ATTY. GALEON DISCUSSION ON DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE.
BY: QPJ
DUE PROCESS
In his book, Justice Cruz postulated that, due process was instituted by
God at the garden of evil, after Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit,
God, although he already know the reasons why they ate, they call
them out in a hearing, in that hearing, he asks Adam why they ate the
apple and Adam pointed Eve. Eve was also asked why he ate and eve
pointed the serpent as the one who told him. That is the essence of due
process, the opportunity to be heard. But it we have to set aside some
biblical citation, the origin of due process could be traced to the Magna
Carta that was run by the barons of England from king john some time
in 1215. There, it is, decreed that no persons among others shall be
punished unless pursuant to a judgement to his peers. So, that
contemplates of situation where a person is meted out of a penalty but
only after a hearing. But due process was all the more articulated in
statute 28 under King Edward III. Where the word due process was
clearly written in the statute book of England. We should take note that
due process as was conceptualized in England was more on the
procedural aspect of thereof. It has something to do with the manner
by which the law is imposed. And it was only when this concept of due
process was borrowed or transported to the United States that due
process assumed another aspect and that is substantive aspect of due
process. The origin of due process can be traced at the Magna Carta.
And in our jurisdiction we adhere to the concept of due process as
espoused in the United States. In our jurisdiction, due process has two
aspects, and these are substantive due process and procedural due
process. And in our constitution, the provision which best articulates
due process is section 1 article 3 of the 1987 constitution which provides
that, no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, and property without
due process of law. Take note that due process is not defined in the
constitution. No provision expressly define what due process is. Verily,
that explains why there are legal luminaries who came up with various
descriptions of what due process state. In one state, Justice Frank
opined that due process is the embodiment of the sporting idea of fair
play. And in our jurisdiction in one case, our justice Fernando, referred
to due process as obedience to the, or responsiveness to the supremacy
of reason, obedience to the dictates of justice and in one case, Webster
refer to it as a law which proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgement
only upon trial. And that is owing to the fact that there is no exact
definition of what due process is because that is not defined in our
constitution. What you think is the reason why such is not defined in
our constitution? Is that the result of inadvertence? Or probably
ignorance on the part of the framers of is that rather intentional. It is
intentional because the framers of our constitution was in the view that
any such definition of due process would prove to be restrictive. They
were scared that any definition would become a legal stray jacket
which would rather hinder court to apply the same according to the
peculiar circumstance of every case. The reason why due process is not
defined in our constitution is to give the courts enough leeway in
applying due process given the peculiar circumstance of every case.
In the provision section 1 article 3 of the 1987 constitution which
provides in part that, no person shall be deprived of life liberty and
property without due process of law but when we refer to the term
persons, what do we exactly mean? Does this term refer only to natural
persons? Or does this include juridical persons like corporation or
partnership? Who is entitled due process? Natural persons only? No.
the persons refer here (section 1 article 3) includes not just natural
persons but also juridical persons. When we speak of natural persons,
the term persons as used therein does not only refer to Filipino citizens,
in that foreigners are also entitled to the protection of due process.
Section 1 article 3, provides or prohibits undue deprivation of life,
liberty among others and when we say deprivation, this involve taking
away of life property among others. Remember that when what is
proscribed or prohibited under section 1 article 3 is only undue taking
of life, liberty and property. In other words, our constitution allows the
taking of life, property and even liberty for as long as there is
observance of due process. That explains why a person may be meted
with a penalty of imprisonment. That is allowed for as long as due
process is observed. That also explains why taking of private property
1
 ATTY. GALEON DISCUSSION ON DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE. BY: QPJ
may be allowed for as long as there is payment of just compensation
among others. In fact, in the event that if we will reimposed death
penalty, we may sanction a situation where a life will be taken from
him for as long as there is the observance of the rudiments of due
process. All these things, only accentuate the fact that what is
prohibited or proscribed is the undue taking of life, liberty or property
or if the taking of which is done without the observance of the
rudiments of due process.
