due process clause - consti ii

8/9/2019 Due Process Clause - Consti II

1/12

DUE PROCESS CLAUSE

I. Case Title: MAYOR ANTONIO J. VILLEGAS, PETITIONER, VS. HIU CHIONG TSAI PAOHO AND JUDGE FRANCISCO ARCA, RESPONDENTS.

II. Topic: Due Process Clause; Elements; Person

III. Facts:The controverted Ordinance No. 65! "as passed #$ the %unicipal &oard o' %anila on Fe#ruar$ (()

*+6, and si-ned #$ the herein petitioner %a$or ntonio /. 0ille-as o' %anila on %arch (!) *+6,. 1(2

3ection * o' said Ordinance No. 65! 142 prohi#its aliens 'rom #ein- emplo$ed or to en-a-e orparticipate in an$ position or occupation or #usiness enumerated therein) "hether permanent)temporar$ or casual) "ithout rst securin- an emplo$ment permit 'rom the %a$or o' %anila and pa$in-the permit 'ee o' P5. e7cept persons emplo$ed in the diplomatic or consular missions o' 'orei-n

countries) or in the technical assistance pro-rams o' #oth the Philippine 8overnment and an$ 'orei-n-overnment) and those "or9in- in their respective households) and mem#ers o' reli-ious orders orcon-re-ations) sect or denomination) "ho are not paid monetaril$ or in 9ind.

0iolations o' this ordinance is punisha#le #$ an imprisonment o' not less than three months tosi7 6 months or ne o' not less than P*. #ut not more than P(. or #oth such ne andimprisonment) upon conviction.152vOn %a$ 4) *+6,) private respondent


2/12

* Tri#$ Co%rt: Buled in 'avor o' the de'endantBespondent /ud-e issued the "rit o' preliminar$ in=unction and on 3eptem#er *!) *+6, rendered

=ud-ment declarin- Ordinance No. 65! null and void and ma9in- permanent the "rit o' preliminar$in=unction.

( S%re&e Co%rt:The trial court did not commit the errors assi-ned.The contention that Ordinance No. 65! is not a purel$ ta7 or revenue measure #ecause its

principal purpose is re-ulator$ in nature has no merit. Ahile it is true that the rst part "hich re@uiresthat the alien shall secure an emplo$ment permit 'rom the %a$or involves the e7ercise o' discretionand =ud-ment in the processin- and approval or disapproval o' applications 'or emplo$ment permitsand there'ore is re-ulator$ in character) the second part "hich re@uires the pa$ment o' P5. asemplo$ees 'ee is not re-ulator$ #ut a revenue measure. There is no lo-ic or =ustication in e7actin-P5. 'rom aliens "ho have #een cleared 'or emplo$ment. It is o#vious that the purpose o' theordinance is to raise mone$ under the -uise o' re-ulation.

T'e P().)) *ee is %nre#son#+$e not on$ +e-#%se it is e-essi/e +%t +e-#%se it *#i$s to-onsi!er /#$i! s%+st#nti#$ !i0eren-es in sit%#tion #&on1 in!i/i!%#$ #$iens 2'o #re re3%ire!to # it. A$t'o%1' t'e e3%#$ rote-tion -$#%se o* t'e Constit%tion !oes not *or+i!-$#ssi4-#tion, it is i&er#ti/e t'#t t'e -$#ssi4-#tion s'o%$! +e +#se! on re#$ #n!s%+st#nti#$ !i0eren-es '#/in1 # re#son#+$e re$#tion to t'e s%+5e-t o* t'e #rti-%$#r$e1is$#tion.The same amount o' P5. is #ein- collected 'rom ever$ emplo$ed alien) "hether he iscasual or permanent) part time or 'ull time or "hether he is a lo"l$ emplo$ee or a hi-hl$ paide7ecutive.

