I.

INTRODUCTION

BILL OF RIGHTS. DEFINITION:

 A bill of rights is a declaration and enumeration of a person's rights and privileges which the
Constitution is designed to protect against violations by the government, or by individuals, or
groups of individuals. It is a charter of liberties for the individual and a limitation upon the
power of the states.
 The Bill of Rights is designed to preserve the ideals of liberty, equality and security "against
the assaults of opportunism, the expediency of the passing hour, the erosion of small
encroachments, and the scorn and derision of those who have no patience with general
principles.

HIERARCHY OF RIGHTS (Doctrine of Preferred Freedom)

[Phil Blooming Mills…]

 While the Bill of Rights also protects property rights, the primacy of human rights over
property rights is recognized...
 In the hierarchy of civil liberties, the rights of free expression and of assembly occupy a
preferred position…
 The superiority of these freedoms over property rights is underscored by the fact that a
mere reasonable or rational relation between the means employed by the law and its
object or purpose — that the law is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory nor oppressive —
would suffice to validate a law which restricts or impairs property rights.
 But a constitutional or valid infringement of human rights requires a more stringent
criterion, namely existence of a grave and immediate danger of a substantive evil which
the State has the right to prevent.

4 RIGHTS UNDER THE BILL OF RIGHTS IN THE CONSTITUTION

1. Civil rights– rights that belong to an individual by virtue of his citizenship in a state or
community (e.g. rights to property [doesn’t apply to foreigners], marriage, freedom to
contract, equal protection, etc.)
2. Political rights– rights that pertain to an individual‘s citizenship vis-à-vis the
management of the government (e.g. right of suffrage, right to petition government
for redress, right to hold public office, etc.)
3. Socio economic rights– rights which are intended to insure the well-being and
economic security of the individual (right to work, right to due process in hiring and
firing)
4. Rights of the accused– civil rights intended for the protection of a person accused of
any crime

Page 1 of 24
II. SCOPE OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION

A. Who are entitled to constitutional protection

1. Both foreign and local citizens; but the former are not given full coverage of the law
2. Persons and juridical persons

B. Who are subject to constitutional prohibitions

[searches and seizures] Directed Against the Government and Its Agencies (State Action
Requirement) The right cannot be set up against acts committed by private individuals. The
right applies as a restraint directed only against the government and its agencies tasked with
the enforcement of the law. The protection cannot extend to acts committed by private
individuals so as to bring them within the ambit of alleged unlawful intrusion by the government.
[People vs. Marti (1991)]

Sec. 2 Art III shall apply only against law officials or people working as agents of government
concerned about being able to procure evidence. [People vs. Marti (1991)]

FOR JURIDICAL PERSON – (the equal protection clause extends to artificial persons but only
insofar as their property is concerned). A corporation is also protected against unreasonable
searches and seizures. company can’t be searched without a warrant [Stonehill vs Diokno]

Right against self-discrimination - a company does not have this.

Inherent limitations of the state

1. Protect the individual against government actions
2. Protect the rights of the people
3. … remain free against excessive…
4. Government does not overstep its boundaries

Scope and Limitations

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] The guarantee extends to aliens and
includes the means of livelihood. [Villegas v. Hiu Chiong, 86 SCRA 275]

Page 2 of 24
III. FUNDAMENTAL POWERS OF THE STATE

SIMILARITIES DIFFERENCES
1. They are inherent in the state and maybe 1. The police power regulates both liberty and
exercised by it without need of expressed property. The power of eminent domain and
constitutional grant the power of taxation affect only the property
rights
2. They are not only necessary but 2. The police power ad the power of taxation
indispensable. The state cannot continue or may be exercised only by the government.
be effective unless it is able to exercise them. The power of eminent domain may be
exercised by some private entities
3. They are methods by which the State 3. The property taken in the exercise of the
interferes with private rights police power is destroyed because it is
noxious or intended for a noxious purpose.
The property taken under the power of
eminent domain and the power of taxation is
intended for a public use or purpose and is
therefore wholesome.
4. They all presuppose an equivalent 4. The compensation of the person subjected to
compensation for the private rights interfered the police power is the intangible altruistic that
with he has contributed to the general welfare. The
compensation involved in the other powers is
more concrete, to wit, a full and fair equivalent
of the property expropriated or protection and
public improvements for the taxes paid.
5. They are exercised primarily by the legislature

Differences:
Police Power Eminent Domain Taxation

As to regulation/extent regulates both liberty regulates property Regulates property

of power and property rights only rights only
As to who may exercise only the government government and some only the government
private entities
As to the property taken destroyed because it is -wholesome -wholesome
noxious or intended for -taken for a public use -taken for a public use
noxious purpose or purpose or purpose
As to Compensation intangible altruistic full and fair equivalent protection and public
feeling that the person of the property improvements for the
has contributed to the expropriated taxes paid
general welfare

Limitations:
(a) May not be exercised arbitrarily to the prejudice of the Bill of Rights.
(b) Subject at all times to the limitations and requirements of the Constitution and may in proper
cases be annulled by the courts, i.e. when there is a grave abuse of discretion.

Page 3 of 24
[Planters Products, Inc vs Fertiphil]

Police power and the power of taxation are inherent powers of the State. These powers are distinct and
have different tests for validity.

