1.

Discuss the lega distinction between the Substantial Due Process of Law and the Procedural Due Process of Law.

Article III, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution, states that, 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.

The concept of due process of law encompasses the fundamental rights that are bestowed to the citizens of a nation
by its constitution. The concept of due process ensures the protection of specific rights, such as the freedom of life and
liberty, and ensures that all individuals are treated in a legal and equitable manner, without any arbitrary actions.
Nonetheless, the due process of law encompasses two distinct facets, namely substantive due process and procedural
due process.

The procedural due process serves as a constitutional safeguard that imposes limitations on the exercise of state and
federal authority, mandating the adherence to specific processes in both criminal and civil proceedings. Provisions such
as the protection against unlawful search and seizure, the right to a trial by jury, the right to legal representation, and the
privilege against self-incrimination are all illustrative of fundamental elements integral to the concept of procedural due
process. The assurance of procedural due process guarantees individuals the opportunity to have their case heard in a
court of law following an arrest, ensuring a fair trial conducted by an impartial jury composed of their peers. In the event
that issues arise pertaining to the protocols employed for evidence collection or the methodologies employed for
securing a conviction, it is possible to assert that one's procedural due process rights have been infringed upon. The
potential consequence of illegally obtained evidence is its inadmissibility in court proceedings, which may result in the
reversal of an unjust conviction.

On the other hand, substantive due processes refer to the constraints or limitations placed on the government's
capacity to impede or encroach upon the constitutionally protected personal freedoms and rights. These limits confer
authority upon the courts within the nation to prevent authorities from engaging in arbitrary actions and infringing upon
an individual's life, freedom, or possessions without affording them a just and equitable hearing, as per the requirements
of due process of law. Therefore, the essential rights of a citizen, referred to as substantive rights, are safeguarded
through the mechanism of substantive due process. The aforementioned due processes necessitate that the government
provide an individual with advance notification and adhere to the legally mandated procedures prior to encroaching
upon their fundamental rights. When the doctrine of substantive due process is invoked, a court is required to assess the
reasonableness of a legislation that results in the deprivation of an individual's fundamental rights.

Hence, Both substantive and procedural due processes are distinct components of the general concept of due
process of law. However, it is important to note a contrast between the two processes, namely procedural due process.
The primary objective of procedural due process is to safeguard the fundamental rights of individuals by ensuring that
the government adheres to established standards and provides them with a trial that is both impartial and equitable.
Conversely, substantive due process serves as a safeguard against governmental overreach, ensuring that the
government remains within the boundaries prescribed by the legal framework in place. Substantive due process serves
as a mechanism to restrain the government's ability to declare policy declarations. In the event that a court determines
that the government has surpassed its prescribed boundaries, the rule in question is precluded from attaining the status
of a legally binding statute.

2. Why Dual Citizenship is inimical to national interest? Discuss

Article IV, Section 5 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, states that, dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the
national interest and shall be dealt with by law.

According to the legal precedent set forth, it is important to distinguish between dual citizenship and dual allegiance.
The concept being referred to is known as multiple nationality, which occurs when an individual is recognized as a citizen
by two or more states due to the application of their respective laws. An example of such a scenario could occur when an
individual's parents are citizens of a state that adheres to the principle of jus soli. An individual in this situation is
automatically regarded as a citizen of both states, without any personal action required. The concept of dual allegiance
pertains to the scenario where an individual, through a deliberate action, owes loyalty to two or more states
simultaneously. Dual citizenship refers to the legal status of an individual holding citizenship in two different countries. It
is important to note that dual citizenship is typically not a choice made by the individual, but rather a legal circumstance
that arises due to factors such as birthplace, ancestry, or marriage. On the other hand, dual allegiance refers to an
individual's conscious decision to pledge loyalty or allegiance to two different countries. Unlike dual citizenship, dual
allegiance is a voluntary act undertaken by an individual.

In the context of Mercado v. Manzano, G.R. No. 135083, the facts of the case are as follows: Ernesto S. Mercado and
Eduardo B. Manzano were both contenders for the position of vice mayor in the city of Makati during the elections held
on May 11, 1998. Manzano received the majority of the votes in the election. However, his proclamation was temporarily
suspended due to a legal case filed by Ernesto Mamaril. Mamaril claimed that Manzano is not a citizen of the Philippines,
but of the United States, which would disqualify him from running for public office. In his response, Manzano
acknowledged that he is officially registered as a foreigner with the Bureau of Immigration, identified by Alien Certificate
of Registration number B-31632. He further claimed that he holds Filipino citizenship based on his birth in 1955 to both a
Filipino father and a Filipino mother. The individual in question was born on September 14, 1955, in San Francisco,
California, in the United States. As per the relevant US laws, he holds the status of an American citizen. Despite being
registered as an American citizen, it is important to note that he did not renounce his Filipino citizenship.

The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) has made a determination that Manzano has acquired United States
citizenship through the application of the United States Constitution and laws, specifically under the principle of jus soli.
The individual in question has been granted an alien certificate of registration. However, it should be noted that the
individual in question did not lose his Philippine citizenship as a result of this action, as he did not take an oath of
allegiance to the United States. It is widely acknowledged that upon reaching the age of majority, Manzano voluntarily
registered as a voter and actively participated in the electoral process during the years 1992, 1995, and 1998. This action,
in accordance with American law, can be interpreted as a deliberate renunciation of his US citizenship. Eduardo B.
Manzano possessed the necessary qualifications to be considered a suitable candidate for the vice mayor position in
Makati. The petitioner raised the argument that the decision of the COMELEC, which deemed Manzano as qualified, was
erroneous. The petitioner invoked the legal maxim "dura lex sed lex" in support of their argument. The petitioner, along
with the solicitor general who supports their position, argues that based on the provisions of the Local Government
Code, Congress has clearly mandated the disqualification of individuals with dual allegiance from holding local elective
positions. The petitioner argues that the provision mentioned in the Philippine Constitution's Article on Citizenship also
supports their claim. The issue at hand is, whether or not a dual citizen is disqualified to hold public elective office in the
Philippines.

The court's ruling emphasized that the Constitutional Commission's focus when including Section 5 Article IV on
citizenship was primarily on naturalized citizens who continue to maintain their loyalty to their countries of origin, rather
than specifically targeting dual citizens. The petitioner has raised the argument that made an error in its ruling regarding
Manzano's effective renouncement of his US citizenship under American law. The argument put forth by the petitioner
lacks merit, as the court has determined that by submitting a certificate of candidacy during his campaign for his current
position, Manzano voluntarily chose Philippine citizenship and consequently relinquished his American citizenship. As
previously mentioned, it is important to clarify that the legal prohibition pertains to dual allegiance rather than dual
citizenship.