Ordinance No. 65! does not la$ do"n an$ criterion or standard to -uide the %a$or in the e7erciseo' his discretion. It has #een held that "here an ordinance o' a municipalit$ 'ails to state an$ polic$ orto set up an$ standard to -uide or limit the ma$ors action) e7presses no purpose to #e attained #$re@uirin- a permit) enumerates no conditions 'or its -rant or re'usal) and entirel$ lac9s standard) thuscon'errin- upon the %a$or ar#itrar$ and unrestricted po"er to -rant or den$ the issuance o' #uildin-

permits) such ordinance is invalid) #ein- an undened and unlimited dele-ation o' po"er to allo" orprevent an activit$ per se la"'ul.1*2

Ordinance No. 65! is void #ecause it does not contain or su--est an$ standard or criterion to -uidethe ma$or in the e7ercise o' the po"er "hich has #een -ranted to him #$ the ordinance.The ordinance in @uestion violates the due process o' la" and e@ual protection rule o' the Constitution.

Re3%irin1 # erson +e*ore 'e -#n +e e&$oe! to 1et # er&it *ro& t'e Cit M#oro* M#ni$# 2'o 2it''o$! or re*%se it #t 2i$$ is t#nt#&o%nt to !enin1 'i& t'e +#si- ri1'to* t'e eo$e in t'e P'i$iines to en1#1e in # &e#ns o* $i/e$i'oo!.Ahile it is true that thePhilippines as a 3tate is not o#li-ed to admit aliens "ithin its territor$) once an alien is admitted) hecannot #e deprived o' li'e "ithout due process o' la". This -uarantee includes the means o' livelihood.T'e s'e$ter o* rote-tion %n!er t'e !%e ro-ess #n! e3%#$ rote-tion -$#%se is 1i/en to #$$ersons, +ot' #$iens #n! -iti6ens.

C#se Tit$e:&uc9 v. &ell) (!4 .3. ( *+(!.

Toi-:Due Process Clause; Elements; i'e

F#-ts:

This is a "rit o' error to revie" a =ud-ment o' the 3upreme Court o' ppeals o' the3tate o' 0ir-inia armin- a =ud-ment o' the Circuit Court o' mherst Count$ #$ "hich thede'endant &ell) the superintendent o' the 3tate Colon$ 'or Epileptics and Fee#le %inded) "asordered to per'orm the operation o' salpin-ectom$ upon Carrie &uc9) the plaintiG) 'or thepurpose o' ma9in- her sterile.

(" P a - e > D u e P r o c e s s


3/12

Carrie &uc9 is a 'ee#le minded "hite "oman "ho "as committed to the 3tate Colon$

a#ove mentioned in due 'orm. 3he is the dau-hter o' a 'ee#le minded mother in the sameinstitution) and the mother o' an ille-itimate 'ee#le minded child. 3he "as ei-hteen $ears oldat the time o' the trial o' her case in the Circuit Court) in the latter part o' *+(4. n ct o'0ir-inia) approved %arch () *+(4) recites that the health o' the patient and the "el'are o'societ$ ma$ #e promoted in certain cases #$ the steriliHation o' mental de'ectives) undercare'ul sa'e-uard) that the steriliHation ma$ #e eGected in males #$ vasectom$ and in 'emales#$ salpin-ectom$) "ithout serious pain or su#stantial dan-er to li'e.

The statute then enacts that) "henever the superintendent o' certain institutions)includin- the a#ove>named 3tate Colon$) shall #e o' opinion that it is 'or the #est interests o'the patients and o' societ$ that an inmate under his care should #e se7uall$ steriliHed) he ma$have the operation per'ormed upon an$ patient aicted "ith hereditar$ 'orms o' insanit$)im#ecilit$) J on compl$in- "ith the ver$ care'ul provisions #$ "hich the act protects thepatients 'rom possi#le a#use.

* Petitioners Contention:

The operation o' salpin-ectom$) as #$ the statute authoriHin- the =ud-ment is void#ecause it violates her constitutional ri-ht o' #odil$ inte-rit$) den$in- to the plaintiG dueprocess o' la" under the Constitution.

i9e"ise this court in the case o' Munn v. Illinois 94 US 143 denes 7!eri/#tion o*$i*e8 #s 7t'e in'i+ition #1#inst its !eri/#tion eten!s to #$$ t'ose $i&+s #n!*#-%$ties + 2'i-' $i*e is en5oe!. T'e !eri/#tion not on$ o* $i*e +%t 2'#te/er Go!'#s 1i/en to e/erone 2it' $i*e is rote-te! + t'e ro/ision in 3%estion.8

The operation o' salpin-ectom$ clearl$ comes "ithin the denition. It is a sur-icaloperation consistin- o' the openin- o' the a#dominal cavit$ and the cuttin- o' the 'allopian

tu#es "ith the result that sterilit$ is produced.

