2. Procedural Due Process
Q: What are the fundamental elements of procedural due process?
A:
1. Notice (to be meaningful must be as to time and place)
2. Opportunity to be heard
3. Court/tribunal must have jurisdiction
Q: Does due process require a trial‐type proceeding?
A: No. 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 one’s defense. “To be heard” does not always 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 due process (Zaldivar v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. L‐
32215, Oct. 17, 1988).
Note: The meetings in the nature of consultations and conferences cannot be considered as valid substitutes for the proper observance of notice and Protects the individual
from the government and assures him of his rights in criminal, civil or administrative
proceedings
While found in the Labor Code and Implementing Rules protects employees from being unjustly terminated without just cause after notice and hearing (Agabon v.
NLRC, G.R. No. 158693, November 17, 2004)
A: Yes. While the Bill of Rights also protects property rights, the primacy of human rights over property rights is recognized.
Property and property rights can be lost thru prescription; but human rights are imprescriptible. In the hierarchy of civil liberties, the rights of free expression and of assembly occupy a preferred position as they are essential to the preservation and vitality of our civil and political institutions (Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization v.
Philippine Blooming Mills Co., Inc., G.R. No. L‐
31195 June 5, 1973).
77
U S T
A C :L J A E.F II
5. Judicial Standards of Review
Q: Given the fact that not all rights and freedoms or liberties under the Bill of Rights and other values of society are of similar weight and importance, governmental regulations that affect them would have to be evaluated based on different yardsticks, or standards of review.
What are these standards of review?
A:
1. Deferential review – laws are upheld if they rationally further a legitimate governmental interest, without courts seriously inquiring into the substantiality of such interest and examining the alternative means by which the objectives could be achieved
2. Intermediate review – the substantiality of the governmental interest is seriously looked into and the availability of less restrictive alternatives are considered.
3. Strict scrutiny – the focus is on the presence of compelling, rather than substantial governmental interest and on the absence of less restrictive means for achieving that interest (Separate opinion of Justice Mendoza in Estrada v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148965, Feb.
26, 2002)
6. Void‐for‐Vagueness Doctrine
Q: Explain the void for vagueness doctrine?
A: It holds that a law is vague when it lacks comprehensive standards that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its common meaning and differ as to its application. In such instance, the statute is repugnant to the Constitution because:
1. It violates due process for failure to accord persons, especially the parties targeted by it, fair notice of what conduct to avoid
2. It leaves law enforcers an unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions (People v. de la Piedra, G.R. No. 128777, Jan. 24, 2001)
Q: What is the Overbreadth Doctrine?
A: The overbreadth doctrine decrees that a governmental purpose may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms.
Note: It is an analytical tool developed for testing on their face statutes in free speech cases. Claims of facial over breadth are entertained in cases involving statutes which, by their terms, seek to regulate only spoken words and again, that overbreadth claims, if entertained at all, have been curtailed when invoked against ordinary criminal laws that are sought to be applied to protected conduct.
Q: Can criminal statutes be declared invalid for being overbroad?
A: No. The overbreadth doctrine is not intended for testing the validity of a law that reflects legitimate state interest in maintaining comprehensive control over harmful, constitutionally unprotected conduct. Claims of facial overbreadth are entertained in cases involving statutes which, by their terms, seek to regulate only spoken words and again, that overbreadth claims, if entertained at all, have been curtailed when invoked against ordinary criminal laws that are sought to be applied to protected conduct. (Romualdez v. COMELEC, G.R.
No. 167011, Dec. 11, 2008)
Note: The most distinctive feature of the overbreadth technique is that it marks an exception to some of the usual rules of constitutional litigation.
In overbreadth analysis, those rules give way;
challenges are permitted to raise the rights of third parties; and the court invalidates the entire statute
"on its face," not merely "as applied for" so that the overbroad law becomes unenforceable until a properly authorized court construes it more narrowly.
Q: Is legislation couched in imprecise language void for vagueness?
A: No. The "void‐for‐vagueness" doctrine does not apply as against legislations that are merely couched in imprecise language but which specify
a standard though defectively phrased; or to those that are apparently ambiguous yet fairly applicable to certain types of activities. The first may be "saved" by proper construction, while no challenge may be mounted as against the second whenever directed against such activities.