Similarities and Police Power Power of Taxation

Differences
Definition is the power of the State to enact is the power to levy taxes to be used for
legislation that may interfere with public purpose.
personal liberty or property in order to
promote the general welfare
Purpose the regulation of a behavior or conduct revenue generation
How to The lawful subjects and lawful means circumscribed by inherent and
determine the tests constitutional limitations.
validity of a law
enacted

[Gerochi vs Department of Energy]

Similarities and Police Power Power of Taxation

Differences
Definition is the power of the state to promote an incident of sovereignty and is
public welfare by restraining and unlimited in its range, acknowledging in
regulating the use of liberty and its very nature no limits, so that security
property.[33] It is the most pervasive, the against its abuse is to be found only in
least limitable, and the most demanding the responsibility of the legislature
of the three fundamental powers of the which imposes the tax on the
State. As an inherent attribute of constituency that is to pay it.[30] It is
sovereignty which virtually extends to all based on the principle that taxes are the
public needs, police power grants a wide lifeblood of the government, and their
panoply of instruments through which the prompt and certain availability is an
State, as parens patriae, gives effect to a imperious need.[31] Thus, the theory
host of its regulatory powers.[34] We have behind the exercise of the power to tax
held that the power to "regulate" means emanates from necessity; without taxes,
the power to protect, foster, promote, government cannot fulfill its mandate of
preserve, and control, with due regard promoting the general welfare and well-
for the interests, first and foremost, of the being of the people.[32]
public, then of the utility and of its
patrons.[35]

Page 4 of 24
 A. POLICE POWER
Definition:

1. Police power is the is an inherent power of the State to promote the welfare of society by
restraining and regulating the use of liberty and property.
2. Of the three fundamental powers of the State, the exercise of police power has been
characterized as the most essential, insistent and the least limitable of powers, extending as
it does to all the great public needs. It may be exercised as long as the activity or the
property sought to be regulated has some relevance to public welfare.
3. The justification for the state’s police power is found in the ancient Latin maxims, which call
for the subordination of individual benefits to the interests of the greater number.
a. Salus populi est suprema lex – the welfare of the people is the supreme law;
b. Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas, – a person must use his own property so as not
to injure another
Scope:
(a) cannot be bargained away through the medium of a treaty or contract (Stone v Mississippi)
(b) may use taxing power as its implement (Tio vs Videogram Regulatory Board)
(c) may use eminent domain as its implement (Assoc. of Small Landowners vs Sec. of Agrarian Reform)
(d) could be given retroactive effect and may reasonably impair vested rights or contracts (police power
prevails over contract)
(e) dynamic, not static, and must move with the moving society it is supposed to regulate

Test to determine the validity of a police measure

1. the interests of the public, not mere particular class, require the exercise of police power; (LAWFUL
SUBJECT) – It means that the subject of the measure is within the scope of the police power, that is,
that the activity or property sought to be regulated affects the welfare. If it does, the enjoyment of
private rights may be subordinated to the interests of the greater number on the time-honoured
principle that the welfare of the people is the supreme law.

2. the means employed is reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly
oppressive to individuals. (LAWFUL MEANS). Even if the purpose be within the scope of the police
power, the law will still be annulled if the subject is sought to be regulated in violation of this second
requirement. In short, the end does not justify the means. In other words, the lawful objective must be
pursued through a lawful method; that is, both the end and the means must be legitimate. Lacking
such concurrence, the police measure shall be struck down as an arbitrary intrusion into private
rights.

The basic purposes of police power are:

a. to promote the general welfare, comfort and convenience of the people; (ASSOCIATION OF
SMALL LANDOWNERS VS. SECRETARY, 175 SCRA 343; US VS. TORIBIO, 15 Phil. 85
b. to promote and preserve public health; (VILLANUEVA VS. CASTANEDA, September 21,
1987; DECS VS. SAN DIEGO, 180 SCRA 533 [NMAT]; LORENZO VS. DIRECTOR OF HEALTH,
50 Phil. 595—apprehend and confine lepers in a leprosarium)
c. to promote and protect public safety; (AGUSTIN VS. EDU, 88 SCRA 195; TAXICAB
OPERATORS VS. JUINIO, 119 SCRA 897 )
d. to maintain and safeguard peace and order; (GUAZON VS. DE VILLA)

Page 5 of 24
 e. to protect public morals; (DE LA CRUZ VS. PARAS, 123 SCRA 569; ERMITA MALATE
HOTEL VS. CITY MAYOR, July 31, 1967; JMM PROMOTIONS VS. CA, 260 SCRA 319;
VELASCO VS. VILLEGAS, February 13, 1983)
f. to promote the economic security of the people. (ichong vs. hernandez, 101 Phil. 11155)

To preserve the integrity of the banking system (the mischief is not only to the payee or holder,
but also an injury to the public), enactment of BP 22 (Bouncing Checks Law) is a valid exercise
of the police power, and is not repugnant to the constitutional inhibition against imprisonment for
debt.

POLICE POWER: Scope and Limitations

 National Security. SC upheld the constitutionality of RA 1180 (An Act to Regulate the Retail Business)
which sought to nationalize the retail trade business by prohibiting aliens in general from engaging directly or
indirectly in the retail trade. Aliens did not question the exercise of police power; they claim, however, that
there was a violation of the due process and equal protection clauses. [Ichong vs. Hernandez (1957)]
 Police power, public morals: The mantle of protection associated with the due process guaranty does not
cover petitioners. This particular manifestation of a police power measure being specifically aimed to
safeguard public morals is immune from such imputation of nullity resting purely on conjecture and
unsupported by anything of substance. Police power is "that inherent and plenary power in the State which
enables it to prohibit all that is hurtful to the comfort, safety, and welfare of society xxx There is no question
but that the challenged ordinance was precisely enacted to minimize certain practices hurtful to public
morals. [Ermita-Malate Motel and Motel Operators Assn. vs. City Mayor of Manila (1967)]
 Police power, public safety: The Court identified police power as a dynamic agency, suitably vague and
far from precisely defined, rooted in the conception that men in organizing the state and imposing upon its
government limitations to safeguard constitutional rights did not intend to enable an individual citizen or a
group of citizens to obstruct unreasonably the enactment of such salutary measures calculated to communal
peace, safety, good order, and welfare. According to the Court, a heavy burden lies in the hands of the
petitioner who questions the state‘s police power if it was clearly intended to promote public safety. [Agustin
vs. Edu, (1979)]
 General Welfare (public health). RA 9257, the Expanded Senior Citizens Act of 2003, is a legitimate
exercise of police power. Administrative Order No. 177 issued by the Department of Health, providing that
the 20% discount privilege of senior citizens shall not be limited to the purchase of unbranded generic
medicine but shall extend to both prescription and non-prescription medicine, whether branded or generic, is
valid. When conditions so demand, as determined by the legislature, property rights must bow to the
primacy of police power because property rights, though sheltered by the due process clause, must yield to
the general welfare. [Carlos Superdrug Corporation v. DSWC et al. G.R. No. 166494, June 29, 2007]
 Eminent domain may be used as an implement to attain the police objective [Association of Small
Landowners v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform (1989)]

Page 6 of 24
 B. POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN

Definition:
1. The power of the state, upon payment of just compensation, to forcibly acquire
needed private property to devote it to the intended public use.
2. also called the power of expropriation, it is described as the highest and most exact
idea of property remaining in the government that may be acquired for some public
purpose through a method in the nature of a compulsory sale to the State.

