`RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION

Life, Liberty, and Property

1. Constitutional Provision. Section 1, Article III of the Constitution states No person shall be
deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied
the equal protection of the laws. The provision speaks of due process and equal protection.
2. Scope of Protection. The protection covers all persons, whether citizens or aliens, natural or
juridical.
3. Meaning of Life, Liberty, and Property. Due process and equal protection cover the right to
life, liberty, and property. It is important therefore to know the meaning of the three.
(a) Life. When the constitution speaks of right to life, it refers not just to physical safety but also
to the importance of quality of life. Thus, right to life means right to be alive, right to ones limbs
against physical harm, and, equally important, right to a good quality of life.[2] Life means
something more than mere animal existence.[3]
(b) Liberty. It includes negative and positive freedom. Negative freedom means freedom
from, or absence of, physical constraints, while positive freedom means freedom to exercise
ones faculties. Right to liberty therefore includes the two aspects of freedom and it cannot be
dwarfed into mere freedom from physical restraint or servitude, but is deemed to embrace the
right of man to enjoy his God-given faculties in all lawful ways, to live and work where he will,
to earn his livelihood by any lawful calling, to pursue any vocation, and enter into contracts.[4]
(c) Property. It refers either to the thing itself or right over the thing. As a thing, property is
anything capable of appropriation, and it could be personal or real. As a right, it refers to right to
own, use, possess, alienate, or destroy the thing. The constitution uses property in the sense of
right, and as such it includes, among others, right to work, ones employment, profession, trade,
and other vested rights. It is important to note however that privileges like licenses are not
protected property; but they may evolve in a protected right if much is invested in them as means
of livelihood. Public office is not also a property; but to the extent that security of tenure cannot
be compromised without due process, it is in a limited sense analogous to property.[5]
5. These rights are intimately connected. For example, if ones property right over employment is
taken away, the same will adversely affect ones right to life since quality of living is
jeopardized. Consequently, in the absence of property and a good quality of life, the ability to do
what one wants is impeded.
6. Hierarchy of Rights. While the rights are intimately related, they have a hierarchy. As to their
order of importance, right to life comes first, followed by right to liberty, and then right of
property.
Due Process

1. Meaning. Due process of law is a constitutional guarantee against hasty and unsupported
deprivation of some persons life, liberty, or property by the government. While is it true that the
state can deprive its citizens of their life, liberty, or property, it must do so in observance of due
process of law. This right is the embodiment of the supporting idea of fair play[6] and its
essence is that it is a law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and
renders judgment only after trial.[7]
2. When Invoked. The right is invoked when the act of the government is arbitrary, oppressive,
whimsical, or unreasonable. It is particularly directed against the acts of executive and legislative
department.
3. Two Aspects of Due Process. Due process of law has two aspects: procedural and substantive.
Basically, the procedural aspect involves the method or manner by which the law is enforced,
while the substantive aspect involves the law itself which must be fair, reasonable, and just.
4. Procedural due process requires, essentially, the opportunity to be heard in which every
citizen is given the chance to defend himself or explain his side through the protection of general
rules of procedure. It contemplates notice and opportunity to be heard before judgment is
rendered.
In judicial proceedings, the requirements of procedural due process are:[8]
(a) An impartial or objective court or tribunal with jurisdiction over the subject matter;
(b) Court with jurisdiction over the person of the defendant or the property which i
subject of the proceeding;
(c) Defendant given the opportunity to be heard (requirement on notice and hearing); and
(d) Judgment rendered after lawful hearing.
Since some cases are decided by administrative bodies, the Court also provides requirements of
procedural due process in administrative proceedings. These requirements, also known as seven
cardinal primary rights, are:[9]
(a) The right to a hearing, where a party may present evidence in support of his case;
(b) The tribunal must consider the evidence presented;
(c) The decision of the tribunal must be supported by evidence;
(d) The evidence must be substantial. Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion;

