THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE b.

Test: Whether interference with life, liberty

and property is intrinsically valid
1. Definition CASES:
Villegas v. Hiu Chiong, supra – subject
2. Characteristics & purpose ordinance violated [substantive] due
process because the Php50.00 fee is
3. Basic test in due process cases – Test of unreasonable due to its excessiveness
[un]reasonableness Kwong Sing v. City of Manila, supra –
Subject ordinance did not violate
4. Persons covered [substantive] due process as it is not
oppressive; printing of the laundry receipts
5. Deprivation need not be expensive: names of the
a. Meaning several kinds of clothing may be printed in
b. Deprivation per se is not prohibited English and Spanish with equivalent in
CASES: Chinese
Ichong v. Hernandez, G.R. No. L-7995, Yu Cong Eng v. Trinidad, supra – law
May 31, 1957 penalizing merchants for keeping account
Kwong Sing v. City of Manila, G.R. No. books in any language other than English,
L-15972, October 11, 1920 Spanish or any local dialect violated
Yu Cong Eng v. Trinidad, G.R. No. L- [substantive] due process for being
20479, February 6, 1925 oppressive and arbitrary; law prevented
petitioners from being kept advised of the
6. Life status of their business
a. Right to life enjoys precedence over the Ichong v. Hernandez, supra – Retail
right to property Trade Nationalization Law did not violate
b. Meaning of “life” in the due process clause [substantive] due process because it is
CASES: reasonable; law prospective in application
SPCMB Law Offices v. CA, G.R. No.
216914, December 6, 2016 (Concurring 14. Procedural Due Process
opinion of J. Leonen, but read the ponencia a. Meaning
for factual context) b. Requisites of procedural due process
Villegas v. Hiu Chiong, G.R. No. L- i. Impartial and competent tribunal
29646, November 10, 1978  CASES:
COMPARE: Ichong v. Hernandez, supra Javier v. Comelec, G.R. Nos. L-
68379-81, September 22, 1986
7. Liberty Paderanga v. Azura, G.R. Nos. L-
a. Meaning 69640-45, April 30, 1985
CASES: People v. Beriales, G.R. No. L-
City of Manila v. Laguio, G.R. No. 39962, April 7, 1976
118127, April 12, 2005 Zambales Chromite v. CA, G.R. No.
White Light Corp. v. City of Manila, G.R. L-49711, November 7, 1979
No. 122846, January 20, 2009 Anzaldo v. Clave, G.R. No. L-
b. Right to privacy an inherent concept of 54597, December 15, 1982
liberty
CASES: ii. Notice and opportunity to be heard
Morfe v. Mutuc, G.R. No. L-20387, CASES:
January 31, 1968 Ynot v. IAC, G.R. No. 74457, March
Gamboa v. Chan, G.R. No. 193636, July 20, 1987
24, 2012 David v. Aquilizan, G.R. No. L-
49360, December 14, 1979
8. Property DBP v. Bautista, G.R. No. L-21362,
CASES: November 29, 1968
Better Buildings Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. Lorenzana v. Cayetano, G.R. No. L-
109714, December 15, 1997 37051, August 3l, 1977
Remman Enterprises, Inc. v. Professional Aguila v. CFI, G.R. No. L-48335,
Regulatory Board of Real Estate Service, April 15, 1988
G.R. No. 197676, February 4, 2014 Garcia v. Drilon, G. R. No. 179267,
June 25, 2013
9. Due process & presumption of constitutionality
CASE: Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel 15. Procedural due process in non-judicial
Operators Association v. City Mayor, G.R. proceedings
No. L-24693, July 31, 1967 a. Not as rigid as in judicial proceedings, but
still needs to be observed
10. Publication of laws to comply with due process CASE: Ang Tibay v. CIR, G.R. No. L-
CASE: Tañada v. Tuvera, G.R. No. L-63915, 46496, February 27, 1940
December 29, 1986 (Read also the b. In labor cases
concurrence of J. Feliciano) CASES:
Vinta Maritime v. NLRC, G.R. No.
