A. Due Process

DUE PROCESS OF LAW

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. (PHIL. CONST., art. III, § 1)

Scope

The guarantees of the Bill of Rights are universal in their application to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, color, or nationality. All natural persons, and artificial persons, only in so far as their property is concerned, are protected by the Due Process clause. (Smith, Bell & Co. v. Natividad, G.R. No. 15574, Sept. 17, 1919)

Prima Facie Presumption

The Constitution does not prohibit the legislature from providing that proof of certain facts leads to a prima facie presumption of guilt, provided that the facts proved have a reasonable connection to the ultimate fact presumed. (U.S. v Luling, G.R. No. L11162, Aug. 12, 1916) [Owner verification needed: the source lists G.R. No. L-11162.]

Scope

Universal in application to all persons without regard to any difference in race, color or nationality. Artificial persons are covered by the protection but only insofar as their property is concerned [Smith Bell and Co. v. Natividad, G.R. No. 15574 (1919)].

Due process extends to aliens and, such guarantee includes the means of livelihood [Villegas v. Hiu Chiong, G.R. No. L-29646 (1978)].

Sufficiency of Complaint or Information

A complaint or information is sufficient if it states the:

• Name of the accused;
• Designation of the offense given by the statute;
• Acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense;
• Name of the offended party;
• Approximate date of the commission of the offense; and
• Place where the offense was committed.

When an offense is committed by more than one person, all of them shall be included in the complaint or information. (ROC, Rule 110, § 6)

If the information fails to allege the material elements of the offense, the accused cannot be convicted thereof even if the prosecution is able to present evidence during the trial with respect to such elements.

The real nature of the crime charged is determined from the recital of facts in the information. It is not based on the caption, preamble or from the cited provision of law allegedly violated. (People v. Labado, G.R. No. L-38548, July 24, 1980)

In a situation where a court (in a fused action for the enforcement of criminal and civil liability) may validly order an accused-respondent to pay an obligation arising from a contract, a person’s right to be notified of the complaint, and the right to have the complaint dismissed if there is no cause of action, are completely defeated. If the accused-respondent is completely unaware of the nature of the liability claimed against him or her at the onset of the case, he is blindsided. It is a clear violation of a person's right to due process. (Gloria S. Dy v. People of the Philippines, GR No. 189081, August 10, 2016)

Due process is usually violated where:

• The tax imposed is for private, as distinguished from, public purposes
• A tax is imposed on property outside the State, i.e., extra-territorial taxation; or
• Arbitrary or oppressive methods are used in assessing and collecting taxes.

But, a tax does not violate the due process clause, as applied to a particular taxpayer, although the purpose of the tax will result in an injury rather than a benefit to such taxpayer.

Due process does not require that the property subject to the tax or the amount to be raised should be determined by judicial inquiry, and a notice and hearing as to the amount of the tax and the manner in which it shall be apportioned are generally not necessary to due process of law [Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of the Philippines, Inc. v. Municipality of Tanauan, G.R. No. L31156 (1976)].

Instances of violations of the due process clause:

• If the tax amounts to confiscation of property;
• If the subject of confiscation is outside the jurisdiction of the taxing authority;
• If the tax is imposed for a purpose other than a public purpose;
• If a law applied retroactively imposes unjust or oppressive taxes.
• If the law violates the inherent limitations on taxation.
• Equal Protection Clause

SECTION 1, ARTICLE III. 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.

What the Constitution prohibits is class legislation which discriminates against some and favors others. As long as there are rational or reasonable grounds for so doing, Congress may, therefore, group the persons or properties to be taxed and it is sufficient “if all of the same class are subject to the same rate and the tax is administered impartially upon them.” [1 Cooley 608].

The equal protection clause is subject to reasonable classification [See requisites for valid classification, supra].

• Religious freedom

SECTION 5, ARTICLE III. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. (Nonestablishment clause)

The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. (Free exercise clause)

No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.

The free exercise clause is the basis of tax exemptions.

The imposition of license fees on the distribution and sale of bibles and other religious literature by a non-stock, non-profit missionary organization not for purposes of profit amounts to a condition or permit for the exercise of their right, thus violating the constitutional guarantee of the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship which carries with it the right to disseminate religious beliefs and information [American Bible Society v. City of Manila, G.R. No. L-9637 (1957)].

This is different from a tax on the income of one who engages in religious activities or a tax on property used or employed in connection with those activities.

The Constitution, however, does not prohibit imposing a generally applicable tax on the sale of religious materials by a religious organization [Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, G.R. No. 115455 (1994)].

• Non-impairment of obligations of contracts

SECTION 10, ARTICLE III. No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed.

The Contract Clause has never been thought of as a limitation on the exercise of the State's power of taxation save only where a tax exemption has been granted for a valid consideration [Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, supra]