DUE PROCESS

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 persons
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 God-given 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??

Constitutional Law II Notes | Nikki T. Sia WLC School of Law

Page 1

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:
1. Notice
2. Hearing
2 Kinds of Procedural Due Process
1. Judicial
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)

Constitutional Law II Notes | Nikki T. Sia WLC School of Law

Page 2

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
1.
Define police power.
It is the power vested in the legislature by the
Constitution to make, ordain, establish all manner
of wholesome and reasonable laws for the good
and welfare of the State and its people. (ERMITA
MALATE HOTEL VS. CITY MAYOR, July 31,
1967)
2. What are the basic purposes/aspects of
police power:

a.
to promote the general welfare, comfort and
convenience of the people; (ASSOCIATION OF
SMALL LANDOWNERS VS. SECRETARY, 175 SCRA
343; US VS. TORIBIO, 15 Phil. 85
b.
to promote and preserve public health;
(VILLANUEVA VS. CASTANEDA, September 21,
1987; DECS VS. SAN DIEGO, 180 SCRA 533
[NMAT]; LORENZO VS. DIRECTOR OF HEALTH, 50
Phil. 595apprehend and confine lepers in a
leprosarium)
c.
to promote and protect public safety;
(AGUSTIN VS. EDU, 88 SCRA 195; TAXICAB
OPERATORS VS. JUINIO, 119 SCRA 897 )
d.
to maintain and safeguard peace and order;
(GUAZON VS. DE VILLA)
e.
to protect public morals; (DE LA CRUZ VS.
PARAS, 123 SCRA 569; ERMITA MALATE HOTEL
VS. CITY MAYOR, July 31, 1967; JMM PROMOTIONS
VS. CA, 260 SCRA 319; VELASCO VS. VILLEGAS,
February 13, 1983)
f.
to promote the economic security of the
people. (ichong vs. hernandez, 101 Phil. 11155)
3. Distinguish police power with power of
eminent domain.
The distinctions are:
1.
The power of eminent domain is the
inherent right of the State to condemn or to take
private property for public use upon payment of
just compensation while police power is the
power of the state to promote public welfare by
restraining and regulating the use of liberty and
property without compensation;
2.
In the exercise of police power, enjoyment of
a property is restricted because the continued
use thereof would be injurious to public welfare.
In such case, there is no compensable taking
provided none of the property interests is
appropriated for the use or for the benefit of the
public. Otherwise, there should be compensable
taking if it would result to public use.
3.
Properties condemned under police power
are usually noxious or intended for noxious
purpose; hence , no compensation shall be paid.
Likewise, in the exercise of police power, property
rights of private individuals are subjected to
restraints and burdens in order to secure the
general comfort, health and prosperity of the
state. (Didipio earth savers multi purpose
association vs. denr sec. Elisea gozu, et al., 485
scra 586)
4. What are the tests for a valid exercise of
police power
a.
the interests of the public, not mere
particular class, require the exercise of police
power; (LAWFUL SUBJECT)
b.
the means employed is reasonably
necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose
and not unduly oppressive to

