Due Process of Law
The Due Process Clause is found in the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, specifically in:
● Article III, Section 1 (Bill of Rights):
“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.”
This provision guarantees both substantive and procedural due process to protect individuals from
arbitrary government actions.
● Substantive and Procedural Due Process are two aspects of the Due Process Clause in
the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines (Article III, Section 1) that protect individuals from
arbitrary government actions.
1. Substantive Due Process
● Ensures that laws and government actions must be fair, reasonable, and just.
● Protects individuals from unjust or oppressive laws, even if proper legal procedures are
followed.
● Example: A law that bans a certain religion would violate substantive due process because it
is inherently unfair and unreasonable.
2. Procedural Due Process
● Ensures that proper legal procedures must be followed before depriving a person of life,
liberty, or property.
● Requires notice, hearing, and an impartial tribunal before a decision is made.
● Example: If an employee is fired without being given a chance to explain their side, this
violates procedural due process.
In short, substantive due process protects against unfair laws, while procedural due process
ensures fair procedures when enforcing laws.
“Due Process as Procedural Fairness” means that the government must follow fair and proper
procedures before depriving a person of life, liberty, or property. It ensures that individuals are given a
reasonable opportunity to defend themselves and prevents arbitrary or unjust actions by authorities.
Key Elements of Procedural Fairness in Due Process
1. Notice – The person must be informed of the charges or actions against them.
2. Hearing – They must be given a chance to present their side before an impartial authority.
3. Impartial Tribunal – The decision-maker must be neutral and not biased.
4. Evidence-Based Decision – The ruling must be based on facts and evidence, not mere
allegations.
5. Right to Appeal – There should be an opportunity to challenge an unfair decision.
Example:
● If a student is expelled from school without being informed of the reason and without a
hearing, this violates procedural due process because the student was not given a fair chance
to respond.
”Due process is not always a judicial process”
- Because it applies not only to courts but also to administrative and legislative actions. Due
process ensures fairness in any government action that affects a person’s life, liberty, or
property, whether in court proceedings, administrative decisions, or even legislative
actions.
Judicial vs. Non-Judicial Due Process
1. Judicial Due Process – Occurs in courts where legal disputes are resolved, ensuring fair
trials with rules of evidence, legal representation, and impartial judges.
● Example: A criminal trial where an accused has the right to defend themselves before being
convicted.
2. Administrative Due Process – Applied in government agencies making decisions that affect
individuals, ensuring fairness even without a formal court trial.
● Example: A government employee being dismissed must first be given notice and an
opportunity to explain before termination.
3. Legislative Due Process – When laws are enacted, they must follow constitutional
procedures and not violate fundamental rights.
● Example: A law imposing heavy fines on businesses must be clear and reasonable to
prevent arbitrary enforcement.
Key Takeaway:
Due process is not limited to court trials. It applies whenever the government exercises power in a
way that affects individual rights, ensuring fairness and preventing abuse.
Ichong v. Hernandez (1957)
Facts:
● Congress enacted Republic Act No. 1180, which prohibited non-Filipino citizens and
foreign-owned entities from engaging in the retail trade.
● Peter Ichong, a Chinese businessman, challenged the law, arguing that it violated the due
process and equal protection clauses of the 1935 Constitution.
Issue:
● Does R.A. No. 1180 violates due process and equal protection by restricting retail trade to
Filipino citizens?
Ruling:
● No, the law is constitutional. The Supreme Court ruled that:
● The law is a valid exercise of police power because it seeks to promote the economic welfare
of Filipino citizens.
● The equal protection clause is not violated because citizenship is a valid ground for
classification.
● The law protects Filipino businesses from foreign competition, which serves public interest.
Key Doctrine:
● Police Power and Due Process Must Coexist – The government may impose restrictions
on property and business rights as long as they are for the public good and not oppressive.
● Equal Protection Does Not Require Absolute Equality – The law can classify people into
different groups if there is a valid reason, such as citizenship.
