III. Due Process, Article III, Section 1

A. Relativity of due process
B. Judicial standards of review
1. Reasonable / Rational connection test

Constitutional Questions?

Purpose of the Law?

What are the method?

Test to use

Legitimate Purpose

Rational Relationship

Rational Basis Test

Important Purpose

Substantial Relationship

Intermediate Scrutiny Test

Compelling Purpose

Narrow Tailored/Least Restrictive

Strict Scrutiny Test

2. Clear and present danger test – words are used in such circumstance and of such nature as to create a clear and present danger that will bring about the substantive evil that the State has a right to present.

• Clear: The degree of the danger. Causal connection with the danger of the substantive evil arising from the utterance questioned.
• Present: The proximity of the danger. Time element, identified with imminent and immediate danger; the danger must not only be probable, but very likely inevitable.

3. Dangerous tendency test – words uttered create a dangerous tendency of an evil which the State has a right to prevent.
Cases:
– PBM Employees Org. v PBM, GR L-31195, 5 Jun 1973

• In the hierarchy of civil liberties, the rights of free expression and of assembly occupy a preferred position as they are essential to the preservation and vitality of our civil and political institutions; and such priority “gives these liberties the sanctity and the sanction not permitting dubious intrusions.” The superiority of these freedoms over property rights is underscored by the fact that a mere reasonable or rational relation between the means employed by the law and its object or purpose — that the law is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory nor oppressive — would suffice to validate a law which restricts or impairs property rights. On the other hand, a constitutional or valid infringement of human rights requires a more stringent criterion, namely existence of a grave and immediate danger of a substantive evil which the State has the right to prevent.

– Ermita- Malate Hotel and Motel Operators v City Mayor,GR L-24693, 23 Oct 1967
– Cruz v Paras, GR L-42571-72, 25 Jul 1983
– City of Manila v Judge Laguio, GR 118127, 12 Apr 2005
– White Light v City of Manila, GR 122846, 20 Jan 2009

4. Balancing of Interest test – when a particular conduct is regulated in the interest of public order; and the regulation results in an indirect, conditional and partial abridgment of speech, the duty of the court is to determine which of the two conflicting interest demands the greater protection under the particular crcumstnces presented.

C. Two Aspects of Due Process:
1. Substantive due process – requires the intrinsic validity of the law in interfering with the rights of the person to life, liberty, or property.
Cases:
– Tanada v Tuvera, GR L-63915, 29 Dec 1986
– GMA v MTRCB, GR 148579, 5 Feb 2007
– Knights of Rizal v DMCI Homes, Inc., GR 213948, 25 Apr 2017
– Evasco v Montanez, GR 199172, 21 Feb 2018
– Mayor Fernando v St. Scholastica’s College, GR 16107, 12 May 2013
– Mosqueda v Pilipino Banana Growers and Exporters Association, GR 189185, 16 Aug 2016

2. Procedural Due Process – consist of the two basic rights of NOTICE and HEARING as well as the guarantee of being heard by a competent tribunal.
Cases:
– Nestle Philipiines, Inc., v Puedan, GR 220617, 30 Jan 2017
– Turks Shawarma Company v Pajaton, GR 207156, 16 Jan 2017
– Estate of F.E. Marcos v Republic, GR 213227, 18 Jan 2017
– Lagon v Velasco, GR 208424, 14 Feb 2018
– Republic v Sereno, GR 237428, Resolution for M.R., 19 Jun 2018
– Borlongan v BDO, GR 217617; GR 218590, 5 Apr 2017
– AllIance for the Family Foundation Phil., Inc., v Garin, Resolution on Partial M.R., GR 217872; Gr 221866, 26 Apr 2017
– Government of the U.S.A. v Purganan, GR 148571, 24 Sep 2002

D. Constitutional and statutory due process
Case: Agabon v NLRC – GR 158693, 17 Nov 17 2004

• Constitutional due process protects the individual from the government and assures him of his rights in criminal, civil or administrative proceedings; while statutory due process found in the Labor Code and Implementing Rules protects employees from being unjustly terminated without just cause after notice and hearing.