CHAPTER VIII: DUE PROCESS OF LAW• Origin of due process• It is traceable to prince john in 1215 “no man shall be

taken or imprisoned or disseized or outlawed, or in any manner destroyed; nor shall we go upon him, nor send upon him, but by lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.”

• Subsequently, in 1355, the more popular equivalent of the phrase “law of the land” was used the first time when in king Edward III’s statute 28, it was declared that “no man, of what state or condition whoever he be, shall be put out of his lands, or tenements, nor taken nor imprisoned, nor indicted, nor put to death, without he be brought in to answer by due process of law.”

EVOLUTION OF DUE PROCESSLaw of the land means the general law, a law which hears

before it condemns which proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgement only after trial. (Dartmouth College case, Daniel

Webster)This statement was in accord with the original understanding of the guaranty, which called only for the observance of the

procedure laid down by the law, regardless of its intrinsic validity.

When the due process guaranty was exported to the United States, however, it underwent a substantial transformation. A new form of government was established there providing for three separate branches among which legislative, executive

and judicial powers were distributed.

The safeguard as thus expanded is the due process guaranteed by our constitution, whose bill of rights was patterned after the

American constitution. Hence, as in the United States, due process of law in our country also has a dual aspect: the substantive and the

procedural.MEANING OF DUE PROCESS

Article III Section 1 of the Constitution provides:No person shall be deprived of life, liberty and property without due process of law nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of

the laws.There was no attempt to spell out the meaning of the due process

clause as suggested by Delegate Jose P. Laurel, chairman of the committee of the bill of rights in the 1934 constitutional convention. His reason was that a precise definition of due process might prove

constricting and prevent the judiciary from adjusting it to the circumstances or particular cases and to the ever changing conditions

of the society. This was accepted by the body.

Due process therefore continues to be dynamic and resilient, adaptable to every situation calling for its application.

As to the courts they had confine their specification in a legal strait jacket which provides “Gradually ascertained by the

process of inclusion and exclusion in the course of the decisions of cases as they rise.”

According to the Supreme Court speaking through justice Fernando, would describe due process merely as

“responsiveness to the supremacy of reason, obedience to the dictates of justice.”

According to the U.S. Supreme court speaking through Justice Frankfurter, would elaborate due process as “the

embodiment of the sporting idea of fair play.”Due process is a guaranty against any arbitrariness on the

part of the government, whether committed by the legislature, the executive or the judiciary.

If the law itself unreasonably deprives a person of his life or his liberty or his property, he is denied the protection of due process. If the enjoyment of his

rights is conditioned on an unreasonable requirement, due process is likewise violated.Any government act that militates against the

ordinary norms of justice or fair play is considered an infraction of the great guaranty of due process; and

this is true whether the denial involves violation merely of the procedure prescribed by the law or

affects the very validity of the law itself.

PERSONThe due process clause protects all persons,

natural as well as artificial.Natural person include both the citizen and the

alien.Artificial persons like corporations and

partnerships are also covered by the protection but only insofar as their property is concerned. The reason for the narrower scope is that the

life and the liberty of the artificial person, a s a creature of law, are derived from and therefore

subject to the control of the legislature.

DEPRIVATIONTo deprive is to take away forcibly, to prevent from

possessing, enjoying or using something. As applied to due process, deprivation connotes denial of the right

to life, liberty or property.Deprivation per se is not necessarily unconstitutional.

What is prohibited is deprivation of life, liberty or property without due process of law.

There would be unlawful deprivation if he were sentenced to death for conviction of a petty offense

as the disparity between crime and punishment would make the law unreasonable.

There is no unlawful deprivation of liberty where a person afflicted with a disease is confines in a hospital or

quarantines in his own home, or where a criminal is punished with imprisonment.

Conversely, it would be violative of due process if a person is imprisoned without trial, or is prevented from criticizing

the government in the exercise of his freedom of expression, or is forced to follow a particular religion.

Private property may be validly taken where it is offensive to the public welfare, like a building on the verge of

collapse, which may be demolished under the police power in the interest of the public safety. It may also be

expropriated, after payment of just compensation, so it may be devoted to some public use; or it may be distrained

and levied upon in case of tax delinquency of its owner.

LIFELife as understood in the due process clause connotes in the first place the integrity of the physical person.

The meaning is that it is not permissible for the government to deprive the individual of any part of his body, and this is true even if it be as punishment

for crime.Accordingly, it will be unlawful to amputate his hands if he is a thief or castrate him if he is a rapist or strike out his eyes for unjust vexation or cut off his tongue

for objectionable remarks he may have made.

Any measure that would even only endanger his health or subject him to unnecessary pain or to unreasonable

physical exertion would also be subject to challenge. Thus, in sustaining the law requiring the sterilization of incurable hereditary imbeciles, the U.S. supreme court observed in Buck v. Bell, that the operation only involved “a minimum

of pain, or none at all,” and did not endanger the imbecile’s life or health.