Philippine Phosphate Fertilizer Corp. v. Torres (1996)
Facts:
● The Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) issued a tax assessment against Philippine Phosphate
Fertilizer Corp. (Philphos) without prior notice.
● Philphos argued that it was denied due process because it was not given the opportunity to
be heard before the tax was imposed.
Issue:
● Did the BIR violate due process by issuing a tax assessment without prior notice and
hearing?
Ruling:
● Yes, the BIR violated due process.
● Due process requires that taxpayers be given prior notice and an opportunity to explain
before penalties or assessments are imposed.
● In administrative cases, due process does not always require a trial, but the affected party
must be given a chance to present its side.
Key Doctrine:
● Procedural Due Process in Administrative Cases – Any government action that affects
private rights must allow affected parties to be heard before enforcement.
Ynot v. Intermediate Appellate Court (1987)
Facts:
● Executive Order No. 626-A banned the transportation of carabaos and carabeef from one
province to another to prevent indiscriminate slaughter.
● Policemen confiscated six carabaos from petitioner Ynot while he was transporting them from
Masbate to Iloilo.
● Ynot argued that the order was unconstitutional for violating due process.
Issue:
● Does E.O. No. 626-A violates due process by imposing an absolute ban without prior notice
or hearing?
Ruling:
● Yes, the law is unconstitutional.
● The ban lacks a reasonable basis because not all transported carabaos are meant for
slaughter.
● The law imposes a harsh penalty (confiscation) without due process.
● Notice and hearing are essential in this case because property rights are affected.
Key Doctrine:
● Due Process Requires Notice and Hearing – Any law that restricts private property rights
must allow affected individuals a chance to be heard.
● Exceptions Exist – In cases of public welfare emergencies (e.g., contaminated meat,
narcotics), the government can act immediately without prior notice.
● Justice Felix Frankfurter describes due process as, is nothing more and nothing less than
"the embodiment of the sporting idea of fair play.
Exceptions to Notice and Hearing:
1. Summary abatement of a nuisance per se.
2. Confiscation of pornographic materials.
3. Destruction of contaminated meat.
4. Confiscation of illegal drugs.
5. Cancellation of a fugitive’s passport.
6. Closure of filthy restaurants for public health.
7. Shutdown of illegal gambling or prostitution dens.
Alonte v. Savellano (1995)
Facts:
● Rep. Romeo Alonte was accused of rape and was issued an arrest warrant without a proper
investigation.
● He argued that his right to due process was violated because there was no probable cause to
support the warrant.
Issue:
● Was due process violated when an arrest warrant was issued without sufficient evidence?
Ruling:
● Yes, due process was violated.
● A judge must determine probable cause based on evidence before issuing an arrest warrant.
● Due process in criminal proceedings requires that an accused be given a fair trial and proper
legal process.
Key Doctrine:
● Due Process in Criminal Law Requires Strict Protection – A person cannot be arrested or
convicted without proper legal safeguards.
Requirements for Due Process in Criminal Cases:
1. A properly constituted court with judicial authority.
2. The court must have jurisdiction over the accused.
3. The accused must be given a chance to defend themselves.
4. A verdict can only be rendered after a fair trial.
Aniag v. COMELEC (1994)
Facts:
● Antonio Aniag, Jr. ran for Governor of Bulacan in the 1992 elections. His opponent, Roberto
Pagdanganan, won and was proclaimed by COMELEC.
● Aniag filed an election protest, but the COMELEC dismissed it without giving him a chance to
present his evidence.
● Aniag argued that his right to due process was violated.
Issue:
● Was Aniag denied due process when COMELEC dismissed his protest without hearing his
evidence?
Ruling:
● Yes, Aniag was denied due process.
● The Supreme Court ruled that due process requires observance of both procedural and
substantive rights.
● COMELEC must give a fair opportunity for a candidate to present their case before making a
decision.
● The decision was set aside, and the case was remanded for proper proceedings.
