1 of 8
Constitutional Law 2
ARTICLE III
BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 1. 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.
Equal Protection:
City of Manila v. Laguio
Equal protection requires that all persons or things similarly situated should be treated
alike, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed. Similar subjects, in other
words, should not be treated differently, so as to give undue favor to some and unjustly
discriminate against others. The guarantee means that no person or class of persons shall be
denied the same protection of laws which is enjoyed by other persons or other classes in like
circumstances.
Legislative bodies are allowed to classify the subjects of legislation. If the classification is
reasonable, the law may operate only on some and not all of the people without violating the
equal protection clause.
The classification must, as an indispensable requisite, not be arbitrary. To be valid, it
must conform to the following requirements:
SUPUEELL (SAPUL)
1) It must be based on substantial distinctions. (SU)
2) It must be germane to the purposes of the law. (PU)
3) It must not be limited to existing conditions only. (E)
4) It must apply equally to all members of the class. (ELL)
In the Court's view, there are no substantial distinctions between motels, inns, pension houses,
hotels, lodging houses or other similar establishments. By definition, all are commercial
establishments providing lodging and usually meals and other services for the public. No
reason exists for prohibiting motels and inns but not pension houses, hotels, lodging
houses or other similar establishments. The classification in the instant case is invalid as
similar subjects are not similarly treated, both as to rights conferred and obligations
imposed. It is arbitrary as it does not rest on substantial distinctions bearing a just and fair
relation to the purpose of the Ordinance.
2 of 8
Constitutional Law 2
Test of a Valid Ordinance and Due Process of Law:
City of Manila v. Laguio
The tests of a valid ordinance are well established. A long line of decisions has held that for
an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the corporate powers of the local government
unit to enact and must be passed according to the procedure prescribed by law, it must also
conform to the following substantive requirements: (1) must not contravene the Constitution
or any statute; (2) must not be unfair or oppressive; (3) must not be partial or
discriminatory; (4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade; (5) must be general and
consistent with public policy; and (6) must not be unreasonable.
The constitutional safeguard of due process is embodied in the fiat "(N)o person shall be
deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. . . .”
The purpose of the guaranty is to prevent governmental encroachment against the life,
liberty and property of individuals; to secure the individual from the arbitrary exercise of the
powers of the government, unrestrained by the established principles of private rights and
distributive justice; to protect property from confiscation by legislative enactments, from seizure,
forfeiture, and destruction without a trial and conviction by the ordinary mode of judicial
procedure; and to secure to all persons equal and impartial justice and the benefit of the general
law.
To successfully invoke the exercise of police power as the rationale for the enactment of the
Ordinance, and to free it from the imputation of constitutional infirmity, not only must it appear
that the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class,
require an interference with private rights, but the means adopted must be reasonably
necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive upon
individuals. It must be evident that no other alternative for the accomplishment of the
purpose less intrusive of private rights can work. A reasonable relation must exist between
the purposes of the police measure and the means employed for its accomplishment, for
even under the guise of protecting the public interest, personal rights and those pertaining to
private property will not be permitted to be arbitrarily invaded.
interest of the Public; means adopted must be reasonably necessary; not unduly oppressive
upon individual; evident that no other alternative for the accomplishment of the purpose; a
reasonable relation must exist between the purpose of the police measure and means
employed for its accomplishment.
Lacking a concurrence of these two requisites (reasonable necessity and reasonable means),
the police measure shall be struck down as an arbitrary intrusion into private rights -a violation
of the due process clause.
It is undoubtedly one of the fundamental duties of the City of Manila to make all reasonable
regulations looking to the promotion of the moral and social values of the community. However,
the worthy aim of fostering public morals and the eradication of the community's social ills can
be achieved through means less restrictive of private rights; it can be attained by reasonable
restrictions rather than by an absolute prohibition. The closing down and transfer of businesses
or their conversion into businesses "allowed" under the Ordinance have no reasonable relation
to the accomplishment of its purposes. Otherwise stated, the prohibition of the enumerated
establishments will not per se protect and promote the social and moral welfare of the
3 of 8
Constitutional Law 2
community; it will not in itself eradicate the alluded social ills of prostitution, adultery, fornication
nor will it arrest the spread of sexual disease in Manila.
White Light v. City of Manila
Consequently, two standards of judicial review were established: strict scrutiny for laws
dealing with freedom of the mind or restricting the political process, and the rational basis
standard of review for economic legislation.
