art iii sec 1 reviewer due process

8/12/2019 Art III Sec 1 Reviewer Due Process

1/38

DUE PROCESS CLAUSE

(Section 1)


2/38

1. Person

! protects both citizensand aliens! protects artificial personsinsofar as their propertyis concerned

2. Deprive

!To take away forcibly, to prevent from possessing, enjoying orusing something

! Deprivation per se is not unconstitutional;what is prohibited isdeprivation without due process of law

Due Process Clause (Section 1)


3/38

3. Life

! Right to be alive! Right to refuse lifesaving hydration and nutrition by a competent person.

No person can assume the choice for the incompetent person in absenceof the formalities by the Living Will Statute or clear and convincing

evidence. (Cruzan vs Director)

! Right to security of ones limb! Right to a good life! Life of the unborn

! Article II, sec. 12 is not self-implementing

4.



4/38

4. Liberty

! Freedom to actin whatever way one pleases within the boundsof law

! Right to labor, contract, choose ones employment andlocomotion (Rubi-1934)

! Right to privacy! Possession of obscene materials in private is allowed vis--vis public

possession and display of such obscene materials (Stanley vs. Georgia)

! No right to bear arms! Only those authorized by law can bear arms (Chavez vs Executive

Secretary)



5/38

5. Property! Anything that can come under the right of ownership and be the

subject of contract

! Vested Right:! perfected mining claim! Homestead! Final judgement! Pilotage license is a vested right, must be cancelled or removed

through a hearing (Corona vs United Harbor Pilots Assoc.)

! Historical landmarks must undergo due process (Army Navy)! Corporations right to guard trade secrets from rivals (Duncan

Association vs Glaxo)

! Pension plans as part of terms of employment (GSIS vsMontesclaros)

! Military retirees who lose their Filipino citizenship dont receivebenefits (Parreno)



6/38

5. Property! Includes ones employment, profession, trade or calling

" order of preventive suspension without hearing (Crespo 1988)" Mandatory suspension of public official pending criminal prosecution

(Libanan-1999)

! License to operate a cockpit- aprivilege, withdrawable when publicinterest requires

! Certificate ofpublic convenience! Garment export quota

" Privilege evolving into property rights (American Inter fashion 1991)



7/38

6. Due Process

a. History

1. England

2. United States

! Bill of Rights - 1st 10 Amendments (1791)! 5th Amendment - Federal Government!

14th Amendment - States (1868)

b. Characteristics

! procedural and substantive fairness! elastic concept



8/38

c. Substantive Due Process

! requirement of reasonableness or absence of arbitrariness! lawful subject and lawful method! Vagueness"Cannot be clarified by either a saving clause or by construction

(De La Piedra 2001)

d. Procedural Due Process! a law which hears before it condemns! varying procedural requirements



9/38

! Non-criminal cases/Civil Cases:1. Court or tribunal with judicial power to hear and determine the matter before it2. Jurisdiction lawfully acquired over defendant or property3. Defendant must be given an opportunity to be heard4. Lawful hearing

! Criminal cases! Cases involving students (Non vs Judge Dames)

1. Student must be informed in writing of nature and cause of any accusation against them2. Right to answer charges with assistance of counsel if needed3. Shall be informed of the evidence against them4.

Right to adduce evidence on their own behalf5. Evidence must be duly considered by the investigating committee

! Extradition Proceedings (Secretary vs Judge Lantion)1. Accused has no right of access to evidence during the executive phase, only during the

judicial phase.



10/38

! Deportation Proceedings! Criminal proceedings are applicable although it is not in nature (Lao Gi alias Chia Jr. vs

CA)

! Administrative cases: (Fabella vs Court of Appeals)1. Right to actual or constructive notice of the institution of proceedings which may affect a

respondents legal rights

2. Real opportunity to be heard personally or with the assistance of counsel to presentwitnesses and evidence in ones favor, and to defend ones rights,

3. Tribunal with competent jurisdiction4. Finding with substantial evidence made known to parties affected5. *Publication may be necessary if purpose is to enforce or implement existing law

pursuant also to a valid delegation (Republic vs Pilipinas Shell)! Quasi judicial vs quasi legislative

! Notice and hearing is required in quasi judicial proceedings (e.g. Summary DismissalBoard vs. Torcita; Philcomsat vs Alcuaz)



11/38

Cases in which notice and hearing dispensed with:

1. cancellation of passport of person sought for a crime;2. Preventive suspension of a civil servant facing

administrative charges;

3. Distraint of property for tax delinquency;4. Padlocking of restaurants found unsanitary; and5. Abatement of nuisanceper se.



