Chapter 8

Due process of law means fairness before punishment.

Even in the Bible, this idea already existed. When Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, God
did not punish them right away. Instead, God first asked Adam, “Where are you?”—this gave
Adam notice that something was wrong. Then God asked, “Did you eat the forbidden fruit?”—
this gave Adam a chance to explain or be heard.

This shows the two basic elements of due process:

1. Notice – being informed of the accusation

2. Hearing – being given a chance to explain or defend oneself

Because even God observed these steps before judging, it shows that justice and fairness
require notice and hearing before punishment.

Origin of Due Process

Historically, due process came from England, specifically from the Magna Carta of 1215. The
English barons forced King John to agree that the king could not punish people arbitrarily. The
Magna Carta declared that no person could be arrested, imprisoned, deprived of property, or
punished unless it was done according to the law or through the judgment of equals (peers).

Later, in 1355, during the reign of King Edward III, the phrase “due process of law” was used
for the first time. The law stated that no person, regardless of status, could lose life, liberty, or
property unless they were properly charged and given a chance to answer in court.

Since then, due process of law has stood as a powerful principle protecting life, liberty, and
property against unfair and arbitrary government actions in all free societies.

Evolution of Due Process

Originally, due process of law simply meant following whatever procedure the law required. In
the famous Dartmouth College Case, Daniel Webster explained that the “law of the land” was a
law that hears a person before condemning him and gives judgment only after trial. At that
time, it did not matter whether the law itself was fair or reasonable—as long as the procedure
set by law was followed, due process was considered satisfied.

In England, Parliament was supreme. Its laws could not be questioned by the King or the
courts. Therefore, even if a law allowed something unreasonable—like trial by combat—
denying an accused that procedure would still violate due process, because it was part of the
“law of the land.”
When due process was brought to the United States, its meaning changed and expanded. The
U.S. adopted a system with three equal branches of government: legislative, executive, and
judicial. Because of this, the courts—led by Chief Justice John Marshall—claimed the power
to review laws passed by Congress and decide whether they were valid or constitutional.

As a result, due process became more than just proper procedure. It also became a limit on the
legislature itself, meaning that unjust or unreasonable laws can be struck down. This gave
rise to the two aspects of due process:

1. Procedural due process – fairness in the steps and procedures

2. Substantive due process – fairness in the law itself

This dual concept of due process is what is guaranteed under our Constitution, which was
patterned after the American Constitution.

Meaning of Due Process

The Constitution states that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without
due process of law. However, the Constitution does not clearly define what due process
means.

During the 1934 Constitutional Convention, there was a proposal to give a precise definition of
due process. This was rejected by Jose P. Laurel, who explained that defining it too strictly
might limit the courts’ ability to adjust the concept to different situations and changing social
conditions. Because of this, due process was intentionally left flexible.

As a result, due process is dynamic and adaptable. Its meaning develops over time through
court decisions, rather than being fixed in a single definition. Courts prefer this approach so they
are not restricted by a narrow interpretation when deciding cases.

Our Supreme Court has described due process as acting according to reason and justice.
Similarly, U.S. Justice Frankfurter called it the idea of fair play. These definitions are broad on
purpose, allowing judges enough freedom to apply due process fairly in different cases.

In essence, due process protects people from arbitrary actions by the government, whether
done by the legislature, the executive, or the judiciary. Due process is violated when:

• A law itself is unreasonable or unjust

• A person’s rights are subject to unreasonable conditions
• Rights granted by the Constitution or by statute are unjustifiably denied
• Government actions go against justice and fair play

Whether the problem lies in the procedure used or in the law itself, any act that violates fairness
and justice is considered a violation of due process of law.
Person

The due process clause protects all persons, whether natural or artificial.

Natural persons include both citizens and aliens. Even though the State has the power to
decide whether to admit aliens into the country, once an alien is allowed to stay, the
government cannot deprive him of life or livelihood without due process of law. In Villegas
v. Hiu Chong, the Supreme Court struck down a city ordinance that required aliens to get a
mayor’s work permit before they could be employed. The Court ruled that due process
protection extends to an alien’s right to earn a living.