For interpretation purposes: STRICTLY INTERPRETED AGAINST THE

EXPROPRIATOR, AND LIBERALLY IN FAVOR OF THE PROPERTY OWNER

 Who may exercise

1. The Congress – all encompassing
2. The President – in times of emergency
3. Local legislative bodies – as to extend granted to them by law
4. Certain public corporations – National Housing Authority
5. Quasi-public corporations – PLDT, MERALCO, PNR

2 Stages of Appropriation Proceeding

1. Determination of the validity of the expropriation
2. Determination of just compensation; may be set aside if tainted with grave abuse of discretion

Eminent Domain Destruction from Necessity

 public right  private right vested in every individual with
 arises from the laws of society and is which the right of state or state necessity
vested in the state or grantee, acting has nothing to do
under the right and power of the state or  comes under the right of necessity, of self-
benefit of the state preservation
 arises under the laws of society or society
itself
 cannot require the conversion of the
property taken to public use, nor is there
any need for the payment of just
compensatio
May be taken even by private individuals; not
allowed under eminent domain
There no requirement to convert the property
to public use
There is no need for payment of just
compensation

Page 7 of 24
Requisites of Eminent Domain:

1. Necessity of exercise –
 genuine necessity, and
 must be of public character
i. When exercised by legislature – political question
ii. When exercised by a delegate – justiciable question [determine the: (a)
adequacy of compensation; (b) necessity of taking; and (c) public use
character]

2. Private property
 General Rule: anything that can come under the dominion of man is subject to
expropriation
 Exceptions: money and chose in action (personal right not reduced into possession,
i.e. the right to bring an action to recover debt, money or thing)

Private property already devoted to public use cannot be expropriated by a delegate

acting under a general grant of authority (City of Manila vs Chinese Community)

Under Presidential Decree 1472, whether tenanted or not, land acquired by NHA for its
housing and resettlement program are exempted from land reform

3. Taking – physical dispossession of the owner; trespass without actual eviction of the
owner, material impairment of the value of the property or prevention of the ordinary
uses for which the property was intended

 Requisites for taking (Rep. Vs. Castelvi)

1. The expropriator must enter a private property
2. Entry must be for more than a momentary period
3. Entry must be under warrant or color of legal authority
4. Property must be devoted to public use or otherwise informally appropriated or
injuriously affected
5. Utilization of the property for public uses must be in such a way as to oust the
owner and deprive him of beneficial enjoyment of the property

Taking Under Eminent Domain vs Taking in Police Power :

Police Power Eminent Domain

· the prejudice suffered by the individual property · the individual suffers more than his aliquot part
owner is shared in common with the rest of the of the damages, i.e. a special injury above that
community sustained by the rest of the community

 Not every taking is compensable.. may be justified under the police power, e.g.,
building on the verge of collapse

 If, as may happen in many cases, a person sustains actual damage, that is, harm
or loss to his person or property, without sustaining any legal injury, that is, an act
or omission which the law does not deem an injury, the damage is regarded
as damnum absque injuria. [altruistic feeling that they contributed to the well-being
of the people in general.]

Page 8 of 24
 i. Valid if prejudice suffered by the owner is shared in common with the
community; if he suffers more than the rest, he is entitled to be
compensated.

 Time of taking is the time when the landowner was deprived of the use and
benefits of his property, such as when title is transferred to the Republic

4. Public use –
 Any use directly available to the general public as a matter of right and not merely
of forbearance or accommodation
 is whatever may be beneficially employed for the general welfare, including both
direct or indirect benefit or advantage to the public

5. Just compensation –

 is fair and full equivalent payment for the loss sustained, which is the measure of
the indemnity, not whatever gain would accrue to the expropriating agency. It is
not market value per se. JM Tuason & Co. Inc v. LTA, EPZA v. Dulay). It is not market
value per se.

 To ascertain just compensation: the court should determine first the actual or
basic value of the property. Where the entire property is not expropriated, there
should be added to the basic value the owner’s consequential damages after
deducting therefrom the consequential benefits arising from the expropriation. If
the consequential benefits exceed the consequential damages, these items
should be disregarded altogether as the basic value of the property should be
paid in every case.

· Where only part of the property is expropriated: entitlement to consequential

damages, if any + consequential benefits must be deducted from the total compensation
provided consequential benefits does not exceed consequential damages

consequential damages – consists of injuries directly caused on the residue of the

private party taken by reason of appropriation, .e.g., properties become unusable

consequential benefits – must be direct and particular, and not merely shared with
the rest of the properties in the area, e.g., general appreciation of land values

Factors considered in arriving at Fair market value:

1. Cost of acquisition
2. Current value of like properties at the time of the taking
3. Actual or potential uses
4. In case of lands, their size, shape, or location and the tax declaration

Page 9 of 24
 ◦ Payment of the correct amount + Payment within a reasonable time

 Form of payment. Indeed, the traditional medium of payment for just compensation is in
money; however, land reform is not the traditional exercise of eminent domain where only
property of relatively limited area is taken by the State for some public purpose. “What we
deal hear is a revolutionary kind of expropriation.” The agrarian reform law covers the entire
country. Government will have to spend billions of pesos to implement it and considering the
financial limitations of the government, the legislature never had an illusion that there will be
enough money to pay in cash. It is not oppressive to pay with shares of stocks, bonds, tax
credits and other things of value equivalent to the amount of compensation. (Assoc. of Small
Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform)
 The determination of just compensation and the rationale behind it is done “either at the time
of the actual taking of the government or at the time of the judgment of the court, whichever
came first.” (Manotok v. NHA, Rule 67 Sec. 4 Rules of Court)

· Transfer of Title: payment of just compensation before title is transferred.