12/38

7. Recent Cases! Due Process may be dispensed with in certain instances:(1) in proceedings where there is an urgent need forimmediate action(e.g., nuisance per se, preventive

suspension of public servant facing administrative action,padlocking of filthy restaurants and cancellation of passportsought for criminal prosecution);

(2) when there is tentativeness of administrative actionwhere respondent will enjoy right to notice and hearing at alater time (e.g., evaluation stage of extradition process); and

(3) where the rights have not been claimed (waiver)(Lantion-2000)



13/38

! If no prima facie finding in extradition proceeding, judge maydismiss. If there is finding, judge should issue warrant (US -2002)

! If bail can be granted to deportation cases, there is no reasonwhy it cannot be invoked in extradition cases- clear andconvincing evidence standard (Olalia 2007)

! Classification of property into landmarks requires substantiveand procedural due process (Army and Navy Club 1997)

! Pre-evaluation cancellation of harbor pilot licenses violative ofdue process (Corona -1997)

! Right to counsel is not indispensable to due process unlessrequired by the Constitution or by law (Lumiqued -1997)



14/38

! Teacher in school administrative proceeding has right to counsel (Gonzales1999)

! Vagueness doctrine merely requires a reasonable degree of certainty; overbreadth and vagueness doctrine not applicable to penal statutes but only tofree speech cases (Estrada -2001)

# Company policy against employees marrying employees of competitorcompanies sustained (Duncan 2004)

# Employees have vested rights in mandatory pension plan (GSIS 2004) # Rule against contact visits of detainees upheld (In the Matter of the Petition for

Habeas Corpus 2005)

# No constitutional right to bear arms (Chavez 2004)#A respondent in an administrative case is entitled only to the decision not the

findings and recommendations of an investigating committee (Pefianco 2000)



15/38


16/38

A. If analyzed literally, limitation relates solely to procedure

! Slaughterhouse Case - due process only a protectionagainst procedural unfairness

B. Growth (1890s to 1930s)

! Lochner v. New York (1905)

- Invalidation of New York Law which limited the hourswhich a bakery employee could work to 10 per day and60 per week on the ground that it abridged liberty of

contract

Substantive Due Process in

the United States


17/38

- not a valid labor law (cannot readjust bargaining

power unless bakers were not as intelligent as other

workers or needed unusual protection)

- not a valid safety or health measure since bakersare not an especially endangered group and longer

working hours did not affect quality of goods

! Rationale- Natural RightsTheory

- Laissez Faire

- Social Darwinism


the United States


18/38

C. Decline (Late 1930s)

- FDRs New Deal Program resulted in greater

deference to legislative intervention in economic affairs- Separation of powers

D. Rebirth (Late 1960s)

- Fundamental rights

- Right to privacy (sex and marriage)

- Right to personal autonomy (child bearing and child

rearing)


the United States


19/38

RIGHT

Non Fundamental! economic regulations! social welfare regulations

Fundamental

! right to privacy! right to personal autonomy

TEST

Mere Rationality! legitimate governmental

objective

! means rationally related toobjective

Strict Scrutiny

! governmental action isnecessary (not any less

restrictive means)! compelling governmental

objective is at stake


20/38

Fundamental Rights Cases

! Meyer (teaching of foreign languages)- right of teachers to teach

- right of students to acquire knowledge- right of parents

! Pierce (compulsory attendance of public schools)- right of parents to direct upbringing

- right of schools to property


21/38

! Buck v. Bell (sterilization)- three generations of imbeciles are enough

! Griswold (contraceptives)- several Bill of Rights provisions create a penumbra or

zone of privacy

- privacy implications of proof in prosecutions- problem with interpretivism



22/38

! Bowers (sodomy)! Stanley (reading obscene materials)

! Roe v. Wade (abortion)- invalidated on privacy grounds, Texasnearly-complete

ban on abortions

- provide trimestral approach to pregnancy



23/38

- Criticisms

* weighing of relative values* use of privacy

* precept of sufficient abstractedness

* judicial legislation



24/38

! Casey (1992)

- abortion no longer a fundamental right

- trimester approach overturned

- States may restrict abortion so long as they do not place

undue burdenson the womans right to choose

24 hour waiting period + informed consentparental consent

spousal notification



25/38

IV. EQUAL PROTECTION

CLAUSE (Section 1)


26/38

1. History

2. Definition

!All persons, under like circumstances and conditions, shallbe treated alike, both as toprivileges conferred andliabilities enforced

3. Characteristics

! no favoritism - among equals! embraced in the concept of due process! does not prohibit reasonable classifications! on its face / as applied

IV. Equal Protection Clause(Section 1)


27/38

4. Guarantees

! treat similar situated people similarly! treat not similarly situated people not similarly (e.g., handicapped

voters)

5. Reasonable Classification (People vs. Cayat)

a. Substantial Distinction

! Citizenship!