78
PAHOLITICAL DVISERERAZEUS : ALCAW TTYHRISTINE .T EEAMDWIN :Y. R UEY Y;S MANDOVALEMBERS:; SLUBJECT AWRENCE HEADPAULO : RACHEL H. AQUINOMARIE , LL.EANDRO FELICESR; AODEL SST.V. SUBJECT ATIENZAHEADS, MARINETH : WIVINO EASTER E. BRACERO AN D. IIA YOS& ,CARLO R. BALA, WILFREDO T. BONILLA, JR., KEEL ACHERNAR R. DINOY, APRIL V. ENRILE, KENNETH JAMES CARLO C. HIZON, JOSE MARIA G. MENDOZA, ROGER CHRISTOPHER R. REYES, ROMILINDA C. SIBAL, JASMIN M. SISON, ZARAH PATRICIA T. SUAREZ, RALPH JULIOUS L.
In the Supreme Court held that the doctrine can only be invoked against that species of legislation that is utterly vague on its face, i.e., that which cannot be clarified either by a saving clause or by construction. (Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
148560, Nov. 19, 2001)
Q: What is the test in determining whether a criminal statute is void for uncertainty?
A: The test is whether the language conveys a sufficiently definite warning as to the proscribed conduct when measured by common understanding and practice. It must be stressed, however, that the "vagueness" doctrine merely requires a reasonable degree of certainty for the statute to be upheld ‐ not absolute precision or mathematical exactitude. (Estrada vs.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560, Nov. 19, 2001)
d. EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS
1. CONCEPT
Q: What is the concept of equal protection of the laws?
A: It means that all persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed. It guarantees equality, not identity of rights. It does not forbid discrimination as to persons and things that are different. What it forbids are distinctions based on impermissible criteria unrelated to a proper legislative purpose, or class or discriminatory legislation, which discriminates against some and favors others when both are similarly situated. (2 Cooley, Constitutional Limitations, 824‐825)
Note: It must be borne in mind that the Arroyo administration is but just a member of a class, that is, a class of past administrations. It is not a class of its own. Not to include past administrations similarly situated constitutes arbitrariness which the equal protection clause cannot sanction. Such discriminating differentiation clearly reverberates to label the commission as a vehicle for vindictiveness and selective retribution. (Biraogo v. The Philippine
Truth Commission of 2010, G.R. No. 192935, Dec. 7, 2010)
2. REQUISITES FOR VALID CLASSIFICATION
Q: What are the requisites for a valid classification?
A: The classification must:
1. Rest on substantial distinctions 2. Be germane to the purpose of the law 3. Not be limited to existing conditions
only;
4. Apply equally to all members of the same class. (Gorospe, Constitutional Law: Notes and Readings on the Bill of Rights, Citizenship and Suffrage, Vol. 2., p.334)
Q: Does equal protection of the laws apply to both citizens and aliens?
A:
GR: It applies to all persons, both citizens and aliens. The Constitution places the civil rights of aliens on equal footing with those of the citizens.
XPN: Statutes may validly limit to citizens exclusively the enjoyment of rights or privileges connected with public domain, the public works, or the natural resources of the State
Note: The rights and interests of the State in these things are not simply political but also proprietary in nature and so citizens may lawfully be given preference over aliens in their use or enjoyment.
Aliens do not enjoy the same protection as regards political rights. (Inchong v. Hernandez, G.R. No. L‐
7995, May 31, 1957)
Q: Is classification of citizens by the legislature unconstitutional?
A:
GR: The legislature may not validly classify the citizens of the State on the basis of their origin, race, or parentage.
XPN: The difference in status between citizens and aliens constitutes a basis for reasonable classification in the exercise of police power.
(Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 2003)
Q: What is the rationale for allowing, in exceptional cases, valid classification based on citizenship?
A: Aliens do not naturally possess the sympathetic consideration and regard for customers with whom they come in daily contact, nor the patriotic desire to help bolster the nation’s economy, except in so far as it enhances their profit, nor the loyalty and allegiance which the national owes to the land. These limitations on the qualifications of aliens have been shown on many occasions and instances, especially in times of crisis and emergency. (Ichong v.
