*ADDITIONAL NOTES – MIDTERMS

*Equal Protection
 Quinto v. COMELEC
o INTEREST-BALANCING APPROACH: a means-end scrutiny that examines the closeness of fit
between the governmental interests and the prohibitions in question
o The Court declared these provisions compliant with the equal protection clause. It held that:
 in regulating the speech of its employees, the state as employer has interests that differ
significantly from those it possesses in regulating the speech of the citizenry in general;
 the courts must therefore balance the legitimate interest of employee free expression
against the interests of the employer in promoting efficiency of public services;
 if the employees’ expression interferes with the maintenance of efficient and regularly
functioning services, the limitation on speech is not unconstitutional; and
 the Legislature is to be given some flexibility or latitude in ascertaining which positions are
to be covered by any statutory restrictions. Therefore, insofar as government employees
are concerned, the correct standard of review
 Biraogo v. The Philippine Truth Commission
o Doctrine: the classification must apply equally to all the members of the same class
o Test of Reasonableness
 The classification rests on substantial distinctions
 It is the germane purpose of the law
 It is not limited to existing conditions
 It applies equally to all members of the class
o The equal protection clause is aimed at all official state actions, not just those of the legislature
o Under exclusiveness can only be applied if classification is made inadvertently. No
subclassification within a class.
o Two classes of public officers: Appointive OR Elective
o Locus standi: a right of appearance in a court of justice on a given question
 Almonte v. Vazquez
o Doctrine: Acceptance of unsigned complaints against government officials does not amount to
unjust discrimination
 Ormoc Sugar Co. Inc. v. Treasurer of Ormoc City
o must apply to future conditions as well (future players in the industry)
 Equal Protection Clause: merely means equality in the enjoyment of similar rights and privileges granted by
law; no person or class shall be denied the same protection of the law enjoyed by the same class; does not
guarantee economic equality, ONLY EQUALITY IN THE LAW

*Due Process of Law

 Philippine Phospate Fertilizer Corp. v. Torres
o Doctrine: the right to hearing as an element of due process does not call for a trial type hearing
o The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard or, as applied to administrative
proceedings, an opportunity to explain one's side or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the
action or ruling complained of
 Ynot v. IAC
 o Doctrine: the Concept of due process was not given exact definition for resiliency
o Minimun requirements of due process: NOTICE and HEARING
 Imperative? Yes
 Absolute? No
 Exceptions:
 Conclusive presumption
 In the summary abatement of a nuisance per se
 The passport of a person sought for a criminal offense
 Filthy restaurants
 Reason for non-requirement:
 Nature of the property involved
 Urgency of the need to protect the general welfare from a clear and present
danger
 may not be dispensed with for they are intended as a safeguard against official
arbitrariness
 Limitations of Due Process: reasonability, the test of the limitation; determination by
legislature
 Alonte v. Savellano
o Doctrine: Insdispensable elements of criminal due process
o Section 14 (1) (2) of Article 3 of the Constitution: no person shall be hed to answer for a criminal
offense without due process of law; in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed
innocent until the contrary is proved
o