( Bespondents Contention:

D u e P r o c e s s


4/12

respect) the plaintiG in error has had due process o' la".

Iss%e:

Ahether or not the statute authoriHin- the de'endant to per'orm the operation o'salpin-ectom$ upon the plaintiG violates due process -uaranteed #$ the Constitution to thelatter.

Co%rt De-isions:

* o"er Court: Buled in 'avor o' the de'endant

( ppellate Court: Buled in 'avor o' the de'endant

* a. 3upreme Court:No) it does not violate due process. The attac9 is not upon the procedure) #ut upon the

su#stantive la". It seems to #e contended that in no circumstances could such an order #e=ustied upon the e7istin- -rounds.

The =ud-ment nds the 'acts that Carrie &uc9 9is t'e ro+#+$e otenti#$ #rent o*so-i#$$ in#!e3%#te o0srin1, $ie2ise #;i-te!, t'#t s'e +e se%#$$ steri$i6e!2it'o%t !etri&ent to 'er 1ener#$ 'e#$t', #n! t'#t 'er 2e$*#re #n! t'#t o* so-iet2i$$ +e ro&ote! + 'er steri$i6#tion,9 and thereupon ma9es the order. In vie" o' the-eneral declarations o' the le-islature and the specic ndin-s o' the Court) o#viousl$ "ecannot sa$ as matter o' la" that the -rounds do not e7ist) and) i' the$ e7ist) the$ =usti'$ theresult.

Ae have seen more than once that the pu#lic "el'are ma$ call upon the #est citiHens'or their lives. It "ould #e stran-e i' it could not call upon those "ho alread$ sap the stren-th

o' the 3tate 'or these lesser sacrices) o'ten not 'elt to #e such #$ those concerned) in order toprevent our #ein- s"amped "ith incompetence. It is #etter 'or all the "orld i') instead o'"aitin- to e7ecute de-enerate oGsprin- 'or crime or to let them starve 'or their im#ecilit$)societ$ can prevent those "ho are mani'estl$ unt 'rom continuin- their 9ind. The principlethat sustains compulsor$ vaccination is #road enou-h to cover cuttin- the Fallopian tu#es.Three -enerations o' im#eciles are enou-h.

ASPECTS S%+st#nti/e !%e ro-ess

Be@uires that the la" itsel') not merel$ the procedures #$ "hich the la" "ould #e en'orced) is 'air)reasona#le) and =ust.Re3%isites:< 0alid -overnmental o#=ective: interests o' the pu#lic in -eneral) as distin-uished 'rom those o'a particular class) re@uire the intervention o' the 3tateK Pursued in a la"'ul manner: means emplo$ed are reasona#l$ necessar$ 'or theaccomplishment o' the purpose and not undul$ oppressive on individuals.

=>ONG SING /. CITY OF MANILA

F#-ts: L"on- 3in- and other Chinese laundr$men "ho has -eneral and the same interest) led acomplaint 'or a preliminar$ in=unction. PlaintiGs @uestioned the validit$ o' en'orcin- Ordinance No. 5(#$ the cit$ o' %anila. Ordinance No. 5( re@uires that the receipt #e in duplicate in En-lish and3panish dul$ si-ned sho"in- the 9ind and num#er o' articles delivered #$ laundr$ d$ein- and cleanin-

