BILL OF RIGHTS
CRISJER GABOD CADAMPOG
Section 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.
Life
Life as understood in the due process clause connotes in the first place the
integrity of the physical person. The meaning is that it is not permissible
for the government to deprive the individual of any part of his body, and this
is true even if it be as punishment for crime. Accordingly, it will be unlawful
to amputate his hands if he is a thief or castrate him if he is a rapist or
strikeout his eyes for unjust vexation or cut off his tongue for objectionable
remarks he may have made. Any measure that would even only endanger
his health or subject him to unnecessary pain or to unreasonable
physical exertion would also be subject to challenge.
Read: Imbong v. Ochoa
What is the right to “life”
The constitutional protection of the right to life is not
just a protection of the right to be alive or to the
security of one’s limb against physical harm. The
right to life is the right to a good life. The
emphasis on the quality of living is found in Article II
where Section 6 commands the State to promote a
life of “dignity” and where Section 7 guarantees “a
decent standard of living.”
Liberty
According to Mabini, “liberty is the freedom to do right and never wrong.” Liberty,
as guaranteed under the due process clause is not unbridled license; it is liberty
regulated by law. One’s own liberty must be enjoyed consistently with the enjoyment of a
like liberty by others. In other words, the individual, as a creature of society, should
be prepared to surrender part of his freedom for the benefit of the greater
number in recognition of the time-honored principle of “salus populi est
suprema lex.”
In order to illustrate, one’s freedom of expression cannot be used to unfairly destroy
another’s reputation, or to incite rebellion, or to offend public morals; neither may he
abuse the sanctity of his home by converting it into a den of criminality or a hotbed of
disease; nor may he insist on selling his goods at black market prices, if they be prime
necessities, to the detriment of the consuming public.
Read: Obergefell v. Hodges
Property
Property is anything that can be owned and be the subject of
contract. This will include all things real, personal, tangible and
intangible that are within the commerce of man, like lands, jewelry,
automobiles, buildings, goodwill, inheritance, intellectual creations,
future earnings, works of art, animals, mortgages, insurance
proceeds, etc.
One cannot have a vested right to a public office, as this is
not regarded as property. If created by statute, it may be
abolished by the legislature at any time, even if the term of the
incumbent not yet expired.
What is Due Process?
A law which hears before it condemns, which
proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment
only after trial. (Darmouth College v. Woodward, 4
Wheaton 518)
Our supreme court has held that “the twin requirements of
notice and hearing constitute the essential elements of due
process and neither of these elements can be eliminated
without running afoul of the constitutional guaranty.
Scope of Due Process of Law
Universal in application to all persons, without
regard to any difference in race, color, or
nationality.
Artificial persons are covered by the protection
but only insofar as their property is concerned.
[Smith Bell & Co. v. Natividad, 40 Phil. 163]
Aspects of Due Process of Law
In order to fall within the aegis of this provision, two conditions must
concur, namely, that there is a deprivation and that such deprivation is
done without proper observance of due process. When one speaks of due
process of law, however, a distinction must be made between matters of
procedure and matters of substance. In essence, procedural due
process “refers to the method or manner by which the law is enforced,”
while substantive due process “requires that the law itself, not merely the
procedures by which the law would be enforced, is fair, reasonable, and
just.” (De Leon, Textbook on the Philippine Constitution, 1991, p. 81)
(Corona v. United Harbor Pilots Association of the Phils., 283 SCRA 31, Dec.
12, 1997 [Romero])
Substantive Due Process
Prohibition if arbitrary laws. In other words, substantive due process looks to
whether there is a sufficient justification for the government’s action. (City of
Manila v. Laguio, April 12, 2005)
Substantive due process requires the intrinsic validity of the law in interfering with
the rights of the person to his life, liberty and property. The inquiry in this
regard is not whether or not the law is being enforced in accordance with
the prescribed manner but whether or not, to begin with, it is a proper
exercise of legislative power. The law must have a valid governmental
objective in example the interest of the public generally as distinguished from
those of a particular class require the intervention of the state. Furthermore, this
objective must be pursued in a lawful manner, or in other words, the means
employed must be reasonably related to the accomplishment of the purpose and
not duly oppressive.
Procedural Due Process
The essence of procedural due process is expressed in
the immortal cry of Themistocles to Eurybiades:
Strike, but hear me first!” In more familiar words,
the justice that procedural due process guarantees, to
repeat with Daniel Webster, is the one “which hears
before it condemns, which proceeds upon
inquiry and renders judgment only after trial.”
Judicial Due Process
1. There must be a 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 or over the property which is the subject of the
proceedings;
3. The defendant must be given an opportunity to be heard;
and
4. Judgment must be rendered upon lawful hearing.
Notice
Notice to a party is essential to enable it to
adduce its own evidence and to meet and refute
the evidence submitted by the other party. Every
litigant is entitled to his day in court. He has a right to
be notified of every incident of the proceeding and to be
present at every stage thereof so that he may be heard
himself and counsel for the protection of hi interests.