(e) The evidence must have been presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and
known to the parties affected;
(f) The tribunal or body or any of its judges must rely on its own independent
consideration of evidence, and not rely on the recommendation of a subordinate; and
(g) The decision must state the facts and the law in such a way that the parties are apprised of the
issues involved and the reasons for the decision.
5. Notice and Opportunity to be Heard. What matters in procedural due process are notice and an
opportunity to be heard.
(a) Notice. This is an essential element of procedural due process, most especially in judicial
proceedings, because without notice the court will not acquire jurisdiction and its judgment will
not bind the defendant. The purpose of the notice is to inform the defendant of the nature and
character of the case filed against him, and more importantly, to give him a fair opportunity to
prepare his defense. Nevertheless, the notice is useless without the opportunity to be heard.
(b) Opportunity to be Heard. It must be emphasized that what is required is not actual hearing
but a real opportunity to be heard.[10] If, for instance, a person fails to actually appear in a
hearing even though he was given the chance to do so, a decision rendered by the court is not in
violation of due process. Moreover, strict observance of the rule is not necessary, especially in
administrative cases. In fact, in administrative proceedings, notice and hearing may be dispensed
with for public need or for practical reasons. It is also sufficient that subsequent hearing is held if
the same was not previously satisfied.
6. Substantive due process requires that the law itself is valid, fair, reasonable, and just. For the
law to be fair and reasonable it must have a valid objective which is pursued in a lawful manner.
The objective of the government is valid when it pertains to the interest of the general public, as
distinguished from those of a particular class. The manner of pursuing the objective is lawful if
the means employed are reasonably necessary and not unduly oppressive.
7. Under the doctrine of void for vagueness, a statute or law that is vague is void because it
violates the rights to due process. A statute is vague when it lacks comprehensible standards
which men of ordinary intelligence must necessarily know as to its common meaning but differ
as to its application. Such kind of statute is opposed to the Constitution because it fails to accord
persons proper understanding or fair notice, and because the government is given unbridled
freedom to carry out its provision. For this doctrine to be operative, however, the statute must be
utterly vague. Thus, if a law, for example, could be interpreted and applied in various ways, it is
void because of vagueness. Corollary to this is the doctrine of overbreadth which states that a
statute that is overly broad is void. This is because it prevents a person from exercising his
constitutional rights, as it fails to give an adequate warning or boundary between what is
constitutionally permissive and not. If a law, for instance, prohibits a bystander from doing any
annoying act to passersby, the law is void because annoying act could mean anything to a
passerby and as such, overly broad.

Equal Protection
1. Meaning. The guarantee of equal protection means that no person or class of persons shall be
deprived of the same protection of the laws which is enjoyed by other persons or other classes in
the same place and in like circumstances.[11] It means that all persons or things similarly
situated should be treated alike, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed. The
guarantee does not provide absolute equality of rights or indiscriminate operation on persons.
Persons or things that are differently situated may thus be treated differently. Equality only
applies among equals. What is prohibited by the guarantee is the discriminatory legislation which
treats differently or favors others when both are similarly situated.
2. Purpose. The purpose of the guarantee is to prohibit hostile discrimination or undue favor to
anyone, or giving special privilege when it is not reasonable or justified.
3. Reasonable Classification. Well established is the rule that reasonable classification does not
violate the guarantee, provided that the classification has the following requisites:[12]
(a) It must be based upon substantial distinctions;
(b) It must be germane to the purpose of the law;
(c) It must not be limited to existing conditions only; and
(d) It must apply equally to all members of the class.
4. Example. In one case,[13] Section 66 of the Omnibus Election Code was challenged for being
unconstitutional, as it is violative of the equal protection clause. The provision distinguishes
between an elective official and an appointive official in the filing of theire certificate of
candidacy. While elective officials are not deemed resigned upon the filing their certificates,
appointive officials are. The Supreme Court held that the law is constitutional and not violative
of equal protection since the classification is valid. The Court argues that elective office is
different from appointive office, in that the mandate of the former is from the people, while that
of the latter is from the appointing authority. The term of the elective officials are likewise
longer than that of the appointive officials. Thus, the classification is adjudged reasonable and
valid.
5. Discrimination against Aliens. Although the protection extends to both citizens and aliens,
discrimination against aliens may be held valid under certain circumstances. For example,
citizens by virtue of their membership to the political community possess complete civil and
political rights, while aliens do not have complete political rights. The former can vote during
elections, run for public office, own real property, while aliens cannot.
6. Review of Laws. If the laws are scrutinized by the court, it said to be subject to judicial
review. There are three standards followed by the court in judicial review, these are:

(a) Deferential review in which laws are upheld to be valid or consistent to the guarantee of
equal protection when they are rational and the classifications therein bear a relation to a
legitimate governmental interests or purpose. In here the courts do not seriously inquire into the
substantiality of the interest and possibility of alternative means to achieve the objectives;
(b) Intermediate review in which the substantiality of the governmental interest is closely
scrutinized as well as the availability of less restrictive means or alternatives. This standard is
used if the classification involves important but not fundamental interests; and
(c) Strict scrutiny in which the government is required to show the presence of a compelling
government interest, rather than a mere substantial interest, and the absence of a less restrictive
means for achieving the interest. Upon showing of these requirements, the limitation of a
fundamental constitutional right is justified. This standard is used if the law classifies persons
and limits others of their exercise of fundamental rights.