· Reckoning point of market value of property: either as of the date of taking or filing of the
complaint, whichever comes first
· Entitlement of interest:
◦ General Rule: when there is delay, there must be interest by way of damages (Art. 2209, CC)
◦ Exception: when waived by not claiming the interest
· Payment of Taxes : taxes paid from the time of the taking until the transfer of the title, during
which the owner did not enjoy any beneficial use of the property, are reimbursable by the
expropriator.

Essential requisites for the exercise of LGU of the power of expropriation

1. Enactment of ordinance
2. It must be for a public use, purpose or welfare, or for the benefit of the poor and the landless
3. The payment of just compensation
4. Its exercise must be preceded by a valid and definite offer made to the owner, who rejects the
same

LGUs must, before entering the property;

1. File a complaint for expropriation sufficient in form and in substance in the proper court
2. Deposit with the said court at least 15% of the property’s fair market value based on its current
tax declaration.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) has the jurisdiction over a complaint for eminent domain.
 UNLESS ABOVE 2-stage approach IS FOLLOWED, notice to expropriate will not justify immediate
taking; neither mere passing of an ordinance

NOT ONLY PHYSICAL LAND CAN BE TAKEN AWAY: In times of war, medicine and food
products can be taken away, to be paid later on.

· Right of the landowner in case of non-payment:

◦ General Rule: landowner is not entitled to recover possession of the property, but only to
demand payment
◦ Exception: when the government failed to pay just compensation within 5 years from the
finality of judgment in expropriation proceedings, there is a right to recover property

Page 10 of 24
 C. POWER OF TAXATION
 Without which the government will not have money to perform its mandate

 Enforced proportional contributions from persons and property, levied by the State by virtue
of its sovereignty, for the support of government, and for all public needs.

 PURPOSE: To raise revenue, and to regulate

Taxes vs Licenses
Tax License
– Power to Tax Does Not Include Power to – Power to Tax Includes Power to Destroy
Destroy where the tax is used solely for the when used validly as an implement of the police
purpose of raising revenues power in discouraging and in effect ultimately
prohibiting certain things or enterprises inimical
to public welfare
· to raise revenues · for regulatory purpose only
· justified under police power
· amount of fees required is usually limited to the
cost of regulation

 Limitations:
1. It should not be confiscatory unless intended as an instrument of the police power - e.g.,
80% of a person’s net income is oppressive; retroactive property tax to as long as 50
years is tyrannical and unrealistic
2. Not unconscionable – very burdensome to the taxpayers
3. Uniformity in taxation – means that persons or things belonging to the same class shall
be taxed at the same rate.
4. Progressive not regressive

 DOUBLE TAXATION
when additional taxes are laid on the same subject by the same taxing jurisdiction during the
same taxing period and for the same purpose. Not allowed if it results in violation of the equal
protection clause.

 TAX EXEMPTION
Are either constitutional or statutory.

 Scope
all income earned in the taxing state, whether by citizens or aliens, and all immovable and
tangible personal properties found in its territory, as well as tangible personal property owned by
persons domiciled therein

Page 11 of 24
IV. DUE PROCESS OF LAW
 Law of the land – the general law, a law [DANIEL WEBSTER]
1. which hears before it condemns
2. which proceeds upon inquiry
3. and renders judgment only after trial
 As long as the legislature willed it, it was the law of the land and therefore had to be obeyed.
 It has a DUAL aspect:
1. SUBSTANTIVE
2. PROCEDURAL

a. MEANING OF DUE PROCESS

 General rule is that the provisions of the Constitution should be precise and definite leaving
no room for ambiguity that may lead to controversies on their proper interpretation.
 But as for the DUE PROCESS clause, no attempt was made to spell out its meaning. To do
so is to CONSTRICT and PREVENT the judiciary from adjusting it to the CIRCUMSTANCES
of particular cases and to the EVER-CHANGING CONDITIONS of society. [Jose P. Laurel]
 DUE PROCESS therefore is DYNAMIC and RESILIENT, ADAPTABLE to every situation
calling for its application.
 DUE PROCESS is described as
[Justice Fernando] US Justice Frankfurter
1. Responsiveness to the supremacy of 1. Nothing more than and nothing less
reason than
2. Obedience to the dictates of justice 2. The embodiment of the sporting idea of
fair play

 DUE PROCESS is a GUARANTY against ARBITRARINESS on the part of the government,

whether committed by the legislature, the executive, or the judiciary.
1. If a person is unreasonably deprived of life, liberty and property, he is denied the
protection of due process
2. If unreasonable requirements dictate the enjoyment of his rights, due process is also
violated.
3. Unjustified withholding of a person’s right (that is based on the Constitution or any
statute) is a violation of due process.
4. Any government act that militates against the ordinary norms of justice or fair play is an
infraction of the guarantee of due process; this applies if it (a) involves violation of
procedure prescribed by law or (b) affects the validity of the law itself

 PERSON – DUE PROCESS clause protects all persons: NATURAL and ARTIFICIAL
1. Natural Persons – citizen and alien
2. Artificial Persons – corporation and partnerships in so far as their property is concerned;
as creature of law, their life and liberty as subject to the control of the legislature.

State is also entitled to due process of law.