Section article 3 of the 1987 constitution, affords guaranty or protection
to our life. When we say life, it refers to our physical existence. But the
term life as used in section 1 article 3 includes also our right to enjoy
god given faculties or skills. So, in the event that if youre good in
singing. State cannot prohibit you from doing your skill or pursuing
your skill in singing. Pursuit of God given skill or talent is guaranty as
life as used in section article 3 of the 1987 constitution.
Section 1 article 3 of the 1987 constitution also provides protection not
just to ones life but also liberty. What is liberty? That is the freedom.
But what is protected under this provision is freedom to do what is
good not to do something that is noxious, pernicious or something that
is bad since there is a principle where we cannot exercise our right to
the detriment of the rights of others. No doubt we have the freedom
but we cannot use it in such manner so as to malign or destroy the
reputation of others. You cannot, in the guise of the exercise of freedom
of speech say that a person has a face that only her mother can love.
What is guaranteed therefore under section 1 article 3 is our freedom to
do something that is right or not our freedom something that is
pernicious or bad.
In like manner, section 1 article 3 of the 1987 constitution affords
protection also to our properties. Property as used therein may refer to
our real properties, like lands, building, personal properties, tangible
properties, intangible properties, yet take note however that as what
we learn before, a franchise or a license cannot really be considered as
a property right because it can be revoked by the state all in the name
of police power. A franchise is not a property right.
Due process in our jurisdiction has two aspects and these are:
substantive and procedural due process.
What is Substantive due process? What aspect of due process is that?
Speaking of substantive due process that is the aspect of due process
which concerns itself with the intrinsic validity of a law, regulation or
an act. The focal issue to be inquired into is whether or not there is a
government or lawful government objective in the enactment of a law
or whether or not there is a lawful subject where it is one that is imbued
with public interest. Such that where there is a law enacted by the state
that does not have a valid governmental objective then that law may be
assailed of as intrinsically valid for want of due process. For example,
when congress would enact a law prohibiting us in singing in our
bathroom. Does it have a valid or lawful governmental object?
Obviously, No. in that situation, that law is invalid for being violative
of substantive due process. Again, when we speak of substantive due
process that refers to the intrinsic validity of a law, regulation and an
act. Hence, we need to inquire whether such act or regulation has a
valid, or legitimate governmental purpose or objective. In our
jurisdiction, we employ three tests to determine the existence or
absence of a government or a valid governmental objective.
First test, is the REASONABLE BASES TEST, where it is normally
employed to check the validity of some governmental situation dealing
with economics. So, if congress enacts a law dealing with the economic
legislation, then what is to be employed is the so called reasonable
bases test such that if it is shown that any such regulation has a lawful
governmental objective then that is already sufficient. That would
already suffice to make that law valid. After all, what is merely
required is the existence of a valid or lawful governmental purpose or
objective.
2
 ATTY. GALEON DISCUSSION ON DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE. BY: QPJ
Second test, INTERMEDIATE REVIEW TEST is employed to test the
validity of the law which is based on classification or based on
legitimacy of gender. This was the test employed in testing the validity
of the VAWCI Law which is based on classification based on ones
gender or sex. Here, the point of inquiry whether or not there are
available less strict measures that can be resorted to without necessarily
resorting to that is propose in a given law or legislation. Such that is it
is shown that there are other available less strict measure, them there is
a good chance that such law can be stricken down for being violative
of substantive due process.
The third is, Strict scrutiny test which is used to check the validity of
legislation hinging on our freedom of speech, mind, those than hinged
on the exercise of our political rights. The point of inquiry is to inquire
whether or not there is a compelling reason for the state to come up
with such legislation or the absence of any available less stricter
measures. If the state will impose a gag order, for such regulation to be
valid, it must hurdle the strict scrutiny test. It must be shown that there
is compelling reasons to impose such gag order otherwise that order
may be stricken as void for being violative of due process.