Hernandez, G.R. No. L‐7995, May 31, 1957)
Q: What is the intensified means test or the balancing of interest/equality test?
A: It is the test which does not look solely into the government’s purpose in classifying persons or things (as done in Rational Basis Test) nor into the existence of an overriding or compelling government interest so great to justify limitations of fundamental rights (Strict Scrutiny Test) but closely scrutinizes the relationship between the classification and the purpose, based on spectrum of standards, by gauging the extent to which constitutionally guaranteed rights depend upon the affected individual’s interest.
79
U S T
A C :L J A E.F II
e. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
Q: What is the essence of privacy?
A: The essence of privacy is the right to be left alone. In context, the right to privacy means the right to be free from unwarranted exploitation of one’s person or from intrusion into ones’ private activities in such a way as to cause humiliation to a person’s ordinary sensibilities.
1. Warrant Requirement
Q: What are the requisites of a valid search warrant and warrant of arrest?
A:
1. There should be a search warrant or warrant of arrest
2. Probable cause supported the issuance of such warrant
3. Such probable cause had been determined personally by a judge 4. Judge personally examined the
complainant and his witnesses
5. The warrant must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
(Gorospe, Constitutional Law: Notes and Readings on the Bill of Rights, Citizenship and Suffrage, Vol. 2., p.334)
Note: General warrant is not allowed. It must be issued pursuant to specific offense.
Q: What are general warrants?
A: These are warrants of broad and general characterization or sweeping descriptions which will authorize police officers to undertake a fishing expedition to seize and confiscate any and all kinds of evidence or articles relating to an offense.
Q: What is the purpose of particularity of description?
A: The purpose is to enable the law officers serving the warrant to:
1. Readily identify the properties to be seized and thus prevent them from seizing the wrong items
2. Leave said peace officers with no discretion regarding the articles to be seized and thus prevent unreasonable searches and seizures. (Bache and Co. v. Ruiz, 37 SCRA 823)
Q: When is particularity of description complied with?
A: For warrant of arrest, this requirement is complied with if it contains the name of the person/s to be arrested. If the name of the person to be arrested is not known, a John Doe warrant may be issued. A John Doe warrant will satisfy the constitutional requirement of particularity of description if there is some descriptio personae which is sufficient to enable the officer to identify the accused.
For a search warrant, the requirement is complied with:
1. When the description therein is as specific as the circumstances will ordinarily allow; or
2. When the description expresses a conclusion of fact, not of law, by which the warrant officer may be guided in making the search and seizure; or
3. When the things described are limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued
Note: If the articles desired to be seized have any direct relation to an offense committed, the applicant must necessarily have some evidence other than those articles, to prove said offense. The articles subject of search and seizure should come in handy merely to strengthen such evidence.
Q: What are the properties subject to seizure?
A:
1. Property subject of the offense 2. Stolen or embezzled property and other
proceeds or fruits of the offense 3. Property used or intended to be used as
means for the commission of an offense
80
PAHOLITICAL DVISERERAZEUS : ALCAW TTYHRISTINE .T EEAMDWIN :Y. R UEY Y;S MANDOVALEMBERS:; SLUBJECT AWRENCE HEADPAULO : RACHEL H. AQUINOMARIE , LL.EANDRO FELICESR; AODEL SST.V. SUBJECT ATIENZAHEADS, MARINETH : WIVINO EASTER E. BRACERO AN D. IIA YOS& ,CARLO R. BALA, WILFREDO T. BONILLA, JR., KEEL ACHERNAR R. DINOY, APRIL V. ENRILE, KENNETH JAMES CARLO C. HIZON, JOSE MARIA G. MENDOZA, ROGER CHRISTOPHER R. REYES, ROMILINDA C. SIBAL, JASMIN M. SISON, ZARAH PATRICIA T. SUAREZ, RALPH JULIOUS L.
Q: What is probable cause?
A: Probable cause is such facts and circumstances antecedent to the issuance of a warrant that in themselves are sufficient to induce a cautious man to rely on them and act in pursuance thereof.
Q: How is probable cause determined personally by the judge?
A:
SEARCH WARRANT WARRANT OF ARREST