A. MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
B. NOTED EXCEPTIONS TO DUE PROCESS
II. SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS A. SCOPE
B. REQUISITES C. DOCTRINES
III. PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS A. SCOPE
B. KINDS
IV. DUE PROCESS AS LIMITATION ON FUNDAMENTAL STATE POWERS
A. VIS-A-VIS POLICE POWER B. VIS-A-VIS EMINENT DOMAIN C. VIS-A-VIS POWER TO TAX
Art. III, Sec. 1. 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.
Art. XIII, Sec. 1. The Congress shall give highest priority to the enactment of measures that protect and enhance the right of all the people to human dignity, reduce social, economic, and political inequalities and remove cultural inequities by equitably diffusing wealth and political power for the common good.
To this end, the State shall regulate the acquisition, ownership, use, and disposition of property and its increments.
I.
In General
Due process of law simply states that “[i]t is part of the sporting idea of fair play to hear "the other side" before an opinion is formed or a decision is made by those who sit in judgment.” (Ynot vs. IAC, 1987)
It covers any governmental action which constitutes a deprivation of some person's life, liberty, or property.
A. Minimum Requirements
Due process of law guarantees: notice and
opportunity to be heard
to persons who would be affected by the order or act contemplated.
B. Noted Exceptions to Due Process
(Ynot vs. IAC, 1987)
The conclusive presumption, bars the admission of contrary evidence as long as such presumption is based on human experience or there is a rational connection between the fact proved and the fact ultimately presumed therefrom.
There are instances when the need for expeditious action will justify omission of these requisites, as in the summary abatement of a nuisance per se, like a mad dog on the loose, which may be killed on sight because of the immediate danger it poses to the safety and lives of the people. Pornographic materials, contaminated meat
and narcotic drugs are inherently pernicious and may be summarily destroyed.
The passport of a person sought for a criminal offense may be cancelled without hearing, to compel his return to the country he has fled.
Filthy restaurants may be summarily padlocked in the interest of the public health and bawdy houses to protect the public morals.
In such instances, previous judicial hearing may be omitted without violation of due process in view of: 1) the nature of the property involved; or 2) the urgency of the need to protect the general welfare from a clear and present danger.
II. Substantive Due Process
City of Manila vs. Laguio, (2005)
Substantive due process, asks whether the government has an adequate reason for taking away a person’s life, liberty, or property.
In other words, substantive due process looks to whether there is a sufficient justification for the government’s action.
68
C O N S T IT U T IO N A L L A W II A. ScopeSubstantive due process is an aspect of due process which serves as a restriction on the law- making and rule-making power of the government.
The law itself, not merely the procedures by which the law would be enforced, should be fair, reasonable, and just.
B. Requisites
(US vs. Toribio, 1910)
Laws which interfere with life, liberty or
property satisfy substantive due process
when there is:
1. Lawful object i.e. the interests of the public in general (as distinguished from those of a particular class) require the intervention of the State, and
2. Lawful means i.e. means employed are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive on individuals.
Tañada vs. Tuvera (1986):
Publication of laws is part of substantive due process.
People vs. Nazario (1988):
VOID FOR VAGUENESS DOCTRINE: An accused is denied the right to be informed of the charge against him and to DUE PROCESS where the statute itself is couched in such INDEFINITE LANGUAGE that it’s not possible for men of ordinary intelligence to determine therefrom what acts/omissions are punished.
C. Doctrines
1. Overbreadth Doctrine: A governmental purpose may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms. David vs. Arroyo (2006)
a. Claims of facial overbreadth are entertained in cases involving statutes which by their terms seek to regulate only spoken words. Such claims have been curtailed when invoked against ordinary criminal laws that are sought to be applied to protected conduct.
b. A facial challenge using the overbreadth doctrine will require the Court to examine PP 1017 and pinpoint its flaws and defects, not on the basis of
its actual operation to petitioners, but on the assumption or prediction that its very existence may cause others not before the Court to refrain from constitutionally protected speech or expression.
c. Also, the challenger must establish that there can be no instance when the assailed law may be valid.
A plain reading of PP 1017 shows that it is not primarily directed to speech / speech-related conduct. It is actually a call upon the AFP to prevent or suppress all forms of lawless violence. Petitioners did not show WON there’s an instance when PP1017 may be valid.
2. Void for Vagueness: An act is vague when it lacks comprehensible standards that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its common meaning and differ as to its application. The statute is repugnant to the constitution in 2 respects:
a. It violates due process for failure to accord persons, especially the parties targeted by it, fair notice of what conduct to avoid,
b. It leaves law enforcers an unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions.