On the other hand, Procedural due process. If substantive refers to the
intrinsic validity of the law, procedural, on the other hand, concerns
itself with the manner of the enforcement of the law. It concerns itself
with the intrinsic manner by which the law is to be enforced. And the
essence of due process is epitomized according to Justice Cruz, when
he said that, strike, but here me first. The essence of procedural due
process is that there should be a hearing. Law, which proceeds upon
inquiry and renders judgement only upon or after trial. So, normally,
when we speak of procedural due process, this implies the existence of
notice and hearing. Recall the case of, Lim vs. CA, where Mayor Lim,
ordered the closure of the establishment of Bistro, Mayor Lim argued
that there were violations that were supposed to be committed SC
disagree that there may be violation committed but there was no
observance of procedural due process because the decision in the case
was handed down by Mr Lim without affording Bistro the chance to be
heard. Normally, when we speak of procedural due process, this
signifies prior notice and hearing. In the case of Ynot vs. CA, there was
this law EO 626-A authorizing the outright confiscation of Carabaos,
SC declare the law as invalid for being violative of due process because
it meted a penalty without the benefit of trial. He was not given the
chance to be heard. The confiscation of carabaos was already
authorized without affording him the benefit of trial. Procedural due
process that generally implies the observance of the third requirement
of notice and hearing.
But such general rule admits of an exception. Prior notice and hearing
may be validly dispense with, without offending the rule on prior
notice and hearing.
1. NUISANCE PER SE, an act or a thing that is considered
noxious. In the case of Cabrera vs. Laguio, Mayor Lapid
ordered the confiscation of Cabreras fishpond but SC sustained
it as valid because the pond of Cabrera partook of a nature of
nuisance per se hence SC said that it can be abated even without
the benefit of prior notice and hearing. When an act or a thing
is categorized as a nuisance per se, then that can be abated
summarily without the benefit of prior notice and hearing.
Another example of nuisance per se, mad dog in the loose. Such
dog can be abated without affording the owner the right to be
heard. Abatement of nuisance per se would fall under the
exemption. But nuisance per se should be differentiated from
nuisance per accident. NUISANCE PER ACCIDENT cannot be
abated without a hearing. Such is a kind of nuisance that is an
act or a thing that is rightful only that it is situated in the wrong
place. Such that when there is a factory in a residential
community, that cannot be abated without affording the owner
the right to be heard. Such is a right thing but only situated in
the wrong place.
3
 ATTY. GALEON DISCUSSION ON DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE. BY: QPJ
2. ISSUANCE OF TRO. In the case of Marom vs. Judge Adjiong,
the issuance of Temporary Restraining Order. It appears that
there is an imminent danger which may be considered
irreparable and the court in that situation may be allowed to
issue a TRO even without conducting a prior hearing.
3. PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION. In the case of Libanan, SC
decreed that preventive suspension is allowed since such
suspension is merely preventive in character. After all, that is
imposed not by way of penalty but as a preventive measure.
4. ISSUANCE OF WARRANT OF ARREST. In the case of USA vs.
Purganan, SC said that there is no violation of procedural due
process if the court issues a warrant of arrest without
conducting prior notice to hearing. In fact, to hold such hearing,
would give that person a chance to escape. Those accused of
evading taxes, is it allowed in our jurisdiction to issue warrant
of arrest? That is allowed because under our tax code, there may
be a valid distinct of properties of the persons who accused of
having evaded the payment of taxes. This happens to the assets
of Manny Pacquiao, such was done by Kim Henares even before
trial can be had for the tax evasion case. SC sustained Kim
Henares in that perspective because that is allowed even
without the benefit of prior notice hearing.
5. ABATEMENT OF NUISANCE.
6. PADLOCKING. Similarly, padlocking of restaurants found to
be unsanitary can be had even without the benefit of trial as well
as padlocking of movie houses showing lewd movies. That is
perfectly allowed as a form of abatement of nuisance. These can
be done without violating due process.