4" P a - e > D u e P r o c e s s


5/12

esta#lishments. In the lo"er court) the pra$er o' the complaint "as 'or a preliminar$ in=unction)

a'ter"ards to #e made permanent) prohi#itin- the cit$ o' %anila 'rom en'orcin- Ordinance No. 5()and 'or a declaration #$ the court that the said ordinance "as null and void. The permanent in=unction"as denied #$ the trial court. The appellants claim is that Ordinance No. 5( is o' class le-islation;puttin- in mind that the$ are Chinese nationals. It un=ustl$ discriminates #et"een persons in similarcircumstances; and that it constitutes an ar#itrar$ in'rin-ement o' propert$ ri-hts. Their contention isalso that the ordinance is invalid) #ecause it is ar#itrar$) unreasona#le) and not =ustied under thepolice po"er o' the cit$

Iss%es:

* Ahether or Not the en'orcement o' Ordinance no) 5( is an act #e$ond the scope o' police po"er( Ahether or Not the en'orcement o' the same is a class le-islation that in'rin-es propert$ ri-hts.

He$!:Beasona#le restraints o' a la"'ul #usiness 'or such purposes are permissi#le under the police po"er.The police po"er o' the Cit$ o' %anila to enact Ordinance No. 5( authoriHes the municipal #oard o'the cit$ o' %anila:

l To re-ulate and 7 the amount o' the license 'ees 'or the 'ollo"in-: 7777 77777laundries 7777.ee To enact all ordinances it ma$ deem necessar$ and proper 'or the sanitation and sa'et$) the'urtherance o' the prosperit$) and the promotion o' the moralit$) peace) -ood order) com'ort)convenience) and -eneral "el'are o' the cit$ and its inha#itants.

The court held that the o#vious purpose o' Ordinance No. 5( "as to avoid disputes #et"eenlaundr$men and their patrons and to protect customers o' laundries "ho are not a#le to decipherChinese characters 'rom #ein- de'rauded. Considerin- that in the $ear *+(s) people o' %anila aremore 'amiliar "ith 3panish and ma$#e En-lish. In "hether the ordinance is class le-islation) the court held that the ordinance invades no'undamental ri-ht) and impairs no personal privile-e. The ordinance is neither discriminator$ nor

unreasona#le in its operation. It applies to all pu#lic laundries "ithout distinction) "hether the$ #elon-to mericans) Filipinos) Chinese) or an$ other nationalit$. ll) "ithout e7ception) and each ever$ one o'them "ithout distinction) must compl$ "ith the ordinance.

The means adopted must #e reasona#l$ necessar$ 'or the accomplishment o' the purpose andnot undul$ oppressive upon individuals. I' the ordinance appears to the =udicial mind to #e partial oroppressive) it must #e declared invalid. Findin- that the ordinance is valid) =ud-ment is armed) andthe petition 'or a preliminar$ in=unction is denied) "ith costs a-ainst the appellants .

YU CONG ENG et #$. /. TRINIDAD, Co$$e-tor o* Intern#$ Re/en%e, et #$. ?@ U.S. ())Ar1%e! Ari$ ?, B, ?. De-i!e! J%ne @, ?.

S%+st#nti/e !%e ro-essre@uires that the la" itsel') not merel$ the procedures #$ "hich the la" "ould #e en'orced) is 'air)reasona#le) and =ust.Re3%isites:

< 0alid -overnmental o#=ective: interests o' the pu#lic in -eneral) as distin-uished 'rom

those o' a particular class) re@uire the intervention o' the 3tate< Pursued in a la"'ul manner: means emplo$ed are reasona#l$ necessar$ 'or the

accomplishment o' the purpose and not undul$ oppressive on individuals.

F#-ts:The petitioner) Mu Con- En-) a chinese merchant en-a-ed in the "holesale lum#er #usiness in %anila)"as char-ed #$ in'ormation in the court o' rst instance o' %anila) "ith a violation o' ct (+!( Chinese&oo99eepin- ct that too9 eGect eGect until /anuar$ *) *+() "hich provides that 3ection * it shall #e

5" P a - e > D u e P r o c e s s


6/12

unla"'ul 'or an$ person) compan$) or partnership or corporation en-a-ed in commerce) industr$ or

an$ other activit$ 'or the purpose o' prot in the Philippine Islands) in accordance "ith e7istin- la") to9eep its account #oo9s in an$ lan-ua-e other than En-lish) 3panish or an$ local dialect.


