THE DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION CLUSTER

The due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution are
latitudinal checks on the great powers of the state. The word “latitudinal”
here means that the scope of these two rights is wide: they cover all aspects
of life. It also means that these clauses operate as checks on all aspects of
governmental power. While the Bill of Rights as a whole limits the exercise
of governmental powers, the due process and equal protection clauses in
particular operate as broad checks on governmental power.
The totality of governmental power is contained in these three:

• Police power
• Power of eminent domain
• Power of taxation

Police Power
Police power is, simply put, the power to act for the general welfare of
the people. It is “the most essential, insistent, and the least limitable of
powers, extending as it does to all the great public needs” (Ermita-Malate
Hotel and Motel Operators Association, Inc. v. Mayor of Manila, G.R. L-
24693, July 31, 1967. Negatively, it has been defined as “that inherent power
in the State which enables it to prohibit all that is hurtful to the comfort,
safety and welfare of society” (Rubi v. Provincial Board, 39 Phil. 660, [1918])

Its scope extends and contracts with changing needs. It is exercised

mainly by the national legislature but may be delegated to local government
legislatures.

What are the checks on police powers? There are broad and specific,
substantive and procedural limitations on this power [See your outlines on
the powers of the Legislature]. But the broadest limitation are the due
process and equal protection clauses.

But there may be differing standards for testing the validity of

government acts interfering with individual liberties In Ermita-Malate
Hotel and Motel Operators Association, Inc. v. Mayor of Manila, supra, the
Court said -
What cannot be stressed sufficiently is that if the liberty involved were
freedom of the mind or of the person, the standard for the validity of government
acts is much more rigorous and exacting but where the liberty curtailed affects at
most rights of property, the permissible scope of regulatory measure is wider.

This seems to anticipate the hierarchy of rights expounded in the case

of Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization v. Philippine
Blooming Mills Co., Inc., 51 SCRA 189 (1973).

Power of Eminent Domain

It is the power of the state to take private property for public use upon
payment of just compensation. It is a plenary power. It is exercised by the
national government.

What are the checks on this power? They are found mainly in Section
9 of the Bill of Rights. They are:

• There must be taking of private property for public use

• There must be just compensation
• There must be due process

The lines between police power and the power of eminent domain may
sometime be blurred. But the following – paraphrased from US v. Toribio, 15
Phil. 85, supra, may prove instructive:
 It is a settled principle that every holder of property, however absolute and
unqualified may be his title, holds it with the implied liability that his use of it
shall not be injurious to the equal enjoyment of others having an equal right to
the enjoyment of their property nor to the rights of the community.

This is very different from the right of eminent domain, the right of a
government to take and appropriate private property to public use whenever
public exigency requires it.

Power of Taxation
The obvious, primary and specific purpose of the power to tax is to
raise revenue for the government operations but it has long been recognized
as also a tool of social and economic policy. It has also been used as a
regulatory tool, that is, an instrument of police power. The sin tax on
alcoholic drinks is an example of a tax as also used to regulate behavior, in
this case excessive use of alcohol. It is also an example of the dictum that “to
power to tax includes the power to destroy”.

As mentioned above, the exercise of the power of taxation is not limited to merely
raising funds for government operations. A complete rundown of the aspects or
functions of taxation are as follows:

1. Classic function: Taxation raises money to fund the operations of government.

Such operations may encompass not only constituent but also ministrant
functions of government.
2. Macroeconomic function: Taxation can be a tool to regulate the economy and
minimize the effects of economic cycles. In times of recessions or stagnation,
deficit spending (spending more than what is taken in by taxation) can spur
economic activity. In times of inflation, surplus spending (taking in by taxation
more than what is spent) can rein in inflation.
3. Redistributive function: Taxation can be an instrument of social justice by
applying the principle of progressive taxation (taxing the rich more than the
poor; taxing on the basis of capacity to pay) and by spending in favor of the
 disadvantaged classes. The conditional cash transfer program is an example of
this.
4. Regulatory function: Taxation can be used to promote useful occupations or
activities and discourage non-useful or harmful activities. The “sin taxes” are
example of this.

The overlap between police power and taxation power is also evident in the
discussion in Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association, Inc. v. Mayor of
Manila, supra, where the Court distinguished between three kinds of fees imposed by
the State:

• Fees to regulate useful occupations

• Fees to regulate non-useful occupations
• Fees to raise revenue

The first and second are fees in a regulatory sense and therefore a form of exercise
of police power. The second (“fees to regulate non-useful occupations”) suggests that
that taxation includes the power to destroy. The third kind of fee is purely revenue-
raining and, therefore, pure taxation.