7. CANCELLATION OF PASSPORTS of those found guilty of the
commission of offense. If you are adjudged as guilty, your
passport may be cancelled even before affording you the chance
to be heard, after all there is already a finding guilt and that
there is a danger to abscond.
Is publication of laws, a component of procedural due process? Yes.
Such is required under Article 2 of the Civil Code. There is a
presumption that ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance
therewith. It would be unfair to charge us of something if such laws
were not even published in the first place. In lieu of this provision, then
it is only proper that there is a requirement that all laws must be
published first without it can take effect. Publication of the laws, as
ruled in the case of Tanada vs. Tuvera, is an integral component of
procedural due process.
How about preliminary investigation? In the case of Uy vs.
Sandiganbayan, where Uy said that he was denied of the right of
preliminary investigation that during the first round of PI, he was not
afforded the chance to controvert charges against him. Is PI an integral
component of procedural due process? It depends on the penalty
imposable for the offense. Such that under Section 1 rule 112 of the
Criminal Procedure, if the offense carries with it a penalty of
imprisonment exceeding or at least 4 years 2 months and 1 day then PI
becomes a matter of right. Conversely where the imposable penalty
does not exceed of imprisonment of 4 years 2 months and 1 day, then
PI is not a matter of right. In the case of Uy vs. Sandiganbayan, the case
filed against him is plunder and such carries with it a penalty exceeding
4 years, 2 months and 1 day, his denial of PI is a violation of procedural
due process. PI becomes a matter of right if the penalty imposable for
the offense is imprisonment exceeding 4 years, 2 months and 1 day.
How about a remedy of appeal? This is the issues in the case of Lacson
vs. Executive Secretary. Is an appeal, a matter of right? It depends.
Appeal is not a natural right. Appeal is merely a statutory right such
that when there is no law or rules providing for the remedy of an
appeal then the non-recourse of an appeal is not violative of procedural
due process. That explains why under SC Circular 08-87 regarding
small claims cases there is no remedy of appeal. If you file an appeal
for collection of money where the amount does not exceed 200,000, in
open areas then that could fall under small claim cases. In that
4
 ATTY. GALEON DISCUSSION ON DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE. BY: QPJ
situation, the losing party would not have the remedy of appeal and he
cannot or ones argue that there is a denial of procedural due process
for again, appeal is not a natural right, it is merely a statutory right.
Such that when there is no law, providing for the remedy of appeal,
then there is no denial of due process if no appeal can be pursued in a
particular decision of a case. Conversely, when there is a rule providing
for the remedy of appeal, denial of such right is violative of procedural
due process.
In our constitution, there are cases wherein the remedy of appeal is
provided for no less than by the constitution itself and these are cases
mentioned under section 5 paragraph 2 article 8 of the 1987
constitution, which for one guarantees a right of appeal to the SC over
all cases if what is at issue is the validity of the constitutionality of law,
treaty, or international or executive agreement, personal decrees,
issuances and other regulations. So in this kind of cases, the remedy of
appeal is guaranteed by the constitution itself. Cases also involving the
validity of any tax, assessment, the remedy of appeal is likewise
guaranteed under section 5 paragraph 2 article 8. Cases were what is at
issue is the jurisdiction of the trial court. In this kind of cases, remedy
of appeal is guaranteed under section 5 paragraph 2 of article 8. Cases
also where penalty impose in a criminal case is reclusion Perpetua or
higher. Appeal to the Supreme Court is guaranteed under section 5
paragraph 2 article 8 of the 1987 constitution. Cases also where what is
at issue is a pure question of law. The rule is that appeal is not a natural
right. It is merely a statutory where there is no rule or remedy of appeal,
you cannot say that there is denial of due process but where there is a
law, denial thereof is tantamount to denial of due process. Under
section 5 paragraph 2 article 8, there are cases where the remedy of
appeal is guaranteed to the Supreme Court.