7/12

o#viousl$ intended chie$ to aGect them as distin-uished 'rom the rest o' the communit$) is a denial

to them o' the e@ual protection o' the la"s. Ae hold the la" in @uestion to #e invalid. /ud-mentreversed.

C#se: I-'on1 /s. Hern#n!e6Toi-s: S%+st#nti/e D%e Pro-ess E3%#$ Prote-tion C$#%se De4nition S%+st#nti#$Distin-tion #n! Re$e/#ntGerne to t'e %rose o* t'e $#2F#-ts:ao Ichon- is a Chinese #usinessman "ho entered the countr$ to ta9e advanta-e o' #usinessopportunities herein a#ound then particularl$ in the retail #usiness. For some time he and his 'ello"Chinese #usinessmen en=o$ed a Qmonopol$R in the local mar9et in Pasa$. ntil in /une *+54 "henCon-ress passed the B **, or the Betail Trade NationaliHation ct. The said la" provides 'or aprohi#ition a-ainst 'orei-ners as "ell as corporations o"ned #$ 'orei-ners 'rom en-a-in- 'rom retailtrade in our countr$.Petitioner attac9s the constitutionalit$ o' the ct) contendin- that: * it denies to alien residents thee@ual protection o' the la"s and deprives o' their li#ert$ and propert$ "ithout due process o' la" ; (the su#=ect o' the ct is not e7pressed or comprehended in the title thereo'; the ct violatesinternational and treat$ o#li-ations o' the Bepu#lic o' the Philippines; 4 the provisions o' the cta-ainst the transmission #$ aliens o' their retail #usiness thru hereditar$ succession) and thosere@uirin- *S Filipino capitaliHation 'or a corporation or entit$ to entitle it to en-a-e in the retail#usiness) violate the spirit o' 3ections * and 5) rticle III and 3ection , o' rticle I0 o' theConstitution.

Iss%es:*. Ahether or not the ct violates the e@ual protection o' the la"sU(. Ahether or not the ct deprives resident aliens their li#ert$ and propert$ "ithout due process

o' la"U

R%$in1:*. No) it does not violate the e@ual protection o' the la"s. The e@ual protection o' the la" clause

Qdoes not demand a#solute e@ualit$ amon-st residents; it merel$ re@uires that all persons shall #e

treated ali9e) under li9e circumstances and conditions #oth as to privile-es con'erred and lia#ilities

en'orcedR; and) that the e@ual protection clause Qis not in'rin-ed #$ le-islation "hich applies onl$

to those persons 'allin- "ithin a specied class) i' it applies ali9e to all persons "ithin such class)

and reasona#le -rounds e7ist 'or ma9in- a distinction #et"een those "ho 'all "ithin such class and

those "ho do not.R

The mere 'act o' aliena-e is the root and cause o' the distinction #et"een the alien and thenational as a trader. The alien resident o"es alle-iance to the countr$ o' his #irth or his adoptedcountr$; his sta$ here is 'or personal convenience; he is attracted #$ the lure o' -ain and prot.


8/12

and temporar$) it "ould indeed #e ill>advised to continue entrustin- the ver$ important 'unction o'

retail distri#ution to his hands.The practices resorted to #$ aliens in the control o' distri#ution) their secret manipulations o'stoc9s o' commodities and prices) their utter disre-ard o' the "el'are o' their customers and o' theultimate happiness o' the people o' the nation o' "hich the$ are mere -uests) "hich practices)manipulations and disre-ard do not attend the e7ercise o' the trade #$ the nationals) sho" thee7istence o' real and actual) positive and 'undamental diGerences #et"een an alien and a national"hich 'ull$ =usti'$ the le-islative classication adopted in the retail trade measure. ThesediGerences are certainl$ a valid reason 'or the 3tate to pre'er the national over the alien in theretail trade. Ae "ould #e doin- violence to 'act and realit$ "ere "e to hold that no reason or-round 'or a le-itimate distinction can #e 'ound #et"een one and the other.