Key Doctrine:
● Due Process Requires Proper Notice and Hearing – A government agency cannot
summarily dismiss a case without allowing the affected party to present evidence.
● Procedural and Substantive Rights are two key aspects of due process in law.
● Procedural Rights – These protect how laws are enforced and ensure fair legal proceedings.
They guarantee that individuals are given proper notice, a fair hearing, and an opportunity to
defend themselves before being deprived of life, liberty, or property.
● Example: The right to a fair trial, the right to present evidence, and the right to legal counsel.
● Substantive Rights – These protect what the law regulates, ensuring that laws do not violate
fundamental freedoms and are just in their content. They prevent arbitrary or unjust
government actions that infringe on fundamental rights.
● Example: The right to life, freedom of speech, and the right to property.
● In short, procedural rights focus on fairness in the process, while substantive rights ensure
the law itself is fair and just.
Spouses Romualdez v. COMELEC (1999)
Facts:
● Imelda Romualdez-Marcos filed her candidacy for Leyte Representative in the 1995 elections.
● COMELEC disqualified her for failing to meet the residency requirement (1 year in Leyte)
under election laws.
● She argued that the law was vague and that her right to due process was violated.
Issue:
● Was the election law void for vagueness, and did it violate due process?
Ruling:
● No, the law is not vague, and due process was not violated.
● The Supreme Court ruled that election laws are clear enough for people to understand and
apply.
● The void-for-vagueness doctrine applies mostly to criminal laws, not election laws.
● The law gave reasonable notice of the residency requirement, so it was not unconstitutional.
Key Doctrine:
● Void-for-Vagueness Applies Only to Criminal Laws – A law is not vague if it provides a
reasonable standard for people to follow.
Philippine Communications Satellite Corp. (Philcomsat) v. Alcuaz (1990)
Facts:
● Issuance of NTC Order – The National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) issued an
order placing Philippine Communications Satellite Corporation (Philcomsat) under
government regulation.
● Philcomsat’s Argument – Philcomsat challenged the order, arguing that NTC had no
authority to regulate its operations. The company claimed that the order was a violation of due
process and amounted to an unconstitutional taking of property without just compensation.
● Government’s Justification – The government defended its action, asserting that
Philcomsat operated as a public utility and was subject to state regulation in the interest of
public welfare.
● Legal Dispute – The case was brought to the Supreme Court to determine whether the
NTC’s regulation of Philcomsat was valid or whether it was an illegal confiscation of private
property.
Issue:
● Did NTC’s order violate due process and property rights?
Ruling:
● Yes, the order was unconstitutional.
● The government can regulate public utilities, but it cannot take control of private businesses
without due process.
● The regulatory power of the State cannot be used to destroy a lawful business.
● NTC exceeded its authority, so the order was declared void.
Key Doctrine:
● Regulation Must Not Amount to Confiscation – The government can regulate businesses
but cannot take them over without due process.
Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations (1940)
Facts:
● The National Labor Union accused Ang Tibay, a shoe company, of unfair labor practices.
● Violation of workers’ right to self-organization – The National Labor Union (NLU) accused
Ang Tibay of engaging in anti-union activities, preventing employees from forming or joining a
labor union to improve their working conditions.
● Discrimination against union members – The company allegedly engaged in acts that
discouraged union membership, which is considered an unfair labor practice by an employer
under labor laws.
● The Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) ruled against Ang Tibay without properly considering
the evidence.
● Ang Tibay challenged the ruling, arguing that due process was not observed.
Issue:
● Did CIR violate due process by deciding the case without considering all the evidence?
Ruling:
● Yes, CIR violated due process.
● The Supreme Court ruled that all courts and administrative bodies must follow fundamental
due process principles.
● The Court listed seven “cardinal primary rights” that must be observed in quasi-judicial
proceedings.