What the essence of procedural due process is as applied in judicial
proceedings? Proceeding on a course of law? What the requisites of
procedural due process are as applied therein?
1. There should be an impartial tribunal the power to decide
matter pending before it
In judicial proceeding that it is required among others that there should
be an impartial court cloth with the power to decide the legal matter
pending before it. It is not enough that there is a court cloth with the
power or authority to decide cases. What is important is that the court
must be impartial. A case in point is the case of Tumey vs. Ohio, where
there is that regulation allowing judges to deduct a fine that he will be
imposed in the case for 12 dollar to be added up to his salary. Whenever
the judge will render a judgement of conviction he may deduct
therefrom 12 dollars to be added to his salary. The US SC struck down
that law for being violative of due process in judicial proceeding.
Because in that situation, you cannot expect the judge to be impartial.
SC said, that would create a horrendous precedence where the judge
will render conviction so he will be able to deduct something from the
fine and impose it in the case.
A parallelism can be drawn in the case of Javier vs. Comelec, where the
case was decided by the decision and SC said that other the fact that it
must be decided by comelec en banc, the decision of division was null
and void because commissioner opinion should inhibited himself from
handling the case for being a law firm partner of Pacificador. SC said
that you cannot expect commissioner opinion to be impartial because
one of the parties therein was his law partner before in the person of
Pacificador. So, that explain why in the rules of court rule 137, there are
grounds that are provided therein under which the judge is mandated
to inhibit himself among which is when one of the parties is the son of
the judge because in that situation, you cannot expect the judge to
remain impartial or if the judge is within the 6th degree of
consanguinity or affinity of the parties therein or to counsel within 4th
civil degree. In that situation, you cannot expect the judge to remain
neutral. If that happens, file a motion for inhibition of the judge. And
outside those grounds, then inhibition of the judge is addressed to his
sound discretion. A judge may, in the exercise of his sound discretion,
5
 ATTY. GALEON DISCUSSION ON DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE. BY: QPJ
disqualify himself from sitting in a case. For just or valid reasons other
than those mentioned above.
2. The court must acquire jurisdiction over that person of the
defendant
Another requirement as observed in judicial proceeding, the court
must acquire jurisdiction on the person of the defendant. How will a
court acquire jurisdiction in the person of the defendant in a civil case?
Only when the defendant is served by summons, directing him to
appear before the court. In some instances, summons may be published
through the newspaper as in the case where summons and publication
may be allowed but if you have a case on persons, defendant cannot be
located, convert that action in an action quasi in rem, in personal action
like collection of sum money or personal service of summons is
required. What if the defendant keep on transferring his residence?
Convert the action into an action quasi in rem. Attach sum of his real
properties thereby converting an action into an action quasi in rem such
that in such situation you may be allowed to serve summons by
publication.
How about in criminal cases? How can the court acquire jurisdiction in
the person of the accused? Is it acquired during arraignment where the
information is read to the accused? No. it is upon the arrest of the
accused.
3. Defendant must be given the opportunity to be heard
Another requirement is that the respondent, defendant/accused must
be given an opportunity to be heard. But what is required is merely
giving of the opportunity to be heard. Such that where the defendant
in that case was given the chance to be heard but did not file his answer
or was given the chance to present his evidence but failed to do so.
There is no longer a denial. Such chance when given, and no denial at
all. After all, the essence of due process is simply giving an opportunity
to be heard.
The hearing need not be a trial kind of hearing where parties present
evidence through representation of evidence and the other parties is
allowed to conduct cross examination. Trial type hearing is not always
required all in the name of procedural due process such that in
ejectment cases, there is no actual trial type hearing, no such thing as
cross/direct examination, rebuttal examination of witnesses because in
ejectment cases like labour cases, decisions maybe had after the
submission of position papers by the parties. So, the hearing
contemplated under the rule is not a trial type hearing. Appearance of
lawyers is not even necessary since appearance of lawyers in small
claim cases is prohibited.