Artificial persons, such as corporations and partnerships, are also protected by due process,
but only with respect to their property rights. This is because artificial persons are created by
law, and their existence and freedoms depend on the legislature. They do not possess life or
liberty in the same sense as natural persons.

Deprivation

To deprive means to take away or prevent a person from enjoying or using something. In
due process, deprivation refers to the denial of a person’s life, liberty, or property.

Deprivation by itself is not unconstitutional. What the Constitution prohibits is deprivation

without due process of law.

Deprivation of life may be valid in certain cases, such as when a person is required to defend the
State or when the law imposes the death penalty for a serious crime. However, deprivation
becomes unlawful if the punishment is grossly disproportionate, like sentencing a person to
death for a minor offense. Laws that allow the execution of mentally or physically disabled
persons would also be arbitrary and unconstitutional, even if claimed to serve public welfare.

Deprivation of liberty is lawful in many situations, such as:

• Quarantine or hospital confinement due to a communicable disease

• Imprisonment after conviction of a crime
• Prohibiting unlicensed firearms
• Restricting minors from drinking alcohol
• Requiring government examinations before practicing a profession

However, deprivation of liberty violates due process if:

• A person is imprisoned without trial

• A person is prevented from criticizing the government
• A person is forced to follow a particular religion
Deprivation of property may also be lawful. Property may be:

• Destroyed if it is dangerous to public safety (police power)

• Taken for public use with just compensation (eminent domain)
• Seized for tax delinquency

But deprivation of property is unlawful if:

• Property is destroyed even though it is not harmful

• Property is taken without just compensation
• Regulations are so arbitrary that they deprive the owner of its proper use

In one case, the Supreme Court struck down a city ordinance that prohibited construction on
residential land because it blocked the view of a public plaza, ruling that it was confiscatory and
violative of due process.

In short, due process allows deprivation only when it is reasonable, lawful, and fair.

Life

Under the due process clause, the right to life first of all means the physical integrity of the
person. The government cannot lawfully take away or damage any part of a person’s body,
even as punishment for a crime. Thus, punishments such as cutting off a thief’s hands,
castrating a rapist, blinding a person, or cutting off someone’s tongue for offensive
speech are unconstitutional.

Any government act that endangers a person’s health, causes unnecessary pain, or
imposes unreasonable physical suffering may also violate due process. In Buck v. Bell, the
U.S. Supreme Court upheld a law allowing sterilization because the procedure involved little or
no pain and did not endanger life or health.

However, life under due process is not limited to mere physical survival. Our Supreme Court
has ruled that life should not be reduced to mere animal existence. Instead, it includes the right
to enjoy all God-given faculties that make life meaningful.

This means a person has the right to:

• Develop his natural talents

• Expand his intellectual abilities
• Improve his moral and spiritual values
• Live a full and meaningful life

Included in this right is the right to reproduce and to enjoy the privileges and responsibilities
of parenthood.
In short, life under due process means not just staying alive, but living with dignity,
wholeness, and purpose.

Liberty

Liberty, according to Apolinario Mabini, means the freedom to do what is right and not what
is wrong. Under the due process clause, liberty is not absolute. It is freedom regulated by
law.

A person is free to act, but he must exercise his rights in a way that does not harm others.
One person’s liberty must be balanced with the equal liberty of others. Since individuals live in
society, they must be willing to give up some personal freedom for the common good,
following the principle that the welfare of the people is the supreme law(salus populi est
suprema lex).