(. No. The due process clause has to do "ith the reasona#leness o' le-islation enacted in pursuance

o' the police po"er. Is there pu#lic interest) a pu#lic purpose; is pu#lic "el'are involvedU Is the ct

reasona#l$ necessar$ 'or the accomplishment o' the le-islatures purpose; is it not unreasona#le)

ar#itrar$ or oppressiveU Is there sucient 'oundation or reason in connection "ith the matterinvolved; or has there not #een a capricious use o' the le-islative po"erU Can the aims conceived

#e achieved #$ the means used) or is it not merel$ an un=ustied inter'erence "ith private

interestU These are the @uestions that "e as9 "hen the due process test is applied.The conict) there'ore) #et"een police po"er and the -uarantees o' due process and e@ual

protection o' the la"s is more apparent than real. Properl$ related) the po"er and the -uarantees

are supposed to coe7ist. The #alancin- is the essence or) shall it #e said) the indispensa#le means

'or the attainment o' le-itimate aspirations o' an$ democratic societ$. There can #e no a#solute

po"er) "hoever e7ercise it) 'or that "ould #e t$rann$. Met there can neither #e a#solute li#ert$) 'or

that "ould mean license and anarch$. 3o the 3tate can deprive persons o' li'e) li#ert$ and

propert$) provided there is due process o' la"; and persons ma$ #e classied into classes and

-roups) provided ever$one is -iven the e@ual protection o' the la". The test or standard) as al"a$s)

is reason. The police po"er le-islation must #e rml$ -rounded on pu#lic interest and "el'are) and

a reasona#le relation must e7ist #et"een purposes and means. nd i' distinction and classicationhas #een made) there must #e a reasona#le #asis 'or said distinction.

The la" in @uestion is deemed a#solutel$ necessar$ to #rin- a#out the desired le-islative

o#=ective) i.e.) to 'ree national econom$ 'rom alien control and dominance. It is not necessaril$

unreasona#le #ecause it aGects private ri-hts and privile-es. The test o' reasona#leness o' a la" is

the appropriateness or ade@uac$ under all circumstances o' the means adopted to carr$ out its

purpose into eGect Id. /ud-ed #$ this test) disputed le-islation) "hich is not merel$ reasona#le

#ut actuall$ necessar$) must #e considered not to have in'rin-ed the constitutional limitation o'

reasona#leness.I' political independence is a le-itimate aspiration o' a people) then economic independence is

none the less le-itimate. Freedom and li#ert$ are not real and positive i' the people are su#=ect to

the economic control and domination o' others) especiall$ i' not o' their o"n race or countr$. The

removal and eradication o' the shac9les o' 'orei-n economic control and domination) is one o' the

no#lest motives that a national le-islature ma$ pursue. It is impossi#le to conceive that le-islationthat see9s to #rin- it a#out can in'rin-e the constitutional limitation o' due process. The

attainment o' a le-itimate aspiration o' a people can never #e #e$ond the limits o' le-islative

authorit$.

PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS

Vint# M#riti&e Con / NLRCG.R. No. BJ#n%#r ?B,

," P a - e > D u e P r o c e s s


9/12

Toi-: Procedural Due Process t"in re@uirements: notice and hearin-

F#-ts:

eonides &asconsillo) private respondent) led a complaint "ith the Philippine Overseas Emplo$mentdministration IPOE 'or ille-al dismissal a-ainst 0inta %aritime Co. Inc. and El9ano 3hip%ana-ement) Inc. petitioners alle-ed that eonides "as dismissed 'or his -ross ne-li-ence andincompetent per'ormance as chie' en-ineer o' the %?0 &oraca$.

The POE ruled that private respondent "as ille-all$ dismissed. On appeal) the NBC armed thePOE. i9e"ise) the NBC denied the motion 'or reconsideration.


10/12

Petitioner transported 6 carac#aos 'rom %as#ate to Iloilo in *+,4 and these "er conscated #$the

station commander in &arotac) Iloilo 'or violatin- E.O. 6(6 "hich prohi#itstransportationo' a

cara#ao or cara#ee' 'rom one province to another. Conscation "ill #e a result o' this.

