1

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2
SY 2024-2025

MODULE 2

Second Week
I. BILL OF RIGHTS AND DUE PROCESS
Preliminaries
A. Private Acts and the Bill of Rights
B. Two Aspects of Due Process
Procedural and Substantive
Requisites of Substantive Due Process
Twin Requirements of Due Process; When
May These Be Dispensed With
Doctrine of Void for Vagueness
Application in Criminal Statute

Cases:
26. Celdran vs. People, G.R. No.
220127, November 21, 2018
27. Southern Hemisphere
Engagement Network, Inc. vs. Anti-
Terrorism Council, G.R. No. 178552,
October 5, 2010
28. Alliance for the Family
Foundation Philippines, Inc. vs. Hon.
Janette Garin, G.R. Nos. 217872 and
221866, April 26, 2017
29. Republic vs. Sandiganbayan,
G.R. 104768, July 21, 2003
30. GSIS vs. Monteclaros, G.R.
146494, July 14, 2004
31. Lim vs. Court of Appeals, Gr
111397, August 12, 2002
32. Government of the United
States of America vs. Judge Puruganan,
G.R. 1488571, September 24, 2002
33. Senator Jinggoy Estrada vs.
Office of The Ombudsman, G.R. 212140-
41, January 21, 20
34. Yrasuegui vs. PAL, Inc., G.R.
No. 168081, October 17, 2008
35. Secretary of Justice vs. Lantion,
G.R. No. 139465, October 17, 2000
 2

36. Republic vs. Cagandahan, G.R.

No. 166676, September 12, 2008
37. People vs. Silverio, G.R. No.
174689, October 22, 2007
38. Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan,
G.R. No. 148560, November 19, 2001
39. James M. Imbong, et al. vs.
Hon. Paquito N. Ochoa, April 8, 2014
40. Ateneo De Manila vs. Capulong,
G.R. No. 99327, May 27, 1993
41. Guinto vs. DOJ, G.R. No.
249155, April 3, 2024
42. People vs. Valencia, G.R. No.
244657, February 12, 2024

1. Judicial and Administrative Due

Process
Minimum Requirements of
Procedural Due Process in Judicial
Proceedings
Cardinal Principles of Due Process
in Administrative Proceedings
When Applicable
Minimum Requirement of
Procedural Due Process in School
Disciplinary Proceedings

Distinction between Substantive and

Procedural
Tests of Judicial Scrutiny in relation to
Substantial Due Process

Cases: 43. Tomas G. Velasquez, et al. vs.

Helen B. Hernandez, G.R. No. 151095,
August 31, 2004
44. White Light Corporation vs. City of
Manila, G.R. No. 122846, January 20, 2009

BILL OF RIGHTS AND DUE PROCESS

Bill of Rights
It is a sanctuary of protection for all persons, citizens or
non-citizens, against any and all abuses of power and authority by
the government, or any of its officials and employees, or even against
any unwarranted violation of such rights by any other person.
 3

Purposes
1. to serve as limitation to the powers of the State
2. to serve as deterrent to further violation of
fundamental liberties
3. a leverage, a countervailing shield which the people
can have against any form of injustice.

Section 1.
No person shall be deprived of life, liberty and property
without due process of law. Nor shall any one be denied the
equal protection of laws.

Due process is a law which hears before it condemns,

which proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment only after
trial.

Who are protected- All persons regardless of race, color or

nationality.

What are protected- Life, liberty and property

Aspects of due process

1. Substantive –requires that the law itself is valid, fair,
reasonable and just. This serves as a restriction on
government’s law and rule-making powers.
The requisites are: (a) the interests of the public, in general,
as distinguished from those of a particular class, require the
intervention of the State; (b) The means employed are
reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the
purposes, and not unduly oppressive on individuals. -
legislative

2. Procedural – this essentially requires an opportunity to

be heard in which every person is given the chance to
defend himself or explain his side through the
protection of general rules of procedure.
The requisites are: (a) an impartial court or 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 which is the subject
matter of the proceeding; (c) the defendant must be given an
opportunity to be heard; (d) judgment must be rendered
upon lawful hearing.- judicial

Administrative Due Process – Seven Cardinal Primary Rights

Requisites:
 4

1. the right to hearing, which includes the right to present one’s

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. 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;
6. the tribunal or any of its judges must act on its or his own
independent consideration of the facts and the law of the
controversy and not simply accept the views of a subordinate
in arriving at a decision; and
7. the board or body should, in all controversial questions, render
its decision in such manner that the parties to the proceeding
will know the various issues involved and the reasons for the
decision.

Twin Requirements of Due Process- Notice and Opportunity to be

Heard

Notice is an essential element of procedural due process. In

judicial proceedings, without notice, the court will not acquire
jurisdiction over the defendant and thus, its judgment will not bind
him. The purpose of notice is to inform the defendant of the nature
and character of the case filed against him, and more importantly, to
give him a fair opportunity to prepare his defense.

Opportunity to be Heard – what is required is not “actual”

hearing but a real “opportunity” to be heard. Strict observance of
this rule is not necessary especially in administrative cases as it may
be dispensed with for public need or for practical reasons.
Void for Vagueness Doctrine

When a statute forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms

so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily
guess as to its meaning and differ as to its application, that law is
deemed void. Such kind of statute violates the first essential of due
process of law because it denies the accused the right to be
informed of the charge against him.

Overbreadth Doctrine
A governmental purpose may not be achieved by means which sweep
unnecessarily and broadly and thereby invade the area of
protected freedoms. This is an analytical tool developed for testing on
their face statuts in free speech cases.
 5

It 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 over-
breadth claims, if entertained at all, have been curtailed when
invoked against ordinary criminal laws that are sought to be applies
to protected conduct.

Facial Challenge Doctrine

A facial challenge is allowed to be made to a vague
statute and to one which is overborad because of possible “chilling
effect” upon preotected speech. The theory is that “when statutes
regulate or proscribe speech and no readiliy apparent construction
suggests itself a s a vehicle for rehabilitating the statutes in a single
prosecution, the transcendent value to all society of constitutionally
protectec expression is deemed to justify allowing attacks on overly
broad statutes with no requirement that the person making the
attack demonstrate that his own conduct could not be regulated by a
statute drawn with narrow specificity.” The possible harm to society
in permitting some unprotected speech to go unpunished is
outweighed by the prossibility that the protected speech of others
may be deterred and perceive grievances left to fester because of
possible inhibitiory effects of overly broad statutes. This, however,
does not apply to penal statutes. Criminal statutes have general in
terrorem effect resulting from their very existence, and, if facial
challenge is allowed for this reason alone, the State may well be
prevented from enacting laws against socially harmful conduct.

Appeal and due process

Appeal is not a natural right nor is it part of due process.
However, where there is a statutory grant of the right to appeal,
denial of the remedy also constitutes denial of due process.

Preliminary investigation and due process

The right to preliminary investigation is not a constitutional
right, but is merely a right conferred by statute. But it is still a
substantive right and a component of due process in the
administration of criminal justice.

Requirements of due process in administrative case

Operative Fact Doctrine

Under this doctrine, the law is recognized as unconstitutional, but
the effects of the unconstitutional law prior to the time its was
declared a nullity, may be left undisturbed as a matter of equity and
 6

fair play. The doctrine is applicable when a declaration of

unconstitutionality will impose an undue burden on those who have
relied on the invalid law.