For example:

• Freedom of expression cannot be used to destroy another person’s reputation, incite

rebellion, or offend public morals
• The right to privacy or home cannot justify turning a house into a place for crime or the
spread of disease
• Economic freedom cannot include selling basic necessities at black-market prices that
harm the public

Subject only to reasonable legal restrictions, a person remains free to live as he chooses. He
may:

• Marry for love or for practical reasons

• Choose any profession or kind of work
• Start a business or work for others
• Live alone or socialize with the community
• Practice a religion or choose not to believe in any

In short, liberty under due process is the freedom to live one’s life as one wishes, as long as
it does not harm society or violate the rights of others.

Property

Property includes anything that a person can legally own, control, or use, and that can be the
subject of a contract. This covers all kinds of property, whether:

• Real or personal
 • Tangible or intangible

Examples include land, jewelry, vehicles, buildings, goodwill, inheritance, intellectual creations,
future earnings, works of art, animals, mortgages, and insurance proceeds.

However, public office is not considered property. A person has no vested right to hold a
public office. If the office was created by law, the legislature may abolish it at any time, even
before the official’s term ends. The salary attached to the office may also be reduced or
withdrawn without violating due process, even if this causes hardship to the office-holder.

The exception is when the salary has already been earned. Once earned, it becomes a property
right and cannot be taken away by a retroactive law.

Similarly, mere privileges are not property rights. Licenses to operate businesses like
a cockpit or liquor store are privileges that may be revoked by the government. There is
also no vested right to:

• The continued existence of a law (which the legislature may repeal or amend)
• A judicial doctrine (which the Supreme Court may modify or reverse)

Such changes are valid even if they negatively affect persons who relied on the old law or
doctrine.

In short, property under due process covers legally owned rights and interests—but not
public office, privileges, or expectations that depend solely on government discretion.

Substantive Due Process

Substantive due process looks at the intrinsic fairness and validity of a law itself, not just
whether it is enforced correctly. It asks: Is the law a proper exercise of government power?

For a law to pass substantive due process:

1. It must serve a valid public purpose, benefiting the community, not just a particular
group.
2. The means used to achieve this purpose must be reasonable and not oppressive.

Examples:

• In Nebbia v. New York, a law setting a minimum price for milk was upheld. Without it,
competition would have forced dairy companies to cut costs in ways that hurt public
health.
• By contrast, a law setting railroad rates that did not allow a reasonable return on
investment was struck down as unfair.
Language ordinances and business rules:

• In Kwong Sing v. City of Manila, a law requiring laundry receipts in English or Spanish
was upheld because it protected the public from deception, even though it increased
costs for the laundries.
• In Yu Cong Eng v. Trinidad, a law prohibiting Chinese merchants from using
Chinese characters was struck down. Chief Justice Taft noted that the law
was oppressive, as it prevented merchants from keeping proper business records
and threatened their livelihood.

The difference:

• Kwong Sing: Required certain languages but did not prohibit others → reasonable.
• Yu Cong Eng: Prohibited all other languages → unreasonable and oppressive.

Economic regulation:

• In Ichong v. Hernandez, the Supreme Court upheld the Retail Trade Nationalization
Law, which limited alien participation in retail trade. The law was valid because it served
a legitimate public purpose: promoting economic independence. The law
was prospective and allowed aliens time to adjust, balancing public interest with private
rights.

Key point:
Substantive due process ensures that laws themselves are fair, reasonable, and serve a
legitimate public purpose. A law that is arbitrary, oppressive, or excessively burdensome on
life, liberty, or property violates substantive due process, even if the procedure is properly
followed.

Procedural Due Process

Procedural due process ensures that a person is given a fair procedure before being punished
or deprived of life, liberty, or property. As the saying goes: “Strike, but hear me first!”—or
in Daniel Webster’s words, it is “the law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds
upon inquiry and renders judgment only after trial.”