Page 12 of 24
  DEPRIVATION – it means DENIAL of the RIGHT to life, liberty and property WITHOUT DUE
PROCESS OF LAW.
1. Constitutional deprivation of
a. life: (a) in defense of the state; (b) commission of heinous crime;
b. liberty: (a) a person with communicable disease is quarantined; (b) a criminal is
punished by imprisonment; (c) prohibition against carrying of unlicensed firearms; (d)
not allowing minors to drink alcohol; (d) passing of government exam as a
requirement to practice a profession
c. property: (a) private property that is offensive to the public welfare (a building on the
verge of collapse); (b) expropriation; (c) distraining or levying property in case of tax
delinquency
2. Unconstitutional/unlawful deprivation of
a. life: (a) disparity between crime and punishment; (b) execution of mentally or
physically handicapped people to preserve a race
b. liberty: (a) imprisonment without trial; (b) preventing people to criticize the
government (freedom of expression); (c) forcing to follow a particular religion
c. property: (a) if property is destroyed even if they are not noxious; (b) taken for public
use without just compensation; (c) if property is taken in an arbitraty manner
depriving the owner of lawful enjoyment

i. Right to Life
 Life includes the right of an individual to his body in its completeness, free from
dismemberment, and extends to the use of God-given faculties which make life enjoyable
[Justice Malcolm Malcolm, Philippine Constitutional Law, pp. 320-321; See Buck v. Bell, 274
US 200]
 Integrity of the physical person.
 The government is not permitted to
o deprive a person of any part of his body even as punishment for a crime, e.g.,
amputate if he is a thief; castrate if he is a rapist; etc.
o endanger a person’s health; subject to unnecessary pain; unreasonable physical
exertion
 Life is about allowing a person to enjoy all the God-given faculties that can make his life
worth-living
 Guaranty includes right to
o give full rein to all his natural attributes
o expand the horizons of his mind
o widen the reach of his capabilities
o enhance those moral and spiritual values that can make his life more meaningful and
rewarding
 Every human being enjoys the right to life. [Universal Declaration of Human Rights]
 Life commences upon conception, that is, upon fertilization. [Imbong vs Ochoa]

Page 13 of 24
 ii. Right to Liberty
 Liberty ―includes the right to exist and the right to be free from arbitrary personal restraint or
servitude.xxx (It) includes the right of the citizen to be free to use his faculties in all lawful
ways xxx‖ [Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro, 39 Phil 660]
 The freedom to do right and never wrong; it is ever guided by reason and the upright and
honorable conscience of the individual. [Mabini]
 It is not unbridled license; it is liberty regulated by law.
 Free to do as one pleases subject to limitations of the law; free to do anything that does not
offend the public welfare
 Exercising one’s right only when the same will not injure the rights of others; salus populi est
suprema lex

iii. Right to property

 Property is anything that can come under the right of ownership and be the subject of
contract. It represents more than the things a person owns; it includes the right to secure, use
and dis
 Anything that can come under the right of ownership and be the subject of contract: REAL,
PERSONAL, TANGIBLE and INTANGIBLE (lands, jewelry, automobiles, buildings, goodwiiil,
inheritance, intellectual creations, future earnings, works of art, animals, mortgages,
insurance proceeds, etc)
 Public office is not regarded as property; mere privileges such as a license to operate a
cockpit or liquor store are not property rights,
 “Vested Right” – consequence of the constitutional guaranty of due process that expresses a
present fixed interest which in right reason and natural justice is protected against arbitrary
state action

iv. Exclusions

Noted Exceptions to Due Process

(1) The conclusive presumption, bars the admission of contrary evidence as long as
such presumption is based on human experience or there is a rational connection
between the fact proved and the fact ultimately presumed therefrom.
(2) There are instances when the need for expeditious action will justify omission of
these requisites, as in the summary abatement of a nuisance per se, like a mad dog on
the loose, which may be killed on sight because of the immediate danger it poses to
the safety and lives of the people.
(3) Pornographic materials, contaminated meat and narcotic drugs are inherently
pernicious and may be summarily destroyed.
(4) The passport of a person sought for a criminal offense may be cancelled without
hearing, to compel his return to the country he has fled.
(5) Filthy restaurants may be summarily padlocked in the interest of the public health
and bawdy houses to protect the public morals. [Ynot vs. IAC (1987)]

While a day in court is a matter of right in judicial proceedings, in administrative proceedings

it is otherwise since they rest upon different principles. In certain proceedings, therefore, of
an administrative character, it may be stated, without fear of contradiction, that the right to a
notice and hearing are not essential to due process of law. Examples of special or summary
proceedings affecting the life, liberty or property of the individual without any hearing can
easily be recalled. Among these are the arrest of an offender pending the filing of charges;

Page 14 of 24
 the restraint of property in tax cases; the granting of preliminary injunction ex parte; and the
suspension of officers or employees by the Governor-General or a Chief of a Bureau
pending an investigation.

Again, for this petition to come under the due process of law prohibition, it would be
necessary to consider an office as "property." It is, however, well settled in the United States,
that a public office is not property within the sense of the constitutional guaranties of due
proces of law, but is a public trust or agency. In the case of Taylor vs. Beckham ([1899], 178,
U. S., 548), Mr. Chief Justice Fuller said that: "Decisions are numerous to the effect that
public offices are mere agencies or trust, and not property as such." The basic idea of
government in the Philippine Islands, as in the United States, is that of a popular
representative government, the officers being mere agents and not rulers of the people, one
where no one man or set of men has a proprietary or contractual right to an office, but where
every officer accepts office pursuant to the provisions of the law and holds the office as a
trust for the people whom he represents.

v. Preventive suspension
while preventive suspension is allowable for the causes therein enumerated, there is this
emphatic limitation on the duration thereof; 'In all cases, preventive suspension shall not
extend beyond sixty days after the start of said suspension.' Batas Pambansa Blg. 337,
Section 63 (2), last sentence. The first sentence reads as follows: "Preventive suspension
may be imposed at any time after the issues are joined, when there is reasonable ground to
believe that the respondent has committed the act or acts complained of, when the evidence
of culpability is strong, when the gravity of the offense so warrants, or when the continuance
in office of the respondent influence the witnesses or pose a threat to the safety and integrity
of the records and other evidence."