But according to our Supreme Court, “should not be dwarfed into mere animal existence.” In fact, the word

should embrace the enjoyment by the individual of all the god0given faculties that can make his life worth living.

LIBERTYAccording to mabini, “liberty is the freedom to do right

and never wrong.” Liberty, as guaranteed under the due process clause is not unbridled license; it is liberty

regulated by law.One’s own liberty must be enjoyed consistently with

the enjoyment of a like liberty by others. In other words, the individual, as a creature of society, should be prepared to surrender part of his freedom for the benefit of the greater number in recognition of the

time-honored principle of “salus populi est suprema lex.”

In order to illustrate, one’s freedom of expression cannot be used to unfairly

destroy another’s reputation, or to incite rebellion, or to offend public morals;

neither may he abuse the sanctity of his home by converting it into a den of

criminality or a hotbed of disease; nor may he insist on selling his goods at black

market prices, if they be prime necessities, to the detriment of the consuming public..

PROPERTYProperty is anything that can come under the right of ownership and be the subject of contract. This will include all things real, personal, tangible and intangible that are within the commerce of man, like

lands, jewellery, automobiles, buildings, goodwill, inheritance, intellectual creations, future earnings, works of art, animals,

mortgages, insurance proceeds, etc.One cannot have a vested right to a public office, as this is not

regarded as property. If created by statute, it may be abolished by the legislature at any time, even if the term of the incumbent therein

has not yet expired.The only exception is where the salary has already been earned, in

which case it cannot be reduced or withdrawn by a retroactive law as said salary has already accrued as a property right.

It has also been held that mere privileges, such as a license to operate a cockpit or a liquor store, are not property rights and are

therefore revocable at will.

SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESSSubstantive due process requires the intrinsic validity of the law in interfering with the rights of the person

to his life, liberty and property. The inquiry in this regard is not whether or not the

law is being enforced in accordance with the prescribed manner but whether or not, to begin with,

it is a proper exercise of legislative power.The law must have a valid governmental objective in

example the interest of the public generally as distinguished from those of a particular class require

the intervention of the state.

Furthermore, this objective must be pursued in a lawful manner, or in other words, the means employed must be reasonably related to the accomplishment of the purpose

and not duly oppressive.Justice Labrador declared: “the disputed law is deemed

absolutely necessary to bring about the desired legislative objective—to free the national economy from alien control and dominance. If political independence is a legitimate aspiration, then economic independence is

nonetheless legitimate. Freedom and liberty are not real and positive if the people are subject to the economic control and domination of others, especially if not of

their own race and country.”

“The law is reasonable,” he added. “It is made prospective and recognizes the rights and privileges

of those already engaged in the occupation to continue therein during the rest of their lives; and

similar recognition is accorded associations of aliens,” which were allowed a ten year period of grace within which to wind up their affairs in the retail trade and

transfer to other business.

PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESSThe essence of procedural due process is expressed in the

immortal cry of Themistocles to Eurybiades: Strike, but hear me first!” In more familiar words, the justice that procedural

due process guarantees, to repeat with Daniel Webster, is the one “which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon

inquiry and renders judgment only after trial.Our supreme court has held that “the twin requirements of notice and hearing constitute the essential elements of due

process and neither of these elements can be eliminated without running afoul of the constitutional guaranty.

REVISED RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Rules 110 to 127

[Effective December 1, 2000] CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

RULE 110 - PROSECUTION OF OFFENSESA.M. NO. 02-2-07-SC [Effective May 01, 2002]

Amendments to Section 5, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.

RULE 111 - PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTIONRULE 112 - PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATIONRULE 113 - ARRESTRULE 114 - BAILRULE 115 - RIGHTS OF ACCUSEDRULE 116 - ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEARULE 117 - MOTION TO QUASHRULE 118 - PRE-TRIALRULE 119 - TRIALRULE 120 - JUDGMENTRULE 121 - NEW TRIAL OR RECONSIDERATIONRULE

122 - APPEALRULE 123 - PROCEDURE IN THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTSRULE 124 - PROCEDURE IN THE COURT OF APPEALSRULE 125 -

PROCEDURE IN THE SUPREME COURTRULE 126 - SEARCH AND SEIZURERULE 127 - PROVISIONAL REMEDIES IN CRIMINAL CASES

JUDICIAL DUE PROCESS

1. There must be an impartial court or tribunal clothed with judicial power to hear and determine

the matter before it.2. Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the

person of the defendant and over the property which is the subject matter of the proceeding.

3.The defendant must be given an opportunity to be heard

4.Judgment must be rendered upon lawful hearing

IMPARTIAL and COMPETENT COURTIt is clear that a court affected by bias or prejudice cannot be

expected to render a fair and impartial decision. As our Supreme Court has declared, every litigant is entitled to the

cold neutrality of an impartial judge.By competent court is meant one vested with jurisdiction

over a case as conferred upon it by law. For example, a regional trial court is competent to try a prosecution for murder but not for violation of a municipal ordinance.