Still on David vs. Arroyo:
Related to the "overbreadth" doctrine is the "void for vagueness doctrine" which holds that "a law is facially invalid if men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application." It is subject to the same principles governing overbreadth doctrine. For one, it is also an analytical tool for testing "on their faces" statutes in free speech cases. Like overbreadth, it is said that a litigant may challenge a statute on its face only if it is vague in all its possible applications.
A facial review of PP 1017 on the ground of vagueness is unwarranted. Petitioners did not even attempt to show that PP 1017 is vague in all its application. They also failed to establish that men of common intelligence cannot understand the meaning and application of PP 1017.
69
C O N S T IT U T IO N A L L A W IIIII. Procedural Due Process
A. Scope
Procedural due process is that aspect of due process which serves as a restriction on actions of judicial and quasi-judicial agencies of the government. It refers to the method or manner by which a law is enforced.
B. Kinds
1. Judicial Due Process Civil Due Process
Requisites (Banco Espanol vs. Palanca, 1918) a) An impartial court of tribunal clothed with
judicial power to hear and determine the matter before it.
b) Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person of the defendant and over the property subject matter of the proceeding
Note: NOTICE is an essential element
of due process, otherwise the Court will not acquire jurisdiction and its judgment will not bind the defendant.
To be meaningful, it must be both as to time and place.
c) The defendant must be given an opportunity to be heard
d) Judgment must be rendered upon lawful hearing and must clearly explain its factual and legal bases... (Sec. 14, Art. 8, 1987 Consti; Banco Español- Filipino vs. Palanca)
Note: Reyes vs. CA (1977): The
allowance or denial of motions for extension rests principally on the sound
discretion of the court to which it is addressed, but such discretion must be exercised wisely and prudently, with a view to substantial justice. Poverty is recognized as a sufficient ground for extending existing period for filing. The
right to appeal is part of due process of law.
Criminal Due Process
Requisites (People vs. Vera, 1937)
a) Accused is heard by a court of competent jurisdiction;
b) Accused is proceeded against under the orderly process of law;
c) Accused is given notice and opportunity to be heard;
d) Judgment rendered is within the authority of a constitutional law. (Mejia vs. Pamaran, 1988)
2. Administrative due process
Requisites of Procedural Due Process in Administrative Agencies (Ang Tibay vs. CIR; also known as the Ang Tibay Rules):
1. Right to a hearing to present own case and submit evidence in support thereof.
2. Tribunal must consider the evidence presented.
3. Decision rendered must have support. 4. Evidence which supports the finding or
conclusion is substantial (such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind accept as adequate to support a conclusion).
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 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 tribunal should, in all controversial questions, render its decision in such a manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the various issues involved, and the reasons for the decision rendered.
70
C O N S T IT U T IO N A L L A W IIIV. Due
Process
As
Limitation
On
Fundamental State Powers
A. Vis-à-vis Police Power
Cruz vs. Paras (1983):
Petitioners are operators of nightclubs in Bulacan. They filed a prohibition suit to stop the Municipality of Bacaue from enforcing an ordinance prohibiting the operation of said nightclubs. The Court held that a municipal corp cannot prohibit the operation of nightclubs. They may only regulate such. RA 938 granted municipalities the power to regulate establishments. While another act amended it to include the power to prohibit its operation, such a construction of the amendatory act would be to construe it in a way that it violates the constitutional provision that “every bill shall embrace only 1 subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof.” Here, the title of the amended RA remained the same so that the power granted is still regulation not prohibition.
Bautista vs. Juinio (1984):
LOI No. 869 banned the use of vehicles with A and EH plates on weekends and holidays in view of the energy crisis. Some exceptions are service, truck, consular corps vehicles. Petitioners, owners of an 8 cylinder 1969 Buick and a 6 cylinder Willy’s Kaiser Jeep questioned the validity of LOI on grounds of it being discriminatory and a denial of due process. Court held that it cannot be held void on its face. It has a presumption of validity. LOI is an energy conservation measure; it is an appropriate response to a problem. Nor does it deny equal protection to petitioners since the LOI operates equally and uniformly w/ class to w/c petitioners belong. The government is not required to adhere to a policy of “all or none.”
B. Vis-à-vis Eminent Domain
De Knecht vs. Bautista (1980):
CHOICE OF PROPERTY TO BE
EXPROPRIATED IS SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW AS TO REASONABLENESS:
Under Section 2, Article IV of the Philippine Constitution, the Republic of the Philippines can take private property upon payment of just compensation. However, private property to be taken cannot be chosen arbitrarily and capriciously, as the landowner is entitled to
due process. The Department of Public Highways originally established the extension in Cuneta Avenue, and it is assumed that they made extensive studies regarding it. The change from Cuneta Avenue to Fernando Rein-Del Pan Streets cannot be justified on the ground of social impact, as the properties to be affected along Cuneta Avenue are mostly motels.