What are the limitations on the power to tax? The specific procedural
and substantive limitations on the power to tax are found mainly in Section
28 of the Article on the Legislature. But the general limits on the power to
tax are:

• It should be exercised only for the general welfare

• The due process and equal protection clauses apply.

ELEMENTS OF DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION

There are two aspects of due process: substantive and procedural.

Substantive Due Process
In its most expansive sense, due process is responsiveness to the
supremacy of reason, obedience to the dictates of justice. Negatively put,
arbitrariness is ruled out and unfairness avoided. Official action must not
outrun the bounds of reason and result in sheer oppression (Ermita-Malate
Hotel and Motel Operators Association, Inc. v. Mayor of Manila, supra)
Substantive due process acts to limit the power of the government. In
general, the due process test to determine the validity of the exercise
governmental power is reasonableness or lack of arbitrariness But, more
elaborately, the test is formulated this way [See US v. Toribio, G.R. No. 5060,
January 26, 1910]:

• Exercise of police power must be for the interest of the public in

general, and not just for any particular class

• Means are reasonably necessary to attain the purpose

The elements of the equal protection clause is similar to the due

process clause. In general, classification is allowed if it is reasonable. More
elaborately, the requisites for valid classification are [See People v. Cayat,
G.R. No. 45987, May 5, 1939]:

• Classification must rest on substantial distinctions

• It must be germane to the purpose of the law
• It must not be limited to existing conditions
• It must apply equally to all members of the same class.

Procedural Due Process

 In general, procedural due process means, simply, “procedural
fairness”, that is, a process that hears before it condemns. In its distilled form,
it is the requirement of notice and hearing in all proceedings.

Procedural process is a flexible concept and its elements depend on the

nature of the proceeding involved.

In quasi-judicial and administrative proceedings, the requisites of due

process are satisfied if the following primary cardinal rights are respected
[Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations, G.R. No. 46496, February 27,
1940]:

• The right to a hearing which includes the right of the party

interested or affected to present his own case and submit evidence
in support thereof.

• Not only must the party be given an opportunity to present his

case and to adduce evidence tending to establish the rights which
he asserts but the tribunal must consider the evidence presented.

• While the duty to deliberate does not impose the obligation to

decide right, it does imply a necessity which cannot be
disregarded, namely, that of having something to support its
decision. A decision with absolutely nothing to support it is a
nullity, a place when directly attached.

• Not only must there be some evidence to support a finding or

conclusion, but the evidence must be "substantial." Substantial
evidence is more than a mere scintilla It means such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion.

• 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.
 • The agency or quasi-judicial body 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.

• The Court of Industrial Relations should, in all controversial

questions, render its decision in such a manner that the parties to
the proceeding can know the vario issues involved, and the
reasons for the decisions rendered. The performance of this duty is
inseparable from the authority conferred upon it.

In judicial proceedings, a distinction is made between the types of

proceeding. In all cases:

• Free access to courts and quasi-judicial bodies and free legal

assistance (S11)

• Right to Speedy Disposition of All Judicial, Quasi-Judicial or

Administrative Bodies (S16)

In non-criminal cases (civil cases, special proceedings), the requisites

are [Banco Espanol Filipino v. Palanca, 37 Phil. 934]

• There must be a court or tribunal clothed with judicial power to

hear and determine the matter before it

• Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person of the

defendant or over the property which is the subject of the
proceedings

• Defendant must be given the opportunity to be heard

 • Judgement must be rendered upon lawful hearing.

In criminal cases, the requirements are more elaborate. In addition to

the general elements of procedural due process in all cases, Section 14 of the
Bill of Rights specifically enumerates these:

1. No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due

process of law.

2. The accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved

3. The accused shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counse

4. The accused shall be informed of the nature and cause of the

accusation against him

5. The accused has a right to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial

6. The accused has the right to meet the witnesses face to face, and to
have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the
production of evidence in his behalf.

7. After arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of

the accused: Provided, that he has been duly notified and his failure to
appear is unjustifiable.

In a sense, all the rights of persons under custodial investigation, or of

the accused in a criminal proceeding, or of one who has been convicted of a
crime are due process rights.
###