Age! Gender! Public Officers / Police (Farinas vs. Exec. Sec)! Cabinet members / Other appointive officials! Political rights

IV. Equal Protection Clause

(Section 1)


28/38

b. Germane to the purpose of the law> Prohibition of retired elected officials (65 yrs. and above) from running for the

same position they retired from, is not germane to the purpose of the law tointroduce new blood into the political system

(Dumlao v. Comelec, J. Teehankee dissent)

> Tax incentives for businesses in the Subic Special EconomicZone for the purpose of attracting investors is germane to thepurpose of RA 7227 (Tiu vs CA)

>City and Municipal Election officers of the Comelec were prohibited fromholding office in the same city or municipality for more than 4 years. Why notother Comelec officials? Legislature not required to adhere to a policy of all or

none; under inclusiveness is not an argument against a valid classification (De

Guzman - 2000)


(Section 1)


29/38

b. Germane to the purpose of the law> The creation of the Sandiganbayan and the power to appeal to the SC does not

violate the equal protection clause because it caters to a specific problem(dishonesty in public service) as a valid basis for classification. (Nunez vs

Sandiganbayan)

>A police officer under investigation may be preventively suspended beyond the90 day period applied for criminal and administrative cases and until the case is

decided because policemen to carry weapons which can be used to harass or

intimidate witnesses (Himagan vs People)


(Section 1)


30/38

c. Must not be limited to existing conditions only

> Although Ormoc Sugar Central is the only sugar factory inthe city, the imposed tax is not exclusive to it, classification isnot reasonable (Ormoc Sugar Central v. Ormoc)

> Legislative classification freeze provision does not violate the equalprotection clause as applied to the new cigarette brands for the practicalreason that at the time the law was made, the new brands did not existyet. (British American Tobacco vs Camacho)

d. Must apply equally to all members of the same class>Taxis 6 years or older are dropped as public utilities for purposes of

ensuring public safety on the roads. It was contended that it wasonly made applicable to taxis operating in Metro Manila. It wasonly made applicable in Manila in the beginning because of heavier traffic.

(Taxicab Operators v. BOT)


(Section 1)


31/38

d. Must apply equally to all members of the same class

> Concept of relative unconstitutionality in which the limitations on

employees of 7 government financial institutions except Central Bank

were removed. (Central Bank Employees vs Bangko Sentral)

> Legislation on prohibiting bartending by women is valid but not whenit only allows the wives and daughters of bar owners exclusively.(Goesartvs Cleary)


(Section 1)


32/38

! Difference between Print Media and Broadcast Media(TELEBAP -1998)

! Difference between rallying before Courts and rallying beforeExecutive and Legislative offices (In Re: Valmonte and ULAT-1998)

! Difference between elected official and ordinary citizen forpurposes of incarceration (Jalosjos -2000)

!Difference between foreign hires and local hires for aninternational school (International School - 2000)


(Section 1)


33/38

! Difference between poor v. rich insofar as the death penalty isconcerned (Mercado-2000)

!Difference between appointive and elective officials for purposes ofbeing deemed resigned upon filing of certificate of candidacy(Farinas 2003)

! With the passage of laws amending the charter of 7 GFIs removinglimitations on employees compensation, the continued operation ofthe limitation on CB employees constitute invidious discrimination;

a case of relative unconstitutionality (CB Employeescompensation2004)

! Difference between motorcycles and other motor vehicles (Mirasol 2006)

IV. Equal Protection Clause(Section 1)


34/38

Equal Protection Clause

(Section 1)

- Over and Under-inclusive Classifications

! trait !connection !legislative goal! goal is either prevention of harm or furthering of

a goal


35/38


(Section 1)

STATUTE : Police to retire at 50

PURPOSE : To keep police free of officers with poor

health

i. Perfect fit

ii. Perfect lack of correlation

iii. Under-inclusive

iv. Over-inclusivev. Over and under-inclusive


36/38


(Section 1)- Three Levels of Review

Classification

# Fundamental Rights (right tovote, access to courts and

interstate travel)

#Suspect Classification (race,national origin, alienage)

Level of Review

# Strict Scrutiny (necessary topromote a compelling

governmental interest)


37/38


(Section 1)Classification

# Semi-suspect Classification(gender and illegitimacy)

# None of the above

Level of Review

# Middle level (substantiallyrelated to an importantgovernmental objective)

# Mere rationality(classification bears a rationalrelationship to a legitimate

governmental objective)


38/38

V. SEARCH ANDSEIZURE CLAUSE

art iii sec 1 reviewer due process

Documents