It is a basic assumption of the electoral process implicit in the right of suffrage that the
people are entitled to the services of elective officials of their choice. For misfeasance or
malfeasance, any of them could, of course, be proceeded against administratively or, as in
this instance, criminally. In either case, his culpability must be established. Moreover, if there
be a criminal action, he is entitled to the constitutional presumption of innocence. A
preventive suspension may be justified. Its continuance, however, for an unreasonable
length of time raises a due process question. For even if thereafter he were acquitted, in the
meanwhile his right to hold office had been nullified. Clearly, there would be in such a case
an injustice suffered by him. Nor is he the only victim. There is injustice inflicted likewise on
the people of Lianga. They were deprived of the services of the man they had elected to
serve as mayor. In that sense, to paraphrase Justice Cardozo, the protracted continuance of
this preventive suspension had outrun the bounds of reason and resulted in sheer
oppression. A denial of due process is thus quite manifest. It is to avoid such an
unconstitutional application that the order of suspension should be lifted.

Page 15 of 24
b. ASPECTS OF DUE PROCESS

i. Procedural due process

 Twin requirements of NOTICE and HEARING constitute the essential elements of due
process.

JUDICIAL DUE PROCESS

 4 requirements of procedural due process in JUDICIAL proceedings:

1. Impartial court or tribunal with judicial power to hear and determine the matter before it
 Must also appear to be impartial
 Must be a competent court, one which is vested with jurisdiction over a case as
conferred upon it by law (e.g., RTC being competent to try a prosecution for
murder, the MTC for violation for municipal ordinance, the CA to review ordinary
appealed cases involving only questions of fact, and the Supreme Court to review
a decision of the COA)
 The impartiality is also expected in the conduct of preliminary investigations,
exercising powers akin to those of a court
2. Jurisdiction lawfully acquired over the person of the defendant and over the property
which is the subject matter of the proceeding
 Action in personam
 Action in rem or quasi in rem
3. Defendant has the Right to be heard
 Notice to a party is essential; providing every person to explain his side;
reasonable opportunity to be heard
 a decision rendered without a hearing is null and void ab initio
 mere notice by publication of a hearing is insufficient and violative of due process
 due process is not violated where a person is not heard because he has chosen for
whatever reason not to be heard.

a. Appeal. Not essential to the right to hearing. Right to appeal applies to the following
(Article VIII, Section 5(2), Constitution):
1. All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international,
or executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order,
instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question
2. All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any
penalty imposed in relation thereto
3. All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue
4. All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or
higher
5. All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved

b. Exceptions to notice and hearing.

o Cancellation of the passport of a person sought for the commission of a crime
o Preventive suspension of a civil servant facing administrative charges
o Distraint of properties for tax delinquency
o Padlocking of restaurants found to be insanitary or of theaters showing
obscene movies

Page 16 of 24
 o Issuance of temporary protection orders
o Writs of preliminary attachment or possession
o Abatement of nuisances.
i. Nuisance per se: objectionable under any and all circumstances because it
presents an immediate danger to the welfare of the community
ii. Nuisance per accidens: objectionable only under some but not all
circumstances, there being situations where it is legitimate and acceptable.
right thing in the wrong place.. can be abated only upon judicial
authorization.. ONLY COURTS OF LAW HAVE THE POWER TO
DETERMINE WHETHER A THING IS A NUISANCE.

o Presumptions.

4. Judgment is rendered upon lawful hearing

 No decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and
distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based. [Article VIII, Section 14,
Constitution]
 Rationale: losing party is entitled to know why he lost, so he may appeal to a higher
court

ADMINISTRATIVE DUE PROCESS

 Notice and hearings are dispensable in administrative investigations; they are NOT essential
to due process of law
 Trial-type proceedings are not always required under due process. Pleadings, memoranda,
written explanations, oral arguments, position papers are sufficient. WHAT IS IMPORTANT
IS THAT A PARTY IS GIVEN A CHANCE TO DEFEND HIS INTEREST IN DUE COURSE.
 PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION is a component part of due process.

 5 requirements of procedural due process educational institutions must follow.

The minimum standards set by the Court to satisfy the demands of procedural due process
are:

1. The students must be informed in writing of the nature and cause of any accusation
against them
2. They shall have the right to answer the charges against them with the assistance of
counsel, if desired
3. They shall be informed of the evidence against them
4. They shall have the right to adduce evidence in their own behalf
5. The evidence must be duly considered by the investigating committee or official
designated by the school authorities to hear and decide the case. (PSBA vs. Alcuaz)

ii. Substantive due process

 Requires the intrinsic validity of the law in interfering with the rights of the person to his life,
liberty and property.
 It is about whether or not the law is a proper exercise of legislative power. [procedural due
process: whether or not the law is being enforced in accordance with the prescribed manner]

Page 17 of 24
  2 Requirements:
(i) must have a valid governmental objective, that is, interests of the general public require
the intervention of the state.
(ii) The objective must be pursued in a lawful manner, and not oppressive, that is, the means
employed must be reasonably related to the accomplishment of the purpose
 Tests in determining whether or not a governmental measure is compliant with the basic
requirements of substantive due process [White light corporation vs City of Manila]: 2
standards of judicial review:
(i) Strict scrutiny of laws dealing with freedom of the mind or restricting the political process;
and
(ii) Rational basis standard of review for economic legislation

iii. OLD SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS (Protection for Property Interests)

If all that the due process clause requires is proper procedure, then life, liberty, and property can be
destroyed provided proper forms are observed. Such an interpretation, evidently, makes of the due
process clause a totally inadequate protection for personal and property rights.

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.

The requirement of substantive due process, however, is not a rigid concept. The heart of substantive
due process is the requirement of “reasonableness,” or absence of exercise of arbitrary power. These
are necessarily relative concepts which depend on the circumstances of every case.