The petitioner sued 'or recover$) and the Be-ional Trial Court o' Iloilo Cit$ issued a "rit o' replevin

upon his lin- o' a supersedeas #ond o' P*().. 'ter considerin- the merits o' the case) the court

sustained the conscation o' the cara#aos and) since the$ could no lon-er #e produced) ordered the

conscation o' the #ond. The court also declined to rule on the constitutionalit$ o' the e7ecutive order)

as raise #$ the petitioner) 'or lac9 o' authorit$ and also 'or its presumed validit$.

The same result "as decided in the trial court.

In the 3upreme Court) he then petitioned a-ainst the constitutionalit$ o' the E.O. due to the outri-ht

conscation "ithout -ivin- the o"ner the ri-ht to heard #e'ore an impartial court as -uaranteed

#$ !%e ro-ess. He also challen-ed the improper e7ercise o' le-islative po"er #$ the 'ormer

president under mendment 6 o' the *+! constitution "herein %arcos "as -iven emer-enc$ po"ers

to issue letters o' instruction that had the 'orce o' la".

Iss%e:Is the E.O. constitutionalU

HELD:The EO is unconstitutional. Petition -ranted.

R#tio:

The lo"er courts are not prevented 'rom e7aminin- the constitutionalit$ o' a la".

Constitutional -rant to the 3upreme Court to revie"./ustice aurels said) QCourts should not 'ollo" the path o' least resistance #$ simpl$ presumin- the

constitutionalit$ o' a la" "hen it is @uestioned. On the contrar$) the$ should pro#e the issue more

deepl$) to relieve the a#scess) and so heal the "ound or e7cise the aiction.R

The challen-ed measure is denominated an e7ecutive order #ut it is reall$ presidential decree)

promul-atin- a ne" rule instead o' merel$ implementin- an e7istin- la" due to the -rant o' le-islative

authorit$ over the president under mendment num#er 6.

Provisions o' the constitution should #e cast in precise lan-ua-e to avoid controvers$. In the due

process clause) ho"ever) the "ordin- "as am#i-uous so it "ould remain resilient. This "as due to the

avoidance o' an Qiron rule Qla$in- do"n a stiG command 'or all circumstances. There "as e7i#ilit$ to

allo" it to adapt to ever$ situation "ith var$in- de-rees at protection 'or the chan-in- conditions.

Courts have also re'rained to adopt a standard denition 'or due process lest the$ #e conned to its

interpretation li9e a strait=ac9et.

There must #e re@uirements o' notice and hearin- as a sa'e-uard a-ainst ar#itrariness.

There are e7ceptions such as conclusive presumption "hich #ars omission o' contrar$ evidence as lon-

as such presumption is #ased on human e7perience or rational connection #et"een 'acts proved and

'act presumed. n e7amples is a passport o' a person "ith a criminal oGense cancelled "ithout

hearin-. The protection o' the -eneral "el'are is the particular 'unction o' police po"er "hich #oth

*" P a - e > D u e P r o c e s s
http://thedigester.blogspot.com/2012/02/javascript:void(0);http://thedigester.blogspot.com/2012/02/javascript:void(0);http://thedigester.blogspot.com/2012/02/javascript:void(0);


11/12

restrains and is restrained #$ due process. This po"er "as invo9ed in 6(6>) in addition to 6(6 "hich

prohi#its slau-hter o' cara#aos "ith an e7ception. Ahile 6(6> has the same la"'ul su#=ect as the

ori-inal e7ecutive order) it cant #e said that it complies "ith the e7istence o' a la"'ul method. The

transport prohi#ition and the purpose sou-ht have a -ap. 3ummar$ action ma$ #e ta9en in valid

admin proceedin-s as procedural due process is not =uridical onl$ due to the ur-enc$ needed to correct

it.

There "as no reason "h$ the oGense in the E.O. "ould not have #een proved in a court o'

=ustice "ith the accused ac@uired the ri-hts in the constitution.

The challen-ed measure "as an invalid e7ercise o' police po"er #ecause the method to conscate

cara#aos "as oppressive.