Constitutional Law II Notes | Nikki T. Sia WLC School of Law

Page 3

individuals. (LAWFUL MEANS). In short, the end

does not justify the means.
5. Define due process.
Due process is a law which hears before it
condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and
renders judgment only after trial (Per Daniel
Webster in the DARTMOUTH COLLEGE CASE)
6. What are the Kinds of Due Process?
a.
substantive due process requires the
intrinsic validity of the law in interfering with the
rights of the person to life, liberty or property. In
short, it is to determine whether it has a valid
governmental objective like for the interest of the
public as against mere particular class.
b.
Procedural due processone which
hears before it condemns, or the procedure as
pointed out by Daniel Webster.
7. What are the requisites of judicial due
process?
As held in BANCO ESPANOL VS. PALANCA, 37
Phil. 921. The requisites are:
1.
There must be an impartial court or tribunal
clothed with judicial power to hear and decide the
matter before it;
2.
Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over
the person of the defendant or over the property
subject of the proceedings;
3.
The defendant must be given the
opportunity to be heard;
4.
Judgment must be rendered only after lawful
hearing.
8. What are the requisites of due
process before administrative bodies?
As held in TIBAY VS. CIR, 69 Phil. 635, the
requisites are:
a.
the right to a hearing which includes the
right to present evidence;
b.
the tribunal must consider the evidence
presented;
c.
the decision must have something to
support itself;
d.
the evidence must be substantial;
e.
the decision must be based on the evidence
presented during the hearing;
f.
the tribunal or body must act on its own
independent consideration of the law or facts;
g.
the board or body shall in all controversial
questions, render its decision in such a manner
that the parties to the proceedings can know the
various issues involved.
9. If an accused was represented by a nonlawyer during the trial of his criminal case,
what right of the said accused was
violated? Is he entitled to a new trial?
If an accused was represented by a non-lawyer
during the trial (though he thought that he was a
lawyer), his right to due process was violated and
therefore entitled to a new trial. (DELGADO VS.
CA, November 10, 1986)

10. What are the requisites of procedural

due process in disciplinary actions against
students?
As held in GUZMAN VS. NU, 142 SCRA 706, the
requisites are:
1. The students must be informed in writing of
the nature and cause of any accusation against
them;
2. They shall have the right to answer the
charges against them, with the assistance of
counsel;
3. They shall be informed of the evidence
against them;
4. They shall have the right to adduce evidence
in their own behalf;
5. The evidence must be duly considered by the
investigating committee or official designated by
the school authorities to hear and decide the
case.
CHECKPOINTS AND THE RIGHT AGAINST
UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE
A checkpoint is something that motorists have to
contend with on the road. Only recently, a
concerned Filipino citizen raised some issues
with respect to PNP/AFP checkpoints. The issues
raised are valid, as the Supreme Court itself
noted that it has become aware of how some
checkpoints have been used as points of thievery
and extortion practiced upon innocent civilians.
Even the increased prices of foodstuffs coming
from the provinces, entering the Metro Manila
area and other urban centers, are largely blamed
on the checkpoints, because the men manning
them have reportedly become experts in
mulcting travelling traders. This, of course, is a
national tragedy.
Still, the power of the authorities to install
checkpoints is conceded by the Supreme Court.
With that, lets have a brief discussion on
checkpoints and the right against unreasonable
search and seizures.
The Constitution ensures the right of the people
to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects against unreasonable searches and
seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose
shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or
warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable
cause to be determined personally by the judge
after examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce,
and particularly describing the place to be
searched and the persons or things to be seized.
(Section 2, Article III). TheConstitution also
provides that any evidence obtained in violation
of the provision mentioned is inadmissible in
evidence (Sec. 3, Article III).

Constitutional Law II Notes | Nikki T. Sia WLC School of Law

Page 4

The general rule is this no arrests and

search/seizure could be made without a
warrant.
However, there are exceptions. Among the
exceptions concerning search and seizure are: (1)
search of moving vehicles; (2) seizure in plain
view; and (3) waiver by the accused of his right
against unreasonable search and seizure. These
exceptions, while distinct and separate from each
other, are often discussed together (routine
airport security inspection is a slightly different
matter, but thats the subject of another post).
Search and seizure relevant to moving
vehicles are allowed in recognition of the
impracticability of securing a warrant under said
circumstances. In such cases however, the search
and seizure may be made only upon probable
cause, i.e., upon a belief, reasonably arising out
of circumstances known to the seizing officer,
that an automobile or other vehicle contains an
item, article or object which by law is subject to
seizure and destruction. The SC also found
probable cause in the following instances:
(a) where the distinctive odor of marijuana
emanated from the plastic bag carried by the
accused;
(b) where an informer positively identified the
accused who was observed to have been acting
suspiciously;
(c) where the accused fled when accosted by
policemen;
(d) where the accused who were riding a jeepney
were stopped and searched by policemen who
had earlier received confidential reports that said
accused would transport a large quantity of
marijuana; and
(e) where the moving vehicle was stopped and
searched on the basis of intelligence information
and clandestine reports by a deep penetration
agent or spy one who participated in the drug
smuggling activities of the syndicate to which the
accused belonged that said accused were
bringing prohibited drugs into the country.
Under the plain view doctrine, objects falling in
the plain view of an officer who has a
right to be in the position to have that view are
subject to seizure and may be presented as
evidence. The plain view doctrine applies
when the following requisites concur:
(a) the law enforcement officer in search of the
evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion
or is in a position from which he can view a
particular area;
(b) the discovery of the evidence in plain view is
inadvertent; and
(c) it is immediately apparent to the officer that
the item he observes may be evidence of a

