-constitutional definition of due process

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.
A fundamental, constitutional guarantee that all legal proceedings will be fair and
that one will be given notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard
before the government acts to take away one's life, liberty, or property. Also, a
constitutional guarantee that a law shall not be unreasonable, Arbitrary, or
capricious.
A procedural safeguard that ensures that every citizen has the right to have proper
hearing in a court of law before being deprived of any life, liberty, or property
pursuan to a government decree.
There was no attempt yet to define it with exactitude. It continues to be dynamic
and resilient, adaptable to every situation calling for its application. The very
elasticity of this provision makes this possible and thus enlarges the rights of the
individual to his life, liberty or property.
-distinguish bet. substantive and procedural due process
Substantive due process is about a specific right that is being infringed, that is
protected by law. Procedural due process is when you are not afforded the proper
procedures the law allows you to have.
Examples of substantive due process matters would be things like the right to have
an abortion, or the right to get married, the right to not be discriminated against
based on your race, religion, etc.
Procedural due process relates to how a procedure is brought against you and the
rights you have relating to legal procedure. This includes things like the right to not
have your home searched by the police without probable cause, the right to an
attorney, and a fair trial, and the right to a jury in criminal matters and suits at law
(as opposed to suits in equity).
The difference between procedural due process and substantive due process are,
procedural due process makes sure that all legal and administrative proceedings are
fair. Substantive due process requires the government to give an individual due
process before taking away their fundamental rights.
-cases where notice of hearing can be dispensed without violation of the due
-process of law
-requisites for administrative due process

G.R. No. 170512

"x x x.

Ledesma v. Court of Appeals[35] elaborates on the well established doctrine of due

process in administrative proceedings as follows:
Due process, as a constitutional precept, does not always and in all situations
require a trial-type proceeding. Due process is satisfied when a person is notified of
the charge against him and given an opportunity to explain or defend himself. In
administrative proceedings, the filing of charges and giving reasonable opportunity
for the person so charged to answer the accusations against him constitute the
minimum requirements of due process. The essence of due process is simply to be
heard, or as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain ones
side, or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained
of.[36]
Moreover, Department of Health v. Camposano[37] restates the guidelines laid
down in Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations[38] that due process in
administrative proceedings requires compliance with the following cardinal
principles: (1) the respondents right to a hearing, which includes the right to
present ones case and submit supporting evidence, must be observed; (2) the
tribunal must consider the evidence presented; (3) the decision must have some
basis to support itself; (4) there must be substantial evidence; (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) in arriving at a decision, the tribunal
must have acted on its own consideration of the law and the facts of the
controversy and must not have simply accepted the views of a subordinate; and (7)
the decision must be rendered in such manner that respondents would know the
reasons for it and the various issues involved.[39]
1. Right to a hearing, which includes the right to present ones case and present
evidences in support thereof.
2. The tribunal must consider the evidences forwarded or adduced
3. The tribunal must support the decision made
4. The decision must be culled from the evidence presented by both parties,
and must be made known to the involved parties
5. The decision of the case must be arrived at by an independent Tribunal; and
6. The tribunal should in all controversial questions, renders its decision in such
a manner that parties can know various issues involved and the reason for

the decision
-(Ateneo case)
-neutral impartial judge - what are the grounds for the disqualification of a judge
(refer to Rules of Court)
Rule 137 of the Rules of Court
Disqualification of Judicial Officers

Read full text of:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT

.

DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDICIAL OFFICERS

Rule 137
Sec. 1. Disqualification of judges. - No judge or judicial officer shall sit in any case in
which he, or his wife or child, is pecuniarily interested as heir, legatee, creditor or
otherwise, or in which he is related to either party within the sixth degree of
consanguinity or affinity, or to counsel within the fourth degree, computed
according to the rules of the civil law, or in which he has been executor,
administrator, guardian, trustee or counsel, or in which he has presided in any
inferior court when his ruling or decision is the subject of review, without the written
consent of all parties in interest, signed by them and entered upon the record.

A judge may, in the exercise of his sound discretion, disqualify himself from sitting
in a case, for just or valid reasons other than those mentioned above. chan robles
virtual law library
.

Sec. 2. Objection that judge disqualified, how made and effect. - If it be claimed that
an official is disqualified from sitting as above provided, the party objecting to his
competency may, in writing, file with the official his objection, stating the grounds

therefor, and the official shall thereupon proceed with the trial, or withdraw
therefrom, in accordance with his determination of the question of his
disqualification. His decision shall be forthwith made in writing and filed with the
other papers in the case, but no appeal or stay shall be allowed from, or by reason
of, his decision in favor of his own competency, until after final judgment in the
case.
-Case of disqualification of a judge
-(Punzalan case)
-state the constitutional provision on the prohibition against unreasonable searches
and seizures
Section 2. 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.
-requisites for a valid search warrant and warrant of arrest

The following are the requisites of a valid search warrant:

1.

The warrant must be issued upon probable cause;

2.
The probable cause must be determined by the judge himself and not by
applicant or any other person;
3.
In determining probable cause, the judge must examine under oath and
affirmation the complainant and such witnesses as the latter may produce; and
4.
The warrant issued must particularly describe the place to be searched
and the person or things to be seized.
(Marti case)
-what are the cases for a valid warrantless arrest? warrantless search?
Senior Citizens law - is the SC disc an exercise of ED or Police power?

Is the imposition of 20% discount for senior citizens an exercise of the power of
eminent domain, which requires the payment of just compensation?
NO. While the SC made statements in Central Luzon Drug Corporation vs.
Department of Social Welfare and Development describing the 20% discount as an
exercise of the power of eminent domain, the SC nevertheless ruled that the 20%
discount and tax deduction scheme is a valid exercise of the police power of the
State. The SC's disquisition on eminent domain in said case is obiter dicta and not a
binding precedent.
The obiter in Central Luzon Drug Corporation however, describes the 20% discount
as an exercise of the power of eminent domain and the tax credit, under the
previous law, equivalent to the amount of discount given as the just compensation
therefor. The reason is that (1) the discount would have formed part of the gross
sales of the establishment were it not for the law prescribing the 20% discount, and
(2) the permanent reduction in total revenues is a forced subsidy corresponding to
the taking of private property for public use or benefit.
The flaw in this reasoning is in its premise. It presupposes that the subject
regulation, which impacts the pricing and, hence, the profitability of a private
establishment,
automatically amounts to a deprivation of property without due process of law. If
this were so, then all price and rate of return on investment control laws would have
to be invalidated because they impact, at some level, the regulated establishments
profits or income/gross sales, yet there is no provision for payment of just
compensation. It would also mean that government cannot set price or rate of
return on investment limits, which reduce the profits or income/gross sales of
private establishments, if no just compensation is paid even if the measure is not
confiscatory.
The obiter is, thus, at odds with the settled doctrine that the State can employ
police power measures to regulate the pricing of goods and services, and, hence,
the profitability of business establishments in order to pursue legitimate State
objectives for the common good, provided that the regulation does not go too far as
to amount to taking.
Even if the current law, through its tax deduction scheme (which abandoned the tax
credit scheme under the previous law), does not provide for a peso for peso
reimbursement of the 20% discount given by private establishments, no
constitutional infirmity obtains because, being a valid exercise of police power,
payment of just compensation is not warranted.
Manila Memorial Park Case- distinction of eminent domain and police power

Whitelight corporation case- rights of privacy, police power, equal protection