Meaning of “to be heard”
“To be heard” does not only mean verbal arguments in court.
One may be heard also through pleadings. Where
opportunity to be heard, either through oral arguments or
pleadings, is accorded, there is no denial of procedural
due process.
As held in David v. Aquilizan, a decision rendered without a
hearing is null and void ab initio and may be attacked
directly or collaterally.
HEARING
Due process in labor cases before a Labor Arbiter is
satisfied when the parties are given the opportunity to
submit their position papers to which they are supposed
to attach all the supporting documents or documentary
evidence that would support their respective claims
[Mariveles Shipyard v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 144134,
November 11, 2003; Zacarias v. National Police
Commission, G.R. No. 119847, October 24, 2003].
WAIVER OF RIGHT
Due process is not violated where a person is not heard because he has chosen,
for whatever reason, not to be heard. If he opts to be silent where he has a right to
speak, he cannot later be heard to complain that he was unduly silenced. The Supreme
Court has held, however, that: Due process as a constitutional precept does not,
always and in all situations, requires trial-type proceedings. The essence of due
process is to be found in the reasonable opportunity to be heard and to submit any
evidence one may have in support of one’s defense.
The defendant must be given an opportunity to be heard. Due process is satisfied as
long as the party is accorded the opportunity to be heard. If it is not availed of,
it is deemed waived or forfeited without violating the constitutional guarantee
[Bautista v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 157219, May 28, 2004].
EXCEPTIONS OF “HEARING”
There are cases in which the essential requisites of notice and hearing may be omitted without violation of
due process.
1. Granting by courts of provisional remedies;
2. Preventive suspension of a civil servant facing administrative charges; (Co. vs. Barbers. Sec. 63
of LGC; BP 337);
3. Removal or replacement of temporary employees in the government service;
4. Cancellation of passport of a person charged with a crime;
5. Padlocking of restaurants found to be insanitary or theatres showing obscene movies;
6. Judicial order which prevents an accused from traveling abroad;
7. Reinvestigation (criminal cases); and
8. TPO (Garcia vs. Drilon, June 25, 2013);
Administrative Due Process
In administrative proceedings, the requisites of procedural due process are the following:
1.The right to a 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.The 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 affected.
6.The tribunal or body 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 board or body should, in all controversial questions ,renders its decision in such a manner that the
parties to the proceeding can know the various issues involved, and the reason for the decision rendered.
Effect of violating the Due Process of
Law
True to the mandate of the due process clause, the basic rights of
notice and hearing pervade not only in criminal and civil
proceedings, but in administrative proceedings as well. Non-
observance of these rights will invalidate the proceedings.
Individuals are entitled to be notified of any pending case affecting
their interests, and upon notice, they may claim the right to appear
therein and present their side and to refute the position of the
opposing parties (Cruz, Philippine Administrative Law, 1996 ed., p.
64). (Secretary of Justice v. Lantion, 322 SCRA 160, 186-188, Jan. 18,
2000, En Banc [Melo])
JURISPRUDENCE
SP of Baguio City vs. Jadewell Parking Systems Corp., April 23, 2014
Issue:
Whether it necessary for the City of Baguio to provide Jadewell an opportunity to air its side on the matter before
the former implemented the rescission of the MOA?
Held:
We answer in the negative. Previous notice and hearing as elements of due process, are constitutionally
required for the protection of life or vested property rights, as well as of liberty, when its limitation or loss takes
place in consequence of a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding, generally dependent upon a past act or event
which has to be established or ascertained. It is not essential to the validity of general rules or regulations
promulgated to govern future conduct of a class or persons or enterprises, unless the law provides otherwise.
In the instant case, the assailed act by the Sanggunian Panlungsod in rescinding the MOA – be it first or second
act of rescission – was clearly in the exercise of its legislative or administrative functions and was not an exercise
of a judicial or quasi-judicial function. The Sanggunian Panlungsod does not possess any judicial or quasi-judicial
functions.
JURISPRUDENCE
Doctrine:
Prior notice and hearing, as elements of due process of
law, are only required in judicial or quasi-judicial
proceedings, not when the government agency is engaged
in the performance of quasi-legislative or administrative
functions. (SP of Baguio City vs. Jadewell Parking
Systems Corp., April 23, 2014 )
JURISPRUDENCE
Shu vs. Dee, April 23, 2014
Issue:
Whether the respondents were denied due process notwithstanding that the NBI, during the
investigation, never required the parties to submit evidence.