The two essential elements of procedural due process are:

1. Notice – the person must be informed of the charges or actions against them
2. Hearing – the person must be given an opportunity to respond and defend themselves

Both are mandatory, and skipping either violates the constitutional guarantee.
Judicial impartiality is also part of procedural due process. Judges must be disqualified in
cases where:

• They or their family have a financial interest

• They are related to either party
• They were previously involved as executor, guardian, counsel, or in a lower court
ruling
• There is hostility or bias toward the parties

Courts are also limited by jurisdiction. Only a competent court (one authorized by law) can
hear a case:

• Example: A regional trial court can try murder cases, but not municipal ordinance
violations
• Supreme Court can review Commission on Audit decisions, while Court of
Appeals handles ordinary appeals on factual matters

Key idea: Procedural due process is about fair notice, fair hearing, impartial judges, and
proper jurisdiction, ensuring that justice is done before any punishment or deprivation
occurs.

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction is the authority of a court to hear and decide a case. How it is acquired depends on
the type of case:

1. Actions in personam – cases directed against a person, like a complaint to recover a

loan:
o The court gets jurisdiction over the defendant by:
§ Voluntary appearance of the defendant, or
§ Service of summons (personally, substituted service, or in rare cases,
publication)
2. Actions in rem or quasi in rem – cases directed against property, like land registration
or mortgage foreclosure:
o The court’s jurisdiction comes from its power over the property, not the person.
o Personal notice to the owner is not essential; notice by publication is usually
enough.
o This works because property is presumed to be under the control of the owner
or agent, who is expected to know that legal proceedings are happening.

As Cooley explained, giving personal notice in these cases is mainly to protect the owner’s
interests and ensure they have the opportunity for a hearing, not because it is strictly
necessary for the court to proceed.
In short:

• In personam → jurisdiction over the person

• In rem/quasi in rem → jurisdiction over the property

Hearing

is the practical application of your "day in court." It ensures that everyone has the right to be
notified of legal proceedings and to be present at every stage to protect their interests. If a court
makes a decision without giving a person the chance to be heard—such as in David
v. Aquilizan, where a decision made without a hearing was declared completely void—the law
treats that judgment as if it never existed. This protection is so strong that, as seen in Lorenzana
v. Cayetano, a person cannot be forced to follow a court order (like a demolition notice) if they
were never made a formal party to the original lawsuit.

The court cases mentioned highlight that while the right to be heard is sacred, it is
an opportunity that must be used responsibly. You cannot claim a denial of due process if you
were the cause of the delay or silence. For example:

• Waiver of Rights: In cases like Lobete v. Sundiam and Marvel Bldg. Corp. v. Ople,
the Court ruled that if you lose your chance to speak because of your own neglect or
because you ignored a scheduled hearing, you can't complain later.
• Avoiding the Law: In Ablaza v. CIR, the petitioners tried to hide from legal notices; the
Court ruled they were still "heard" because the opportunity was provided and they chose
to dodge it.
• Silence is not a Defense: In People v. Beriales, the Court set aside a conviction because
a judge rushed to judgment while a reinvestigation was still pending, but it reminded
everyone that if a person chooses to stay silent when they have the right to speak, they
cannot claim they were "silenced."

Finally, the law clarifies that "being heard" doesn't always require a face-to-face
trial. In Vallodolid v. Inciong, it was ruled legal to decide a case based only on written "position
papers" to save time. Similarly, in Marcos v. Garchitorena, the Court explained that you don't
always need to be physically present; your right to confront your accusers can be handled by
your lawyer through cross-examination. Ultimately, as long as you are given a reasonable
opportunity to submit evidence—whether through talking in court or filing written
documents—due process is satisfied.
Right to Appeal

is not actually a natural part of due process. You aren't automatically entitled to a second round
in a higher court just because you lost. As long as you had your "day in court" during the initial
trial, the requirements of due process are technically met. The legislature (the law-making body)
has the power to decide whether an appeal is allowed or not in most situations.