Key Doctrine:
● Seven Cardinal Rights in Administrative Proceedings:
1. Right to a hearing – A party must be allowed to present their case.
2. Tribunal must consider the evidence – It cannot ignore relevant facts.
3. Decisions must be based on evidence – It cannot be arbitrary.
4. Evidence must be substantial – Mere allegations are not enough.
5. Decisions must be based on the record – Judges cannot rely on personal knowledge.
6. Independent judgment – The decision must not just copy the views of subordinates.
7. Decisions must explain reasons – It must state the issues and basis of the ruling.
Ateneo de Manila v. Capulong (1993)
Facts:
● Students from Ateneo de Manila University were involved in a hazing incident.
● The university imposed disciplinary sanctions without holding a formal hearing.
● The students argued that they were denied due process.
Issue:
● Are students entitled to full judicial due process in school disciplinary cases?
Ruling:
● No, school disciplinary proceedings do not require full judicial due process.
● The Court ruled that due process in academic settings is more flexible.
● Students must be given notice and an opportunity to explain but are not entitled to full
court-like trials.
● Schools have authority to discipline students as long as basic fairness is observed.
Key Doctrine:
● Minimum Standards for School Disciplinary Proceedings:
1. Students must be informed in writing of the accusation.
2. They must have a chance to respond (with a lawyer if needed).
3. They must be informed of the evidence against them.
4. They must be allowed to present their own evidence.
5. The decision must be based on substantial evidence.
● Cross-examination is not required in school cases, since they are administrative and not
criminal in nature.
Southern Hemisphere v. Anti-Terrorism Council (2010)
Facts:
● Various petitioners, including Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network, challenged the
Human Security Act (Anti-Terrorism Law), arguing that it was unconstitutional due to
vagueness and overbreadth.
● They claimed the law violated due process and had a chilling effect on free speech.
● The government countered that facial challenges are not applicable to criminal statutes, and
that petitioners lacked standing.
Issue:
● Can the Human Security Act be challenged on its face for vagueness and overbreadth?
Ruling:
● No, a facial challenge is not allowed for criminal laws.
● The Supreme Court ruled that facial challenges do not apply to penal statutes because these
laws are meant to deter criminal acts, not to regulate speech.
Key Doctrines:
● Facial Challenges Apply Only to Free Speech Cases – Criminal laws cannot be challenged
on their face for vagueness and overbreadth.
● Void-for-Vagueness Doctrine: A law is vague if:
1. It does not provide fair notice of prohibited conduct.
2. It gives law enforcers too much discretion, leading to abuse.
● Overbreadth Doctrine: The State cannot regulate conduct in a way that restricts protected
freedoms more than necessary.
● Facial vs. As-Applied Challenge:
● Facial challenge examines the entire law, even if it has not yet been enforced.
● As-applied challenge applies only to the specific person affected by the law.
Definitions:
1. Facial Challenges – A facial challenge is a legal attack on a law as unconstitutional in all its
applications, not just in a specific case. It argues that the law is so broad or vague that it
infringes on constitutional rights, making it invalid even before enforcement. Facial challenges
are mostly allowed in free speech cases because an overbroad or vague law can have a
“chilling effect” on protected speech.
2. Free Speech Cases – These are legal disputes involving the right to freedom of expression,
which is protected under Section 4, Article III of the Philippine Constitution. Free speech
cases often test the limits of government regulation, such as laws that might restrict, punish,
or indirectly discourage the exercise of free speech, particularly in public discourse, protests,
media, or online platforms.
3. Void-for-Vagueness Doctrine – A law is void for vagueness if it fails to clearly define the
conduct it prohibits, making it difficult for ordinary people to understand and for law enforcers
to apply consistently. A vague law violates due process because it (1) deprives individuals of
fair notice of what is prohibited and (2) gives too much discretion to law enforcers, leading to
potential abuse.
4. Overbreadth Doctrine – A law is unconstitutional for being overbroad if it punishes not only
illegal speech or conduct but also protected speech or activities. This doctrine prevents laws
from being written so broadly that they restrict more speech than necessary, thereby violating
the right to free expression. It applies mainly in free speech cases, where laws must be
narrowly tailored to avoid restricting lawful speech.