Held:
No. We stress that the functions of this agency is merely investigatory and informational in nature. It
has no judicial or quasi-judicial powers and is incapable of granting any relief to any party. It cannot
even determine probable cause. The NBI is an investigative agency whose findings are merely
recommendatory. Since the NBIs findings were merely recommendatory, we find that no denial of the
respondent’s due process right could have taken place; the NBI’s findings were still subject to the
prosecutors and the Secretary of Justice’s actions for purposes of finding the existence of probable
cause.
JURISPRUDENCE
Doctrine:
The respondents cannot claim that they were denied due
process during the NBI Investigation. The functions of
the NBI are merely investigatory and informational
in nature. The NBI has no judicial or quasi-judicial power
and is incapable of granting any relief to any party, it
cannot even determine probable cause. (Shu vs. Dee,
April 23, 2014)
JURISPRUDENCE
Rodriguez v. NBI and DOJ, G.R. No. 219781, July 28, 2021
The Supreme Court held that the NBI’s investigation of the Napoles PDAF scam were done in
the performance of the NBI’s functions which are merely investigatory and informational in
nature. The NBI did not perform a judicial or quasi-judicial function when it
recommended to the Ombudsman further fact-finding investigation or the
corresponding preliminary investigation for the eventual filing of the appropriate
charges before the Sandiganbayan. Instead, the NBI’s findings were merely
recommendatory and still subject to the Ombudsman’s actions.
Citing to its similar ruling in Shu v. Dee, et al. in 2014, the Supreme Court said “no denial of
petitioner’s due process right could have taken place. There is also no violation of
petitioner’s right to equal protection of the laws to speak of, there is not even a
vested right granted by law to any person under investigation to participate in the
proceedings before the NBI.”
JURISPRUDENCE
Pichay, Jr. vs. Office of the Deputy Executive Secretary for Legal Affairs, et al., GR No.
196425, July 24, 2012 - 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, which simply means having the opportunity
to explain one’s side. Hence, as long as petitioner was given the opportunity to explain his
side and present evidence, the requirements of due process are satisfactorily complied
with because what the law abhors is an absolute lack of opportunity to be heard.
Chavez vs. Romulo, 431 SCRA 534 - The license to carry firearm is neither a property nor a
property right. Neither does it create a vested right. A permit to carry a firearm outside of one’s
residence maybe revoked at anytime.
MMDA vs. Garin, GR No. 130230, April 15, 2005 - A license to operate a motor vehicle is not
a property right, but a privilege granted by the State, which may be suspended or revoked by the
State in the exercise of police power.
JURISPRUDENCE
The filing of a motion for reconsideration
cures the defect of absence of a hearing.
Chua v. Court of Appeals, 287 SCRA 33;
reiterated in Marohombsar v. Judge
Adiong, A.M. No. RTJ-02-1674, January
22, 2004
JURISPRUDENCE
Victor Jose Tan Uy v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. Nos.
156399-400, July 27, 2008 - A preliminary investigation is
held before an accused is placed on trial to secure the innocent
against hasty, malicious and oppressive prosecution and to
protect him from the trouble, expenses and anxiety of a public
trial It is also intended to protect the State from having to
conduct useless and expensive trials. Thus, while the right is
statutory rather than constitutional, it is a component of
due process in administering criminal justice.
Death vis-à-vis Due Process
Sharon Flores-Concepcion v. Judge Liberty O. Castaneda (2020)
The opportunity to be heard is an intrinsic part of the constitutional right to due process. Thus, in
criminal cases, cases against the accused are immediately dismissed upon death since the accused
can no longer participate in all aspects of the proceedings.
Administrative proceedings require that the respondent be informed of the charges and be given
an opportunity to refute them. Even after judgment is rendered, due process requires that the
respondent not only be informed of the judgment but also be given the opportunity to seek
reconsideration of that judgment. This is the true definition of the opportunity to be heard.
Death forecloses any opportunity to be heard. To continue with the proceedings is a
violation of the right to due process.
Right to be notified of a decision
Raoul C. Villarete v. Commission on Audit (2024)
Procedural due process is met when one is given notice and opportunity to be
heard or explain their side. It entails giving a party a chance "to seek
reconsideration of an action or ruling complained of." In line with this, the failure
to notify a party of a decision involving them, especially one where they stand
to lose their life, liberty, or property, robs a litigant the chance to avail of the
reliefs granted to them by law. Such is a violation of due process.
Void for Vagueness Doctrine
People v. Dela Piedra (2001)
Due process requires that the terms of a penal statue must be sufficiently explicit
to inform those who are subject to it what conduct on their part will render them
liable to its penalties.
As a rule, a statute or act may be said to be vague when it lacks
comprehensible standards that men “of common intelligence must necessarily
guess at its meaning and differs as to its application.”
Void for Vagueness Doctrine
It is repugnant to the Constitution in two aspects:
First,it violates due process for failure to accord persons,
especially the parties targeted by it, fair notice of the conduct
to avoid;
Second, it leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in
carrying out its provisions and become an arbitrary flexing of
government muscles.