Applying strict scrutiny, the focus is on the presence of compelling, rather than substantial,
governmental interest and on the absence of less restrictive means for achieving that interest.
Strict scrutiny is used today to test the validity of laws dealing with the regulation of speech,
gender, or race as well as other fundamental rights as expansion from its earlier applications to
equal protection.
Due Process:
White Light v. City of Manila
The primary constitutional question that confronts us is one of due process, as guaranteed
under Section 1, Article III of the Constitution. Due process evades a precise definition. The
purpose of the guaranty is to prevent arbitrary governmental encroachment against the life,
liberty and property of individuals. The due process guaranty serves as a protection against
arbitrary regulation or seizure. Even corporations and partnerships are protected by the
guaranty insofar as their property is concerned.
Procedural due process refers to the procedures that the government must follow before
it deprives a person of life, liberty, or property. Procedural due process concerns itself
with government action adhering to the established process when it makes an intrusion
into the private sphere. Examples range from the form of notice given to the level of formality
of a hearing.
Substantive due process completes the protection envisioned by the due process
clause. It inquires whether the government has sufficient justification for depriving a
person of life, liberty, or property.
4 of 8
Constitutional Law 2
Liberty:
White Light v. City of Manila
Liberty as guaranteed by the Constitution was defined by Justice Malcolm to include "the
right to exist and the right to be free from arbitrary restraint or servitude. The term
cannot be dwarfed into mere freedom from physical restraint of the person of the citizen,
but is deemed to embrace the right of man to enjoy the facilities with which he has been
endowed by his Creator, subject only to such restraint as are necessary for the common
welfare."
That the Ordinance prevents the lawful uses of a wash rate depriving patrons of a product and
the petitioners of lucrative business ties in with another constitutional requisite for the legitimacy
of the Ordinance as a police power measure. It must appear that the interests of the public
generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, require an interference with private
rights and the means must be reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose
and not unduly oppressive of private rights. It must also be evident that no other alternative for
the accomplishment of the purpose less intrusive of private rights can work. More importantly, a
reasonable relation must exist between the purposes of the measure and the means employed
for its accomplishment, for even under the guise of protecting the public interest, personal rights
and those pertaining to private property will not be permitted to be arbitrarily invaded.
Liberty in the constitutional sense not only means freedom from unlawful government
restraint; it must include privacy as well, if it is to be a repository of freedom. The right to
be let alone is the beginning of all freedom -- it is the most comprehensive of rights and the right
most valued by civilized men." City of Manila v. Hon. Laguio, Jr.
5 of 8
Constitutional Law 2
Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects
against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be
inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to
be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be
searched and the persons or things to be seized.
Section 3.
1.
The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon
lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise, as prescribed
by law.
2.
Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible
for any purpose in any proceeding.
Section 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the
press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress
of grievances.
Section 5. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without
discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the
exercise of civil or political rights.
Section 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law
shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be
impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be
provided by law.
Section 7. The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be
recognized. Access to official records, and to documents and papers pertaining to official acts,
transactions, or decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis for policy
development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by
law.
Section 8. The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private sectors,
to form unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged.
Section 9. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.
Section 10. No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed.
Section 11. Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance
shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty.
6 of 8
Constitutional Law 2
Section 12.
1.
Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to
be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel
preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must
be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the
presence of counsel.
2.
No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free
will shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other
similar forms of detention are prohibited.
3.
Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be
inadmissible in evidence against him.
4.
The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this Section as well as
compensation to the rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices, and their
families.
Section 13. All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua
when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be
released on recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired
even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be
required.
Section 14.
1.
No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.
2.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is
proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of
the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and
public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to
secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf.
However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the
accused: Provided, that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is
unjustifiable.
Section 15. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in cases
of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it.
Section 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all
judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.
Section 17. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
7 of 8
Constitutional Law 2
Section 18.
1.
No person shall be detained solely by reason of his political beliefs and aspirations.
2.
No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a punishment for a crime
whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.
Section 19.
1.
Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment
inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons
involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty
already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua.
2.
The employment of physical, psychological, or degrading punishment against any
prisoner or detainee or the use of substandard or inadequate penal facilities under
subhuman conditions shall be dealt with by law.
Section 20. No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment of a poll tax.
Section 21. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an
act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a
bar to another prosecution for the same act.
Section 22. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted.
8 of 8
Constitutional Law 2