In the case of Marum vs. Judge Adjiong, even the filing of motion for
reconsideration may sometimes cure the defects in the non-observance
of the procedural due process. Judge Adiong, TRO was granted and
other party move for reconsideration. SC said motion for
reconsideration is in compliant already of procedural due process since
after all the essence of due process as applied in judicial proceeding is
simple giving the party an opportunity to be heard.
4. Decision must be rendered only after trial.
Decision may only be rendered after hearing. Section 14 article 8 which
provides that, Decisions may only be rendered after hearing. And take
not that the requirement under section 14 article 8, decisions must set
forth the facts of the case as well as the law on which the decision is
based. Purpose of which is to apprise the parties on how the decisions
are arrived at of the courts of law. And if only to accord him of such
chance also to pinpoint the errors in the filing of facts and conclusions
of law for purposes of taking up an appeal.
In administrative proceeding, there are 7 requirements in order for
procedural due process:
6
 ATTY. GALEON DISCUSSION ON DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE. BY: QPJ

1. Opportunity to be heard, which includes the right of person to 7. The requirement in judicial process in that decision can be
present his case and evidence. rendered only after trial and decision distinctively set forth the
2. Evidence presented must be substantial. facts and the law on which the decision is based. That is to
3. It must be considered of the tribunal in arriving in a decision. inform the parties on how such decision is arrived at.
4. Decision must have something to support itself.
5. The decision must be based on evidence presented during the
trial or at least contained in the records made known to the
parties. These are the requisites not complied with of Solicitor
General when it conducted PI involving Victor Jose Tan Uy. In
that case, SC ordered the Sandiganbayan to conduct another
round of PI, while it is true that in that 2nd ground of PI, Victor
Uy was furnished of the copy of complaint which he was able
to file his counter affidavit although his identification
documents which served as bases for ombudsman to indict Uy,
where not however furnished in the 2nd round of PI. In that
context that there was a violation of the 5th requisite of
procedural due process as applied in administrative proceeding
which requires that the evidence of decision must have
something to support itself in the form of evidence, presented
and argued in the trial or complained in the records and made
known to the parties. So called identification documents were
presented by the ombudsman to sandiganbayan but not
presented to Uy in the course of conducting the 2nd round of PI.
6. The tribunal, judge or the forum must act on his independent
consideration on the facts of the case, law applicable and not
simply rely on the findings of his subordinate for normally in
administrative offices, there are subordinate which would
conduct investigation and would come up with a report and
recommendation to be approved by the superior or by other
officers. Procedural due process that the superior officer must
act on his independent consideration of the facts of the case and
the law involved and not simply rely on the report and
consideration of his subordinates.

7
 ATTY. GALEON DISCUSSION ON DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE. BY: QPJ

EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE its face, the law is seemingly fair but when applied that would be
disadvantageous on the part of the key players in the oil industry.
Section 1 article 3 provides that, no person shall be denied of equal
protection of the law. Justice Cruz opined that due process instituted In the case of People vs. Vera, in this case, under the old probation act,
by God, similarly, equal protection was instituted by God in the it was provided therein that, the law that was considered was that, the
Garden of Eden. probation act could be made applicable can be made applicable in
places where the provincial board can provide salaries of the probation
Under section 1 article 3, the term equal protection is not particularly
officers. Conversely, if those provinces which could not afford for the
defined. It was of the same purpose that the framers of the constitution
salaries of the probation officer, the probation act could not be executed
need not also define what due process is and that is to give the court a
therein. On its face, the law seems fair but once applied, there is now
leeway to apply equal protection to peculiar instance of each and every
inequality. For those areas where they cannot provide for the salaries
case.
the law would not be effective thereby such that convicted felons
When we speak of equal protection of the law, it does not mean that therein could not avail the benefits provided by law.