Page 18 of 24
 iv. Protected Interests in Property
Mere “Regulation” under the Due Process Clause vs. “Taking” of Property via the Power of Eminent
Domain

REGULATION TAKING
Power of the Police Power Eminent Domain
State
Objective Uphold public welfare/interest Public Use
Just Not required Required
Compensation
Property Property interest is merely Property interest is appropriated and
Interest restricted/regulated because continued applied to PUBLIC USE/PURPOSE
unrestricted use would be injurious to
the public welfare/interest
Right of Use of property by the owner was Permanent deprivation of the right to
ownership to limited, but NO aspect of the property use own property; title may or may not
property was USED BY or FOR the PUBLIC be transferred to the expropriating
authority (e.g. People vs Fajardo does
not involve transfer of title)

POLICE POWER EMINENT DOMAIN

Due Process 1. there is “regulation” of private 1. there is “taking” of private
Requirements property (property may still be used property (owner can no longer use
for other purposes) the property)
2. private property must be “imbued 2. the taking must be for “public use”
with public interest” 3. there must be “just compensation”
3. regulation must be for public
purpose or interest

Republic Act No. 8974, otherwise known as an "Act to facilitate the acquisition of right-of-way, site or
location for national government infrastructure projects."

Section 5. Standards for the Assessment of the Value of the Land Subject of Expropriation
Proceedings or Negotiated Sale. - In order to facilitate the determination of just compensation, the
court may consider, among other well-established factors, the following relevant standards:

(a) The classification and use for which the property is suited;

(b) The developmental costs for improving the land;

(c) The value declared by the owners;

(d) The current selling price of similar lands in the vicinity;

(e) The reasonable disturbance compensation for the removal and/or demolition of certain
improvement on the land and for the value of improvements thereon;

(f) This size, shape or location, tax declaration and zonal valuation of the land;

Page 19 of 24
Churchill vs. Rafferty (Police Power/Regulating Nuisances)

 State interference with the use of private property may be exercised in three ways:
o taxation – where the individual receives the equivalent of the tax in the form of protection or
benefit he receives from the government as such
o eminent domain – where he receives the market value of the property taken from him)
o police power – where the benefits he derives are only such as may arise from the maintenance
of a healthy economic standard of society and is often referred to as damnum absque injuria

US vs. Toribio

 Police power rests upon public necessity and upon the right of the state and of the public to self-
protection
 Justification of state Regulation:
o Public interest
o Means are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose
o Means/method is not unduly oppressive upon individuals
o Legislative determination of what is proper exercise of police power is not final or conclusive,
but is subject to court supervision
 Principal yardstick against which such exercise must be measured are the due process clause and the
equal protection clause

v. Taking under Eminent Domain vs Taking Under the Social Justice

Clause

Traditional Concept of Eminent Domain “Taking” under Social Justice Clause

 Eminent domain is usually taken to mean  “The State shall promote social justice in all phases
as “the ultimate right of the sovereign of national development.” (1987 Constitution, Art. 2
power to appropriate, not only public but Sec. 10). Bernas says that the framers of the
the private property of all citizens within constitution recognizing the urgency of promoting
the territorial sovereignty for public social justice included a whole chapter on the
purpose.” (Charles River Bridge v. subject (i.e. Art. 13).
Warren Bridge).
 The 1987 Constitution expressly  Hence “Congress shall give highest priority to the
provides for this power but imposes enactment of measures that protect and enhance
certain limits: “Private property shall not the right of all the people to human dignity, reduce
be taken for public use without just social, economic and political inequalities, and
compensation.” (Article 3, sec. 9) remove cultural iniquities by diffusing wealth and
 However, eminent domain is one of the 3 political power for the common good. To this end,
inherent powers of a state, to which it the State shall regulate the acquisition, ownership,
owes its very existence depends. use, and disposition of property and its
Actually, it is a power that need not be increments.” (Art. XIII, Sec. 1) Specifically, the
granted by any constitution. 1987 charter calls on the state to undertake
 “[T]he provisions now generally found in agrarian land reform (Art. XIII, Sec.4) and urban
modern constitutions of civilized land reform and promote housing developments
countries to the effect that private (Art XIII, Sec. 9).
property shall not be taken for public use
without compensation have their origin in  The Court in Sumulong v. Guerero, quoting J.
the recognition of a necessity for Cruz’ textbook in political law, explained that the
restraining the sovereign and protecting preceding provisions emphasize “the stewardship
the individual.” (Visayan Refining Co. v concept, under which property is supposed to be
Camus) held by the individual only as a trustee for the
people in general, who are the real owners.”

Page 20 of 24
SOCIAL JUSTICE
1. is "neither communism, nor despotism, nor atomism, nor anarchy,"
2. but the humanization of laws and the equalization of social and economic forces by the State
3. so that justice in its rational and objectively secular conception may at least be approximated.
4. Social justice means
a. the promotion of the welfare of all the people,
b. the adoption by the Government of measures calculated to insure economic stability of all the
competent elements of society,
i. through the maintenance of a proper economic and social equilibrium in the
interrelations of the members of the community, constitutionally,
ii. through the adoption of measures legally justifiable, or extra-constitutionally,
iii. through the exercise of powers underlying the existence of all governments on the
time-honored principle of salus populi est suprema lex.
5. Social justice, therefore, must be founded on the recognition of the necessity
a. of interdependence among divers and diverse units of a society and
b. of the protection that should be equally and evenly extended to all groups as a combined
force in our social and economic life, consistent with the fundamental and paramount
objective of the state of promoting the health, comfort, and quiet of all persons, and
c. of bringing about "the greatest good to the greatest number."

vi. “New” Substantive Due Process: Protection for “Liberty” Interests in

Privacy

1. There are limits to the so-called ‘presumption of constitutionality’, especially where the liberty of a
person is concerned.
2. “A law which condemns, without hearing, all the individuals of a class to so harsh a measure as
the present because some or even many merit condemnation is lacking in the first principles of
due process.
3. While the state may protect itself from demonstrably inheritable tendencies of the individual which
are injurious to the society, the most elementary notions of due process would seem to require it
to take appropriate steps to safeguard the liberty of the individual by affording him, before he is
condemned to an irreparable injury to his person, some opportunity to show that he is without
such inheritable tendencies.

vii. Cardinal requirements of due process in administrative proceedings

In Ang Tibay vs. CIR, the Court laid down the 7 cardinal requirements in administrative
proceedings which essentially exercise a judicial or quasi-judicial function. These are:
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. Substantial evidence means such a reasonable evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion

5. The decision must be based on the evidence presented at the hearting or at least contained in
the record and disclosed to the parties affected
6. The tribunal or body of any of its judges must act on its own independent consideration of the law
and facts of the controversy and not simply accept the views of a subordinate
7. The Board or body should, in all controversial questions, render its decision in such manner that
the parties to the proceeding can know the various issues involved and the reason for the
decision rendered.

