therein during the rest of their lives; and similar recognition is accorded associations of aliens, which were allowed a ten year period of grace within which to wind up their affairs in the retail trade and transfer to other business.

PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS The essence of procedural due process is expressed in the immortal cry of Themistocles to Eurybiades: Strike, but hear me first! In more familiar words, the justice that procedural due process guarantees, to repeat with Daniel Webster, is the one which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment only after trial. Our supreme court has held that the twin requirements of notice and hearing constitute the essential elements of due process and neither of these elements can be eliminated without running afoul of the constitutional guaranty.

REVISED RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Rules 110 to 127 [Effective December 1, 2000] CRIMINAL PROCEDURE RULE 110 - PROSECUTION OF OFFENSESA.M. NO. 02-2-07-SC [Effective May 01, 2002] Amendments to Section 5, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. RULE 111 - PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTIONRULE 112 - PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATIONRULE 113 - ARRESTRULE 114 - BAILRULE 115 - RIGHTS OF ACCUSEDRULE 116 - ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEARULE 117 - MOTION TO QUASHRULE 118 - PRE-TRIALRULE 119 - TRIALRULE 120 JUDGMENTRULE 121 - NEW TRIAL OR RECONSIDERATIONRULE 122 APPEALRULE 123 - PROCEDURE IN THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTSRULE 124 - PROCEDURE IN THE COURT OF APPEALSRULE 125 - PROCEDURE IN THE SUPREME COURTRULE 126 - SEARCH AND SEIZURERULE 127 PROVISIONAL REMEDIES IN CRIMINAL CASES

JUDICIAL DUE PROCESS

1. There must be an 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 of the proceeding. 3.The defendant must be given an opportunity to be heard 4.Judgment must be rendered upon lawful hearing

IMPARTIAL and COMPETENT COURT It is clear that a court affected by bias or prejudice cannot be expected to render a fair and impartial decision. As our Supreme Court has declared, every litigant is entitled to the cold neutrality of an impartial judge. By competent court is meant one vested with jurisdiction over a case as conferred upon it by law. For example, a regional trial court is competent to try a prosecution for murder but not for violation of a municipal ordinance. Only the Supreme Court is competent to review a decision on the Commission on Audit, but jurisdiction over ordinary appealed cases involving only questions of fact is vested in the court of appeals.

JURISDICTION In actions in personam, such as a complaint for recovery of a loan, jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired by the court by his voluntary appearance or through service of summons upon him. This may be effected personally, or by substituted service, or, in exceptional cases, by publication. In actions in rem or quasi in rem such as land registration proceedings or the foreclosure of a real estate mortgage, 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. According to Cooley, if the owners are named in the proceedings and personal notice is provided for, it is rather from the tenderness to their interests, and in order to make sure that the opportunity for a hearing shall not be lost to them, than from any necessity that the case shall assume that form.

HEARING Notice to a party is essential to enable it 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. He has a right to be notified of every incident of the proceeding and to be present at every stage thereof so that he may be heard himself and counsel for the protection of hi interests. As held in David v. Aquilizan, a decision rendered without a hearing is null and void ab initio and may be attacked directly or collaterally. If it otherwise, the Supreme Court declared, then the cardinal requirement that no party should be made to suffer in person or property without being given a hearing would be brushed aside. The doctrine consistently adhered to by this court when such a question arises. . . .os that a denial of due process suffices to cast on the official act taken by whatever branch of the government the improcess of nullity.

Due process is not violated where a person is not heard because he has chosen, for whatever reason, not to be heard. If he opts to be silent where he has a right to speak, he cannot later be heard to complain that he was unduly silenced. The Supreme Court has held, however, that: Due process as a constitutional precept does not, always and in all situations, requires trial-type proceedings. The essence of due process is to be found in the reasonable opportunity to be heard and to submit any evidence one may have in support of ones defense To be heard does not only mean verbal arguments in court. One may be heard also through pleadings. Where opportunity to be heard, either through oral arguments or pleadings, is accorded, there is no denial of procedural due process.

APPEAL The right to appeal is not essential to the right to a hearing. The legislature itself cannot deprive him of the right to appeal in those cases coming under the minimum appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as specified in Article VIII, Section 5 (2), of the Constitution, to wit: 1.All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question. 2.All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in relation thereto. 3.All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue. 4.All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher. 5.All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.

EXCEPTIONS There are cases in which the essential requisites of notice and hearing may be omitted without violation of due process. The examples are the following 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 p[ropertie4s for tax delinquency, the padlocking of restaurants found to be insanitary or of theatres showing obscene movies and the abatement of nuisances per se. NUISANCES A nuisance is objectionable under any and all circumstances because it presents an immediate danger to the welfare of the community This kind of nuisance may be abated summarily, that is, without the necessity of judicial authorization. The classic example is that of a mad dog running loose, which can be killed on sight, regardless of its value, because of the threat it poses to the safety and lives of the people.

A nuisance per accidens is objectionable only unders some but not all circumstances, there being situations when it is perfectly legitimate and acceptable. It has been described as the right in the wrong place, like a patis factory in a residential area. The rule is that it may be abated only upon judicial authorization as it is difficult to ascertain or identify this kind of nuisance. The exception, as announced in Lawton v. Steele, is where the legislature has authorized its summary abatement, provided the nuisance per accidens is of trifling value only. PRESUMPTIONS Would a statutory presumption deny the right to a hearing insofar as the person affected is precluded from introducing evidence to rebut the presumption? The accepted view is that it would not, provided there is a rational or natural connection between the fact proved and the fact ultimately presumed from such fact.

As long as the presumption is based on human experience, as where a child born within one hundred eighty days of the marriage is presumed legitimate if the husband, before such marriage, knew of the pregnancy of the wife, it will be deemed not violative of due process. JUDGMENT The right to a hearing would be meangless if in the end the judge could disregard the evidence adduced by the parties and decide the case on the basis of his own unsupported conclusions. To insure against such arbitrariness, due process requires that the judgment be based upon the lawful hearing previously conducted. And to augment this requirement, Article VIII, Section 14, of the Constitution provides that no decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based.

2) ADMINISTRATIVE DUE PROCESS In administrative proceedings, the requisites of procedural due process are the following: 1.The right to a hearing, which includes the right to present ones case and submit evidence in support thereof. 2.The tribunal must consider the evidence presented. 3.The decision must have something to support itself. 4.The evidence must be substantial

5.The 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.The 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, renders 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