every laws should be given a universal application. Sometimes, if we
Substantive equality is not enough. It has to be established that there
give a law or laws universal application, that would result to
must be equality in the enforcement or implementation of the law. In
inequality. Example, a law is passed by congress prohibiting the use
the case of, Yick Wo vs. Hopkins, there was a regulation giving
and sale of Viagra, the people who needed it. Sometimes, giving a law
authority to the local board to issue licenses in respect to the operation
a universal application would result to absurdity, if not inequality.
of laundry business. That law was declared invalid because it was
Substantive equality is not enough. It is not enough that the law found out that in the implementation thereof, there is a systematic
appears in its face to be fair. It is equally required that the law should rejection or denial in laundry permits if the applicants are Chinese.
be applied fairly. Because according to Justice Cruz, what is the point There must be equality in the enforcement of the law.
of having a law that is fair ion its face but the same is enforced with an
The concept of equal protection does not mean that any or all laws shall
evil eye and evil hands. Substantive equality is not enough in that it is
be given universal application. Verily, it stands to reason that
required that there should be equality in the enforcement or
notwithstanding, the so called, equal protection clause, there may be
dispensation of the law. Take for example the case of Tatad vs.
instances where a classification may be had or validly had without
Secretary of DOE, on its face, there is nothing wrong with RA 8180 or
violating the spirit of equal protection.
the deregulation law which provides a tariff variant amounting to 4%
such that when what was to be imported is crude oil, the tariff rate will And that classification, may be valid, for as long as the following
only be at 3%, if what is imported is refineries it is at 7%. If you look at requirements are met:
the law, ostensibly, it would appear as fair. But if applied in it actuality,
1. Such classification should have Substantial distinction
that law would be prejudicial to the interest of the new players in the
For a classification to be valid, it must be based on substantial
oil industry. The same observation can be had in respect to section 6 of
distinction. In our jurisdiction, we cannot have a valid
the same law, providing for the minimum inventory requirement,
classification based on superficial differences such that we
equivalent to 10% of the annual sales or 40% of 4o years of supply. On

8
 ATTY. GALEON DISCUSSION ON DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE. BY: QPJ
cannot make a classification on the basis of the colour of ones
skin or the colour of ones eyes or personal appearances.
In the case of Quinto vs. Comelec, there are different rules
applied to persons elected and appointed. The regulation states
that those appointed are considered ipso facto resigned upon
filing of candidacy. On the other hand, elective public officials
are not considered ipso facto resigned. But it was said that such
law is bias on the side of the elected officials. SC disagree,
although there is a classification, such classification is valid
because it was based on substantial difference. A similar case,
was that of Garcia vs. Drilon, it affirmed the validity of RA 9262,
giving preferential treatment in favour on women. SC said that
there may be a valid classification on the bases of ones sex.
Based on statistics, women became more victims of violence. SC
said that there is substantial distinction between women and
men for the purpose of enacting a law affording protection to
women. In other words, if the classification is based on
substantial distinction, there is a good chance that it will be
sustained as valid. In another case, in the case Lagman vs.
Ochoa, SC said that we should not distinguish the arroyo
administration from the other previous administration. In that
case, the SC struck down the PTC because it was created only
for the purpose of running against the previous administration
of Gloria. SC said the previous administration of Gloria was
singled out by NoyNoy. SC said that administration of Gloria
should not be differentiated from the rest as if saying also that
all the other past administrations are equally corrupt and all of
them should investigated.
In the case of PCGG vs. Chavez, the memorandum agreement
that was executed by the government by the PCGG by the heirs
of Marcos, there was that privilege affording to the heirs of
Marcos, giving them tax exemption. SC said that it was invalid
not because PCGG has no authority to grant tax exemption, but
it was violative of the equal protection clause. The heir of
Marcos should not be differentiated from the other Filipinos. In
one case, International Educators vs. Quisumbing, SC allow the
regulation for being violative of equal protection, it gave more
privilege to foreign employees or teachers compared to locally
hired teachers. SC said that there was an unfair treatment for
there was no showing that foreign hired teachers can teach
better than local hired professors. Such classification in that case
was not based on substantial differences was not based on
substantial distinction.