Page 21 of 24
Also the Court has set down the procedure which educational institutions must follow. Due
process in disciplinary cases involving students does not entail proceedings and hearings similar to those
prescribed for actions and proceedings in courts of justice. The proceedings in student discipline cases
may be summary; and cross-examination is not an essential part thereof. The minimum standards set by
the Court to satisfy the demands of procedural due process are:

6. The students must be informed in writing of the nature and cause of any accusation against them
7. They shall have the right to answer the charges against them with the assistance of counsel, if
desired
8. They shall be informed of the evidence against them
9. They shall have the right to adduce evidence in their own behalf
10. The evidence must be duly considered by the investigating committee or official designated by
the school authorities to hear and decide the case. (PSBA vs. Alcuaz)

It is a general rule that the notice and hearing are not essential to the validity of administrative body acts
in the exercise of executive, administrative or legislative functions; but where public administrative body
acts in a judicial or quasi-judicial matter, and its acts are particular and immediate rather than general and
prospective, the person whose rights or property may be affected by the action is entitled to notice and
hearing (PHILCOMSAT vs. Alcuaz).

viii. Due process in Labor cases

 To meet the requirements of due process in the dismissal of an employee, an
employer must furnish the worker with two written notices: (1) a written notice
specifying the grounds for termination and giving to said employee a reasonable
opportunity to explain his side and (2) another written notice indicating that, upon due
consideration of all circumstances, grounds have been established to justify the
employer's decision to dismiss the employee
 The twin requirements of notice and hearing constitute the essential elements of due
process in the dismissal of employees. It is a cardinal rule in our jurisdiction that the
employer must furnish the employee with two written notices before the termination
of employment can be effected: (1) the first apprises the employee of the particular
acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought; and (2) the second informs the
employee of the employers decision to dismiss him. The requirement of a hearing,
on the other hand, is complied with as long as there was an opportunity to be
heard, and not necessarily that an actual hearing was conducted.

Page 22 of 24
ix. Due process in criminal cases

Void-for-Vagueness Doctrine Overbreadth Doctrine

The void-for-vagueness doctrine holds that “a The overbreadth doctrine assumes that
law is facially invalid if men of common individuals will understand what a statute
intelligence must necessarily guess at its prohibits and will accordingly refrain from that
meaning and differ as to its application”. behavior, even though some of it is protected.
It decrees that governmental purpose may
not be achieved by means which sweep
unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the
area of protected freedoms.
1. Due Process requires that the terms of a 1. A penal statue is unconstitutional if its
penal statute must be sufficiently explicit to language is so broad that it unnecessary
inform those who are subject to it what interferes with the exercise of constitutional
conduct on their part will render them liable to rights, even though the purpose is to prohibit
its penalties. activities that the government may
constitutionally prohibit.
2. The Doctrine that a penal; statute is
unconstitutional if it does not reasonably 2. A statute is overbroad where it operates to
provide a person on notice as to what the inhibit the exercise of individual freedoms
person may not do, or what the person is guaranteed by the constitution, such as the
required to do. As a rule a statue maybe said freedom of religion or speech. When it
to be vague when it lacks comprehensible includes within its coverage not only
standards that “men of common intelligence unprotected activity but also activity protected
must necessarily guess at its meaning and by the constitution.
differ as to its application” It is repugnant to
the constitution in two aspects: (a) it violates
due process for failure to accord persons, 3. This principle applies more to felonies or
especially the parties targeted by it, fair notice offenses which conflict with the freedom of
of the conduct to avoid and (b) it leaves law expression and association such as
enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out prosecution for libel, inciting to rebellion or
its provisions and become an arbitrary flexing sedition, and violation of the Election Code.
of the government muscle.
3. However an act will be declared void and
inoperative on the ground of vagueness and
uncertainty, only upon a showing that the
defect is such that the courts are unable to
determine, within any reasonable degree of
certainty, what the legislature intended
A statute may be said to be vague if it lacks
comprehensible standards that men “of
common intelligence must necessarily guess
at its meaning and differ as to its
application.” It is repugnant to the
Constitution because:
1. It violates due process for failing to
accord persons fair notice of the conduct
to avoid;
2. It gives law enforcers unbridled
discretion in carrying it out.

Page 23 of 24
The first level of scrutiny, rational basis scrutiny, requires only that the purpose
of the legislative or executive act not be invidious or arbitrary, and that
the acts classification be reasonably related to the purpose. Rational basis
scrutiny is applied to legislative or executive acts that have the general
nature of economic or social welfare legislation. While purporting to set
limits, rational basis scrutiny in practice results in complete judicial
deference to the legislature or executive. Thus, a legislative or executive
act which is subject to rational basis scrutiny is for all practical purposes
assured of being upheld as constitutional.

The second level of scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, requires that the

purpose of the legislative or executive act be an important governmental
interest and that the acts classification be significantly related to the
purpose. Intermediate scrutiny has been applied to classifications based
on gender and illegitimacy.The rationale for this higher level of scrutiny
is that gender and illegitimacy classifications historically have resulted
from invidious discrimination. However, compared to strict scrutiny,
intermediate scrutinys presumption of invidious discrimination is more
readily rebutted, since benign motives are more likely to underlie
classifications triggering intermediate scrutiny.

The third level of scrutiny is strict scrutiny. Strict scrutiny requires that
the legislative or executive acts purpose be a compelling state interest and
that the acts classification be narrowly tailored to the purpose. Strict
scrutiny is triggered in two situations: (1) where the act infringes on a
fundamental right; and (2) where the acts classification is based on race or
national origin. While strict scrutiny purports to be only a very close
judicial examination of legislative or executive acts, for all practical
purposes, an act subject to strict scrutiny is assured of being held
unconstitutional. (Citations omitted.)

Page 24 of 24