However, there are two major exceptions to this rule:

1. If the Law allows it: If there is a law that says you can appeal, the government cannot
randomly block you from doing so. Once that right is granted by law, denying it becomes
a violation of due process.
2. Constitutional "Must-Haves": The Constitution lists specific, serious cases that
the Supreme Court must be allowed to review. The legislature cannot take these away.
These include:
o Constitutional Issues: Disputes over whether a law, treaty, or presidential decree
is valid.
o Taxes: Cases involving the legality of taxes, tolls, or penalties.
o Jurisdiction: Questions about whether a lower court had the legal authority to
hear a case.
o Severe Penalties: Criminal cases where the punishment is life imprisonment
(reclusion perpetua) or higher.
o Pure Questions of Law: Cases where the facts are clear, but there is a dispute
over how the law should be applied.

A good example of this is Calano v. Cruz. In that case, someone tried to stop an appeal
regarding a local election, arguing that the Election Code didn't allow it. However, the Supreme
Court rejected that argument. Because the appeal was about a "pure question of law," the Court
ruled that its power to review such cases is "irreducible"—meaning the legislature cannot take
that power away, even through the Election Code.

Exceptions:

there are specific situations where the government can act immediately without giving you
notice or a hearing first. This usually happens when there is an urgent need to protect public
safety, health, or the law. Examples include canceling the passport of a fugitive, suspending a
government worker facing charges, or closing down a restaurant that is so dirty it poses a health
risk. In these cases, the "hearing" effectively happens after the action is taken because waiting for
a trial would cause too much harm.

The text breaks these exceptions down into two main categories:

1. Nuisances (Public Annoyances or Dangers)

A "nuisance" is something that interferes with the rights of the public. The law treats them in two
ways:

• Nuisance per se: This is something that is dangerous under any condition. The classic
example is a "mad dog" (rabid dog) loose in the streets. Because it’s an immediate threat
to life, it can be stopped (abated) "summarily"—meaning on the spot, without a court
order.
• Nuisance per accidens: This is something that is usually legal but is a problem because
of where it is located (like a smelly fish sauce factory in the middle of a quiet
neighborhood). Because it’s not always obvious if it’s a nuisance, you usually need a
court’s permission to shut it down. The only exception is if the item is worth very little
money and the law specifically allows for it to be removed quickly.

2. Presumptions

Sometimes the law "presumes" a fact is true based on another proven fact. For example, if a man
marries a woman knowing she is pregnant, the law automatically presumes the child is his. The
Court says this does not violate due process as long as there is a logical, "common sense"
connection between the two facts. As long as the presumption is based on real human
experience, it is considered a fair shortcut in a legal proceeding rather than a denial of your right
to be heard.

Judgment

is the final result of the legal process, and for it to be valid, it must be based on the evidence
presented during the trial. A judge cannot simply ignore the facts and make a decision based on
their own personal opinions. To prevent this, the Constitution strictly requires that every court
decision must clearly explain the facts and the law used to reach that conclusion. This ensures
that the parties understand exactly why they won or lost.

Administrative Due Process

While courtrooms are formal, "administrative" bodies (like the Bureau of Internal Revenue or the
Civil Service Commission) also have to follow due process. There are seven basic rules (often
called the "Cardinal Primary Rights") they must follow:

1. The right to a hearing and to present evidence.

2. The tribunal must actually look at and consider that evidence.
3. The decision must be backed by proof.
4. The evidence must be substantial (meaning it's enough for a reasonable person to believe
the conclusion).
5. The decision must be based only on evidence that was shared with both parties.
6. The person in charge must make their own independent decision and not just copy what a
subordinate said.
 7. The final decision must explain the "why" and the "how" so the parties know the reasons
behind it.

Fairness and "Mockery of Justice"

A major rule of fairness is that you cannot be the judge of your own case. The text mentions two
cases where this rule was broken: Zambales Chromite v. Court of Appeals and Anzaldo v.
Clave. In both instances, a government official made a decision in a lower office, got promoted
to a higher office, and then "reviewed" and approved their own original decision on appeal. The
Supreme Court struck these down, calling it a "mockery of justice" because a person cannot be
expected to be objective when checking their own work.