Only the Supreme Court is competent to review a decision on the Commission on Audit, but jurisdiction over ordinary

appealed cases involving only questions of fact is vested in the court of appeals.

JURISDICTIONIn actions in personam, such as a complaint for recovery of a loan, jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired by the court by his voluntary appearance or through service of summons upon him. This may be effected personally, or by substituted

service, or, in exceptional cases, by publication.In actions in rem or quasi in rem such as land registration

proceedings or the foreclosure of a real estate mortgage, the jurisdiction of the court is derived from the power it may

exercise over the property.

Jurisdiction over the person is not essential, provided the relief granted by the court is limited to such as

can be enforced against the property itself. Notice by publication is sufficient in these cases.

According to Cooley, “if the owners are named in the proceedings and personal notice is provided for, it is rather from the tenderness to their interests, and in

order to make sure that the opportunity for a hearing shall not be lost to them, than from any necessity that

the case shall assume that form.”

HEARINGNotice to a party is essential to enable it to adduce its own evidence and to meet and refute the evidence submitted by the other party.

Every litigant is entitled to his day in court. He has a right to be notified of every incident of the proceeding and to be present at

every stage thereof so that he may be heard himself and counsel for the protection of hi interests.

As held in David v. Aquilizan, a decision rendered without a hearing is null and void ab initio and may be attacked directly or

collaterally.“If it otherwise,” the Supreme Court declared, “then the cardinal requirement that no party should be made to suffer in person or

property without being given a hearing would be brushed aside. The doctrine consistently adhered to by this court when such a question

arises. . . .os that a denial of due process suffices to cast on the official act taken by whatever branch of the government the

improcess of nullity.”

Due process is not violated where a person is not heard because he has chosen, for whatever reason, not to be heard.

If he opts to be silent where he has a right to speak, he cannot later be heard to complain that he was unduly

silenced.The Supreme Court has held, however, that:

Due process as a constitutional precept does not, always and in all situations, requires trial-type proceedings. The essence

of due process is to be found in the reasonable opportunity to be heard and to submit any evidence one may have in

support of one’s defense “To be heard” does not only mean verbal arguments in court. One may be heard also through pleadings. Where opportunity

to be heard, either through oral arguments or pleadings, is accorded, there is no denial of procedural due process.

APPEALThe right to appeal is not essential to the right to a hearing.

The legislature itself cannot deprive him of the right to appeal in those cases coming under the minimum appellate jurisdiction of the

Supreme Court as specified in Article VIII, Section 5 (2), of the Constitution, to wit:

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.

EXCEPTIONSThere are cases in which the essential requisites of notice and hearing may be omitted without violation of due process. The

examples are the following cancellation of the passport of a person sought for the commission of a crime, the preventive suspension of a

civil servant facing administrative charges, the distraint of p[ropertie4s for tax delinquency, the padlocking of restaurants found

to be insanitary or of theatres showing obscene movies and the abatement of nuisances per se.

NUISANCESA nuisance is objectionable under any and all circumstances because

it presents an immediate danger to the welfare of the communityThis kind of nuisance may be abated summarily, that is, without the necessity of judicial authorization. The classic example is that of a

mad dog running loose, which can be killed on sight, regardless of its value, because of the threat it poses to the safety and lives of the

people.

A nuisance per accidens is objectionable only unders some but not all circumstances, there being situations when it is perfectly legitimate

and acceptable. It has been described as “the right in the wrong place,” like a patis factory in a residential area.

The rule is that it may be abated only upon judicial authorization as it is difficult to ascertain or identify this kind of nuisance. The

exception, as announced in Lawton v. Steele, is where the legislature has authorized its summary abatement, provided the nuisance per

accidens is of trifling value only.PRESUMPTIONS

Would a statutory presumption deny the right to a hearing insofar as the person affected is precluded from introducing evidence to rebut the presumption? The accepted view is that it would not, provided

there is a rational or natural connection between the fact proved and the fact ultimately presumed from such fact.

As long as the presumption is based on human experience, as where a child born within one hundred eighty days of the marriage is

presumed legitimate if the husband, before such marriage, knew of the pregnancy of the wife, it will be deemed not violative of due

process.JUDGMENT

The right to a hearing would be meangless if in the end the judge could disregard the evidence adduced by the parties and decide the

case on the basis of his own unsupported conclusions.To insure against such arbitrariness, due process requires that the judgment be based upon the lawful hearing previously conducted.

And to augment this requirement, Article VIII, Section 14, of the Constitution provides that “no decision shall be rendered by any

court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based.”

2) ADMINISTRATIVE DUE PROCESSIn administrative proceedings, the requisites of

procedural due process are the following: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

5.The decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and

disclosed to the parties affected.6.The tribunal or body or any of its judges must act on its or

his own independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy and not simply accept the views of a subordinate

in arriving at a decision.7.The board or body should, in all controversial questions,

renders its decision in such a manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the various issues involved, , and the

reason for the decision rendered