Due process "as violated #ecause the o"ner "as denied the ri-ht to #e heard or his de'ense

and punished immediatel$. This "as a clear encroachment on =udicial 'unctions and a-ainst the

separation o' po"ers. The policeman "asnt lia#le 'or dama-es since the la" durin- that time "as

valid.

JAVIER /. COMELEC

FACTS:/avier and Pacicador) a mem#er o' the L& under %arcos) "ere rivals to #e mem#ers o' the&atasan in %a$ *+,4 in nti@ue. Durin- election) /avier complained o' Qmassive terrorism) intimidation)duress) vote>#u$in-) 'raud) tamperin- and 'alsication o' election returns under duress) threat andintimidation) snatchin- o' #allot #o7es perpetrated #$ the armed men o' Pacicador.R CO%EEC =ustre'erred the complaints to the FP. On the same complaint) the (nd Division o' the Commission onElections directed the provincial #oard o' canvassers o' nti@ue to proceed "ith the canvass #ut to

suspend the proclamation o' the "innin- candidate until 'urther orders. On /une !) *+,4) the same (ndDivision ordered the #oard to immediatel$ convene and to proclaim the "inner "ithout pre=udice to theoutcome o' the case #e'ore the Commission. On certiorari #e'ore the 3C) the proclamation made #$the #oard o' canvassers "as set aside as premature) havin- #een made #e'ore the lapse o' the 5>da$period o' appeal) "hich the /avier had seasona#l$ made. /avier pointed out that the irre-ularities o' theelection must rst #e resolved #e'ore proclaimin- a "inner. Further) Opinion) one o' the Commissionersshould inhi#it himsel' as he "as a 'ormer la" partner o' Pacicador. lso) the proclamation "as made#$ onl$ the (nd Division #ut the Constitute re@uires that it #e proclaimed #$ the CO%EEC en #anc. InFe# *+,6) durin- pendenc$) /avier "as -unned do"n. The 3olicitor 8eneral then moved to have thepetition close it #ein- moot and academic #$ virtue o' /aviers death.

ISSUE: Ahether or not there had #een due process in the proclamation o' Pacicador.

HELD:The 3C ruled in 'avor o' /avier and has overruled the 3ol>8ens tenor. The 3C has repeatedl$and consistentl$ demanded Qthe cold neutralit$ o' an impartial =ud-eR as the indispensa#le imperativeo' due process. To #olster that re@uirement) "e have held that the =ud-e must not onl$ #e impartial #utmust also appear to #e impartial as an added assurance to the parties that his decision "ill #e =ust.The liti-ants are entitled to no less than that. The$ should #e sure that "hen their ri-hts are violatedthe$ can -o to a =ud-e "ho shall -ive them =ustice. The$ must trust the =ud-e) other"ise the$ "ill not-o to him at all. The$ must #elieve in his sense o' 'airness) other"ise the$ "ill not see9 his =ud-ment.Aithout such condence) there "ould #e no point in invo9in- his action 'or the =ustice the$ e7pect.

Due process is intended to insure that condence #$ re@uirin- compliance "ith "hat /usticeFran9'urter calls the rudiments o' 'air pla$. Fair pla$ calls 'or e@ual =ustice. There cannot #e e@ual=ustice "here a suitor approaches a court alread$ committed to the other part$ and "ith a =ud-ment

**" P a - e > D u e P r o c e s s


12/12

alread$ made and "aitin- onl$ to #e 'ormaliHed a'ter the liti-ants shall have under-one the charade o'

a 'ormal hearin-. /udicial and also e7tra=udicial proceedin-s are not orchestrated pla$s in "hich theparties are supposed to ma9e the motions and reach the denouement accordin- to a prepared script.There is no "riter to 'oreordain the endin-. The =ud-e "ill reach his conclusions onl$ a'ter all theevidence is in and all the ar-uments are led) on the #asis o' the esta#lished 'acts and the pertinentla".

PADERANGA V. AURA

FACTS: Paderan-a "as the ma$or o' 8in-oo- Cit$) %isamis Oriental. e7amination.

due process clause - consti ii

Documents