2. Germane to the purposes of the law
Such classification must be germane to the purpose of the
law/relevant to the purpose of enacting a law. Such that where
there is for example a classification made between men and
women for purposes of affording protection as in the case of RA
9262, any classification is valid because it is relevant to the
purpose of the law and that is to afford protection to women
but if there is a distinction between men and women for the
purposes of enacting a law like if in the BAR exam it would be
70% passing for women and 75% for men. Such classification
has no relevance on which such regulation is enacted. Any
classification to be valid must be germane to the purpose for
which the law is enacted. Similarly, in the case of Department
of Education Culture and Sport vs. San Diego, SC sustain the
regulation, those who failed thrice in the NMAT will no longer
be allowed to take up medicine because the health of the people
should not be entrusted to incompetent doctors. Such
regulation has been sustained as valid because it rests on
substantial distinction. And such distinction is germane to the
purpose of the law.
3. Must not apply to existing conditions only
In the case of Ormoc Sugar Company Inc. vs. Treasurer of
Ormoc, where the city of Ormoc enacted an ordinance a tax for
every sale of sugar made by Ormoc Sugar Company. In the tax
ordinance, the name of the company to be imposed of the tax is
9
 ATTY. GALEON DISCUSSION ON DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE. BY: QPJ
Ormoc Sugar Company. In that Case, the SC declared as invalid
for being violative of equal protection. It would readily appear
that whenever a new entrant would be had in Ormoc, that new
entrant/new company engaged in the same industry would not
be imposed of the tax since the ordinance mentioned that it will
only apply to Ormoc industry. Such classification is violative of
equal protection because it is only based on existing condition
but in other case, Lutz vs. Araneta, 98 PHIL 148, there was a tax
imposition for the rehabilitation of the sugar industry. That
imposition was sustained as valid it was not violative of equal
protection because such tax measure does not mention the
companies to be imposed with taxes unlike in the case of Ormoc
Sugar Company vs. Treasurer of Ormoc. Take note that in our
jurisdiction, sometimes, you observed the theory of relative
constitutionality which enunciates that a law may be sustained
as valid in sometime but may subsequently be declared as
invalid under altered circumstances. In that case, there was
this law, RA 7653 where it provides 2 classification of
employees in the central bank. The hierarchy of employees who
are exempt from salary standardization law. The rank and file
are not exempt from SSL. The rank and file employees question
the validity of the differentiation saying that it is against equal
protection. But SC said that it is valid for there is a mark
distinction between high rank employees and rank and file
employees. But subsequently, after several years, in
government owned and financial institutions, rank and file
employees received more benefits than what the rank and file
employees of the Central Bank were receiving. Another case
was filed whereby it was raised that there is a violation of equal
protection under RA 9653 and this time around the SC already
declare that law an invalid. Take note that in the previous and
in the recent case, only one law was put in issue and that was
RA 7653, but the SC came up with a different ruling. In the past,
the law was declared as valid but under the present
circumstance where it was established already in other
governmental institution were receiving more salaries than
what the rank and file in the central bank were receiving, SC
declare that law as violative of equal protection. That case best
illustrate the application of what we know as doctrine on
relative constitutionality which enunciates the fact that a law
that is declared invalid, at some point, may be subsequently
declared valid under altered circumstances.
4. It must equally apply to all people or things belonging to the
same persons or class.
Any such classification to be valid must be applied to everyone
in the same class. All persons or things belonging in the same
class may equally be treated a like. Locally manufactured
cigarettes and imported cigarettes do not belong in the same
class. There can never be any law preferential among the
members of one group, like among local manufactures. Any
and all things or persons same class must be treated alike.
Similarly in the case of Ochoa vs. Lagman, SC said that
inasmuch as the past administration, Aquino, Estrada, Ramos
and her administration should not be separated from the rest.
All of them are all past administrations. Equal protection does
not mean any or all laws should be given universal application.
10