EPZA vs. Dulay (1987):
DETERMINATION OF JUST COMPENSATION IS JUDICIAL FUNCTION:
The Presidential Decrees merely serve as a guide or a factor for the courts in determining amount of just compensation (which should be the fair and full value of the property at time of taking). The courts have the power and authority to determine just compensation, independent of what the decrees state, and thus may appoint commissioners to help in determining just compensation.
Sumulong vs. Guerrero (1987):
SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW IN
EXPROPRIATION PROCEEDINGS:
In this case the Court held that “socialized housing” falls under the scope of public use, and is therefore a valid basis for expropriation.
Manotok vs. NHA (1987):
HEARING:
What the due process clause requires is that the landowner must be given reasonable opportunity to be heard and to present his claim or defense. Although due process does not always necessarily demand that a proceeding be had before a court of law, it still mandates some form of proceeding wherein notice and reasonable opportunity to be heard are given to the owner to protect his property rights. Although there are exceptional situations when in the exercise of the power of eminent domain, the requirement does not need judicial process, when it is alleged that the landowner’s right to due process of law has been violated in the taking of his property, the courts can probe and check on the alleged violation.
Subjects of Judicial Review in Eminent Domain:
a. Validity of taking
b. Adequacy of compensation,
c. “Public use” character of the purpose of taking.
71
C O N S T IT U T IO N A L L A W II Definition A physical dispossession of the owner of his actual property, or its use.
It may include trespass without actual eviction of owner, such as the material impairment of value of property, or preventions of ordinary uses for which the property was intended.
Requisites for a valid taking:
a. The expropriator must enter a private property
b. Entry must be for more than a momentary period
c. Entry must be under warrant or color of legal authority
d. Proerty must be devoted to public use or otherwise informally appropriated or injuriously affected
e. Utilization of the property must be in such a way as to oust the owner and deprive him of beneficial enjoyment of the property (Republic vs. Castelvi, 1974)
Q: What happens if the expropriator does not use the property for a public purpose but sells it to a private user?
A: Property reverts back to the owner in fee simple. (Heirs of Moreno vs. Mactan-Cebu International Airport, 2005)
2. Public Use Definition
The idea that "public use" means "use by the public" has been discarded. At present,
whatever may be beneficially employed for the general welfare satisfies the requirement of
public use. (Heirs of Juancho Ardona vs. Reyes, 123 SCRA 220)
That only a few benefit from the expropriation does not diminish its public-use character, inasmuch as pubic use now includes the broader notion of indirect public benefit or advantage (Filstream International vs. CA, 284 SCRA 716) 3. Just Compensation
Definition
Province of Tayabas vs. Perez (1938): It is the
just and complete equivalent of the loss which the owner of the thing expropriated has to suffer by reason of the expropriation.
BASIS: Fair Market Value
Price fixed by a buyer (desirous but not compelled to buy) and a seller (willing but not compelled to sell).
Must include consequential damages (damages to other interest of the owner attribute to the expropriation) and deduct consequential benefits (increase of value of other interests attribute to new use of the former property) “Taking” via eminent domain vs. “taking” under social justice clause
Agrarian Reform (Art. XIII, Sec. 4)
This provision is an exercise of the police power of the State through eminent domain (Association of Small Landowners vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform) as it is a means to regulate private property.
C. Vis-à-vis Power to Tax
The inherent limitation on the power of taxation is public purpose. Taxes are exacted only for a public purpose. They cannot be used for purely private purposes or for the exclusive benefit of private persons
The reason for this is simple. The power to tax exists for the general welfare; hence, implicit in its power is the limitation that it should be used only for a public purpose. Taxation should be exercised with caution to
minimize the injury to the proprietary rights of a taxpayer.
It must be exercised fairly, equally, and uniformly, lest the tax collector kill the ‘hen that lays the golden eggs.’ in order to maintain the general public’s trust and confidence in the Government, this power must be used justly and not treacherously. (Roxas y Cia vs. CTA, 23 SCRA 276) Premature issuance of final assessment notice and demand letter is tantamount to denial of reply to the preliminary assessment notice. [THESE ARE] essential elements of due process because they constitute the notice and opportunity to present one’s side. (Phil. Health Care Providers vs. CIR, 2008)