crime, contraband or otherwise subject to

seizure.
To illustrate, the SC found all these elements in
one case: The law enforcement officers lawfully
made an initial intrusion because of the
enforcement of the Gun Ban and were properly in
a position from which they particularly viewed the
area. In the course of such lawful intrusion, the
policemen came inadvertently across a piece of
evidence incriminating the petitioner where they
saw the gun tucked into his waist. The gun was in
plain view and discovered inadvertently when the
petitioner alighted from the vehicle. In this
particular case, the gun was found only after the
accused steped out of the vehicle. The accused
claims that he could not have freely refused the
police orders issued by the police team
who were armed to the teeth and in
the face of such show of force. The SC,
however, noted that the police team
manning the checkpoint politely requested the
passengers to alight from their vehicles, and the
motorists who refused this request were not
forced to do so.
As to military or police checkpoints, the Supreme
Court already ruled that these checkpoints are
not illegal per se, as long as the vehicle is
neither searched nor its occupants
subjected to body search, and the
inspection of the vehicle is merely visual.
The search which is limited to routine checks
visual inspection or flashing a light inside the car,
without the occupants being subjected to
physical or body searches. In other words, in the
absence of probable cause, the authorities:
(a) cannot compel the passengers to step out of
the car;
(b) cannot conduct bodily searches; and
(c) cannot compel the motorist to open the trunk
or glove compartment of the car, or any package
contained therein.
A search of the luggage inside the vehicle would
require the existence of probable cause. On the
other hand, no probable cause is required if the
accused voluntarily opens the trunk and allows
the search, as waiver of ones right against
unreasonable search and seizures is one of the
exceptions noted above.
The negative impressions on checkpoints,
however, should not be an excuse to be rude to
the officers manning them. If Im flagged down at
a check point, I usually roll down the drivers
window halfway, address the officer in a
courteous manner, then mentally note his name
plate. What is your recourse in case of abuse? In
the words of the Supreme Court: where abuse
marks the operation of a checkpoint, the citizen is

Constitutional Law II Notes | Nikki T. Sia WLC School of Law

Page 5

not helpless. For the military is not above but

subject to the law. And the courts exist to see
that the law is supreme. Soldiers, including those
who man checkpoints, who abuse their authority
act beyond the scope of their authority and are,
therefore, liable criminally and civilly for their
abusive acts. This tenet should be ingrained in
the soldiery in the clearest of terms by higher
military authorities.
We came out with this initiative to protect the
public from abuses committed by law enforcers
and to weed out illegal checkpoints, said
Secretary Leila M. De Lima.
The ten (10) checkpoint rules outlined in the
Advisory are anchored on the constitutional
guarantee against unreasonable searches and
seizures (Section 2, Article III).

These are:

1. Checkpoint must be well-lighted, properly

identified and manned by uniformed
personnel.
2. Upon approach, slow down, dim headlights
and turn on cabin lights. Never step out of
the vehicle.
3. Lock all doors. Only visual search is
allowed.
4. Do not submit to a physical or bodily
search.
5. You are not obliged to open glove
compartment, trunk or bags.
6. Ordinary/routine questions may be asked.
Be courteous but firm with answers.
7. Assert your rights, have presence of mind
and do not panic.
8. Keep your drivers license and car
registration handy and within reach.
9. Be ready to use your cellphone at
anytime. Speed dial emergency number.
10. Report violations immediately. Your actions
may save others.

Constitutional Law II Notes | Nikki T. Sia WLC School of Law

Page 6