11. Statutory due process vs. constitutional due 113911, January 23, 1998
process Carag v. NLRC, G.R. No. 147590, April
CASE: Agabon v. NLRC, G.R. No. 158693, 2, 2007
November 17, 2004 Chua-Qua v. Clave, G.R. No. 49549,
August 30, 1990
12. Aspects of Due Process: Substantive and c. During preliminary investigation
Procedural CASES:
Roxas v. Vasquez, G.R. No. 114944,
13. Substantive due process May 29, 2002
a. Purpose Estrada v. Ombudsman, G.R. Nos.
212140-41, January 21, 2015
 Comendador v. De Villa, G.R. No.
93177, August 2, 1991
d. In sui generis proceedings
CASE: Jardeleza v. Sereno, G.R. No.
213181, August 19, 2014
e. Preventive suspension in administrative
cases
CASE: Gobenciong v. CA, G.R. No.
159883, March 31, 2008
16. Judgments and due process
a. Judgment must be based on reliefs
prayed
CASE: Diona v. Balangue, G.R. No.
173559, January 7, 2013
b. Execution must not vary from judgment
CASE: Matuguina Integrated Wood
Products, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 98310,
October 24, 1996
17. Appeals and reviews
a. Rule: Appeal not part of the constitutional
due process guarantee. But when a law
allows appeal, or in cases involving the
minimum appellate jurisdiction of the SC,
appeal is a matter of right that cannot be
withheld.
b. The reviewing officer must be other than
the officer whose decision is under review
CASES:
Zambales Chromite v. CA, G.R. No. L-
49711, November 7, 1979
Anzaldo v. Clave, G.R. No. L-54597,
December 15, 1982
THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE
1. Definition
2. Purpose
3. Scope and Subjects
4. Requisites of Valid Classification
CASES:
Victoriano v. Elizalde, G.R. No. L-25246
September 12, 1974
Biraogo v. Truth Commission, G.R. No.
192935, December 7, 2010 (Read also:
separate opinion of CJ Corona & dissenting
opinions of J. Sereno and J. Carpio)
Beltran v. Secretary of Health, G.R. No.
133640, November 25, 2005
Quinto v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 189698,
December 1, 2009 (decision, per J.
Nachura); February 22, 2010 (resolution of
the MR, per C.J. Puno)
Garcia v. Drilon, G. R. No. 179267, June 25,
2013
5. Substantial Distinctions
CASES:
Ichong v. Hernandez, G.R. No. L-7995, May
31, 1957
Dumlao v. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-52245
January 22, 1980 (Read also the dissent of J.
Teehankee)
Ceniza v. Comelec, G.R. No. L-52304,
January 28, 1980
Nuñez v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. L-
50581-50617, January 30, 1982
PASEI v. Drilon, G.R. No. 81958, June 30,
1988
Tatad v. Secretary, G.R. No. 124360,
November 5, 1997
International School Alliance of Educators
v. Quisumbing, G.R. No. 128845, June 1,
2000
DECS v. San Diego, G.R. No. 89572,
December 21, 1989
Philippine Judges Association v. Prado,
G.R. No. 105371 November 11, 1993
Fariñas v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No.
118127, April 12, 2005
Remman Enterprises, Inc. v. PRBRES, G.R.
No. 197676, February 4, 2014
PHILRECA v. Secretary of the DILG, G.R.
No. 143076, June 10, 2003
6. Germane to the Purpose of the Law
CASES:
People v. Cayat, G.R. No. L-45987, May 5,
1939
Dumlao v. Comelec, supra, especially the
dissent of J. Teehankee
PASEI v. Drilon, supra
Ichong v. Hernandez, supra
Quinto v. Comelec (resolution of the MR),
supra
Abakada Guro v. Purisima, G.R. No.
166715, August 14, 2008
7. Duration: Not Limited to Existing Conditions
Only
CASES:
People v. Cayat, supra
Ormoc Sugar Co., Inc. v. Treasurer of
Ormoc City, G.R. No. L-23794, February 17,
1968
8. Equal Application to All Members of the Same
Class
CASES:
Kwong Sing v. City of Manila, G.R. No. L-
15972, October 11, 1920
Villegas v. Hiu Chiong, G.R. No. L-29646,
November 10, 1978 (Example of equal
application to all members of the same class
that instead leads to inequality)
9. Levels of Scrutiny in Equal Protection Analysis
CASE: Biraogo v. Truth Commission,
supra, particularly the concurring and
dissenting opinion of J. Nachura, quoting
British American Tobacco v. Camacho