Mosqueda v. Pilipino Banana Growers & Exporters Association (2012)
Facts:
● A local ordinance in Davao City banned aerial spraying of pesticides, arguing that it harmed
public health.
● The banana plantation owners challenged the ordinance, claiming it violated due process and
equal protection.
● They argued that it was oppressive, discriminatory, and lacked a valid scientific basis.
Issue:
● Was the ordinance banning aerial spraying a valid exercise of police power?
Ruling:
● No, the ordinance was invalid.
● A valid ordinance must meet substantive and procedural requirements.
● The Court ruled that the ban was unreasonable and oppressive because it did not consider
other less restrictive alternatives.
● The law must not violate equal protection, meaning all similarly situated persons must be
treated the same.
Key Doctrines:
● Requirements for a Valid Ordinance:
1. Must not contradict the Constitution or national laws.
2. Must be fair and not oppressive.
3. Must not be discriminatory.
4. Must regulate, not prohibit trade.
5. Must be general and consistent with public policy.
6. Must be reasonable.
● Police Power Must Meet Two Tests:
1. Public Interest Test – It must protect the general welfare, not just a specific group.
2. Reasonableness Test – The means used must not be excessive or oppressive.
● Types of Government “Taking” of Property:
● Possessory Taking – When the government physically takes private property.
● Regulatory Taking – When government regulations leave no viable economic use of the
property.
● Equal Protection Requires Valid Classification:
● A classification is valid if it:
1. Has substantial distinctions.
2. Is related to the law’s purpose.
3. Is not limited to present conditions.
4. Applies equally to all in the same class.
● Levels of Scrutiny for Equal Protection Challenges:
1. Rational Basis Test – The law must be reasonably related to a legitimate government
purpose. Used for economic and social laws.
2. Intermediate Scrutiny – The law must be substantially related to an important government
interest. Used for gender or illegitimacy cases.
3. Strict Scrutiny – The law must serve a compelling state interest and be the least restrictive
means. Used for fundamental rights or suspect classifications (e.g., race, religion).
Summary of Key Doctrines:
1. Facial challenges are not allowed for penal laws – They are only valid in free speech
cases (Southern Hemisphere v. Anti-Terrorism Council).
2. Vague laws violate due process – A law is vague if it fails to give fair notice or gives law
enforcers too much discretion (Southern Hemisphere v. Anti-Terrorism Council).
3. For an ordinance to be valid, it must meet six substantive requirements – It must be fair,
non-oppressive, non-discriminatory, and reasonable (Mosqueda v. Pilipino Banana).
4. Equal protection requires proper classification – The government must not discriminate
without valid reasons (Mosqueda v. Pilipino Banana).
5. Three levels of scrutiny apply to equal protection cases – Rational basis, intermediate
scrutiny, and strict scrutiny (Mosqueda v. Pilipino Banana).
Summary of Key Doctrines:
1. Due process requires proper notice and hearing before a case is dismissed (Aniag v.
COMELEC).
2. Void-for-vagueness applies mostly to criminal laws, not election laws (Spouses Romualdez v.
COMELEC).
3. Regulation must not amount to confiscation of private property (Philcomsat v. Alcuaz).
4. Quasi-judicial proceedings must follow seven due process rights (Ang Tibay v. CIR).
5. Schools must observe basic fairness but are not bound by strict judicial procedures (Ateneo v.
Capulong).
6. Police power prevails over private rights if exercised reasonably for the common good (Ichong
v. Hernandez)
7. Due process requires notice and hearing before the government imposes penalties (Ynot v.
IAC)
8. In administrative cases, due process means an opportunity to explain one’s side, not
necessarily a full trial (Philphos v. Torres).
9. Due process in criminal law is stricter—a person cannot be arrested or convicted without
proper legal safeguards (Alonte v. Savellano).
