The Due Process Clause

(1st part of Sec. 1, Art. III)

1.

Definition

2.

Elements

Person
CASE: Villegas v. Hiu Chong, 86 SCRA 270

3.

Deprivation

Life
CASE: Buck v. Bell, 274 US 200

Liberty

Property

The Equal Protection Clause

(2nd part of 1, Art. III)
1.

Definition
CASES:
Quinto v. Comelec, G.R. No. 189698, Dec 1, 2009,
dissent of CJ Puno
Ichong v. Hernandez, supra

2.

Subjects of Protection

natural persons

artificial persons property only

3.

Classification

Requirements
CASES:
Victoriano v. Elizalde, G.R. No. L-25246 Sept 12,
1974
Biraogo v. Truth Commission, G.R. No. 192935,
December 7, 2010, particularly the concurrence of CJ
Corona and dissent of J. Sereno

Aspects

Substantive Due Process

CASES:
Kwong Sing v. City of Manila, 41 Phil 103
Yu Cong Eng v. Trinidad, 271 U.S. 500
Ichong v. Hernandez, 101 Phil 1155

Procedural Due Process

twin requirements: notice and hearing
CASE: Vinta Maritime Co., Inc. v. NLRC, 284
SCRA 656
no award of relief not prayed for
Judicial Due Process
o Impartial and Competent Court
CASES:
Ynot v. IAC, 148 SCRA 659
Javier v. COMELEC, 144 SCRA 194
Paderanga v. Azura, 136 SCRA 266
o Jurisdiction
1. how acquired
a. in actions in personam
b. in actions in rem or quasi in rem
o Notice and Hearing
CASES:
David v. Aquilizan, 94 SCRA 707
DBP v. Bautista, 26 SCRA 366
Lorenzana v. Cayetano, 78 SCRA 485
Pp. v Beriales, 70 SCRA 361
Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 239 SCRA
529
1. Right to Appeal
a. GR: not essential to the right to a
hearing
b. EXC
i. if the law allows appeal
ii. cases under the minimum
appellate jurisdiction of the SC
CASE: Calano v. Cruz, 94
Phil. 230
2. Exceptions to Requirements of Hearing
a. abatement of nuisance per se
b. in
cases
where
statutory
presumptions are applicable
o Judgment
1. must be based on the facts and the
law (14, Art. VIII, Constitution)
2. must conform to and be supported
by the pleadings and evidence
CASE: Diona v. Balangue, GR
No. 173559, Jan 7, 2013
Administrative Due Process
o Requisites
CASE: Ang Tibay v. CIR, 60 Phil 635
o review of decision by the same officer who
rendered it previously in a different capacity
CASES:
Zambales Chromite v. CA, G.R. No. L49711, Nov 7, 1979
Anzaldo v. Clave, G.R. No. L-54597, Dec
15, 1982
Better Buildings v. NLRC, G.R. No.
109714, Dec 15, 1997
Carag v. NLRC, G.R. No. 147590, April 2,
2007

4.

Substantial Distinctions
CASES:
Ichong v. Hernandez, supra
Dumlao v. COMELEC, 95 SCRA 392 (Read
also the dissent of J. Teehankee)
Ceniza v. COMELEC, 96 SCRA 763
Nunez v. Sandiganbayan, 111 SCRA 433 (Read
also the dissent of J. Makasiar)
PASE v. Drilon, 163 SCRA 386
Intl. School Alliance of Educators v.
Quisumbing, 333 SCRA 13
DECS v. San Diego, 180 SCRA 533
Phil Judges Assn. v. Prado, 227 SCRA 703
Tatad v. Secretary, GR No. 124360, November
5, 1997

Relevant/Germane to the Purpose of the Law

CASES:
Pp v. Cayat, supra
Dumlao v. COMELEC, supra
PASEI v. Drilon, supra
Ichong v. Hernandez, supra
Quinto v. COMELEC, supra, December 1,
2009 Decision, per J. Nachura; February 22,
2010 Resolution, per CJ Puno

Duration
CASES:
Pp. v. Cayat, supra
Ormoc Sugar Co., Inc. v. Treasurer of Ormoc
City, 22 SCRA 603
Tatad v. Secretary, supra

Applicability to All
CASES:
Villegas v. Hiu Chiong, supra
Tatad v. Secretary of Energy, supra

For More In-Depth Analysis of the Equal Protection Clause

Levels of Scrutiny in Equal Protection Analysis

CASE: Biraogo v. Truth Commission, February
22, 2010 Resolution, dissent of J. Nachura

Classification vs. Prioritization

CASE: Biraogo v. Truth Commission, supra,
December 7, 2010 Decision, dissents of JJ. Sereno
and Carpio

The Inclusiveness Trap

CASES:
Biraogo v. Truth Commission, supra, G.R. No.
192935, December 7, 2010, ponencia of J. Mendoza,
J and concurring and dissenting opinion of J. Nachura
Abakada Guro v. Ermita, GR 168056, 9/1/05
(Decision); 10/18/05 (Resolution)