POLITICAL LAW REVIEW

Lecture 13, Wednesday, Sept. 16, 2020

3. Due Process188

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of

law.189

a. Relativity of Due Process

The guaranties of due process are universal in their application to all persons
within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, color or
nationality. The word “person” includes aliens. Private corporations are within the scope of
the guaranties insofar as their properties are concerned.

b. Procedural and Substantive Due Process

Procedural Due Process Substantive Due Process

Due process is understood to relate chiefly
to the mode of procedure which
government agencies must follow, it is
understood as a guarantee of procedural
fairness. Its essence is a “law which hears
before it condemns.” Thus, it serves
as a restriction on actions of judicial and
quasi-judicial agencies of government.
The due process clause must be
interpreted both as a procedural and a
substantive guarantee. It must be a
guarantee against the exercise of arbitrary
power even when the power is exercised
according to proper forms and procedure.
Thus, it serves as a restriction on
government’s law and rule-making power.

c. Constitutional and Statutory Due Process

Constitutional Due Process Statutory Due Process

Protects the individual from the
government and assures him of his rights
in criminal, civil or administrative
proceedings.
Such as that found in the Labor Code and
Implementing Rules which protects
employees from being unjustly terminated
without just cause after notice
and hearing.190

d. Hierarchy of Rights

The primacy of human rights over property rights is recognized.

Because these freedoms are “delicate and vulnerable, as well as supremely precious in
our society” and the “threat of sanctions may deter their exercise almost as potently as the
actual application of sanctions,” they “need breathing space to survive,” permitting
government regulation only “with narrow specificity.”

188 Art. III, Sec. 1

That which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and
renders judgment only after trial (Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheaton 518).
189 People v. Cayat, G.R. No. L‐45987, May 5, 1939
190 Agabon v. NLRC, G.R. No. 158693, November 17, 2004

45
 Property and property rights can be lost through prescription; but human
rights are imprescriptible. If human rights are extinguished by the passage of time, then
the Bill of Rights us a useless attempt to limit the power of government and ceases to be an
efficacious shield against tyranny of officials, of majorities, of the influential and powerful,
and of oligarchs.

Property is not a basic right. Property has an intimate relation with life and liberty.

Protection of property was a primary object of the social contract (an implicit agreement
among the members of a society to cooperate for social benefits, for example by sacrificing some individual
freedom for state protection) and that the absence of such protection could well lead to anarchy
and tyranny. Property is an important instrument for the preservation and enhancement of
personal dignity.

Property is as important as life and liberty – and to protect their (poor)

property is really to protect their life and their liberty.

e. Judicial Standards of Review191

Deferential review Intermediate review Strict scrutiny

Laws are upheld if they
rationally further a legitimate
governmental interest,
without courts seriously
inquiring into the
substantiality of such interest
and examining the alternative
means by which the objectives
could be achieved
The substantiality of the
governmental interest is
seriously looked into and
the availability of less
restrictive alternatives is
considered.
The focus is on the
presence of compelling,
rather than substantial
governmental interest and
on the absence of less
restrictive means for
achieving that interest
(meaning, government has no
other option).192

f. Void-for-Vagueness Doctrine

It holds that a law is vague when it lacks comprehensive standards that men
of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its common meaning and differ as
to its application. In such instance, the statute is repugnant to the Constitution because:

1. It violates due process for failure to accord persons, especially the parties
targeted by it, fair notice of what conduct to avoid.

2. It leaves law enforcers an unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions.193

191 Judicial review can only be exercised in an actual case and controversy.
This means (1) a party with a personal and substantial interest, (2) an appropriate
case, (3) a constitutional question raised at the earliest possible time, and (4) a
constitutional question that is the very lis mota of the case, i.e. an unavoidable
question (People v. Vera, 66 Phil 56 (1937)
192 Separate opinion of Justice Mendoza in Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.

148965, Feb. 26, 2002

46
 4. Equal Protection

Nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.194

a. Concept

The Equal Protection Clause is a specific constitutional guarantee of the Equality of

the Person. The equality it guarantees is “legal quality or the equality of all persons
before the law.” This clause does not only prohibit the State from passing discriminatory
laws but it also commands the State to pass laws which positively promote equality or reduce
existing inequalities.

“All person or things similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to

rights conferred and responsibilities imposed”. The equal protection clause is a specific
constitutional guarantee of the Equality of the Person. The equality guarantees the “legal
equality or as it is usually put, the equality of all persons before the law. Under it, each
individual is dealt with as an equal person in the law, which does not treat the person
differently because of who or what he/she is what he/she possesses.195
b. Requisites for Valid Classification

1. Substantial distinction
2. Germane to the purpose of the law – the distinction which must make for real
differences should have reasonable relation to the purpose of the law.
3. Not limited to existing conditions only
4. Must apply equally to all members of the same class

c. Standards of judicial review (another way of classifying)

1) Rational Basis Test

Where the classification needs only to be related to a legitimate state interest.

Rational basis is the most deferential (respectful) of the standards of review that
courts use in due-process and equal-protection analysis.196

193 People v. de la Piedra, G.R. No. 128777, Jan. 24, 2001

194 Art. III, Sec.1
195 The equality guaranteed however, “is not disembodied equality”. It does not deny

to the state the power to recognize and act upon factual differences between
individuals and classes. It recognizes that inherent in the right to legislate is the right to
classify.
196 Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th Ed.

47
 2) Strict Scrutiny Test

A legislative classification which impermissibly interferes with the exercise of a

fundamental right or operates to the peculiar disadvantage of a suspect class is presumed
unconstitutional, and the burden is upon the government to prove that the
classification is necessary to achieve a compelling State interest and that it is the less
restrictive means to protect such interest.

Under strict scrutiny, the state must establish that it has a compelling interest
that justifies and necessitates the law in question.197

The focus is on the presence of compelling, rather than substantial governmental

interest and on the absence of less restrictive means for achieving that interest.198

3) Intermediate Scrutiny Test

Where the government must show that the challenged classification serves an
important State interest and that the classification is substantially related to that interest.

Under the standard, if a statute contains a quasi-suspect classification,199 the

classification must be substantially related to the achievement of an important
governmental objective.200

197 Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th Ed.

198 Separate opinion of Justice Mendoza in Estrada v.Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
148965, Feb.26, 2002
199 such as gender or legitimacy
200 Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th Ed.

48