Constitutional Law – Gorospe

For starters we to remember once more, please remember that the Bill of Rights can only be used
against the government, and cannot be used against private person. If you have a conflict with your
neighbor makes use of other laws not bill of rights. And it is with this principle that give rise to the
principle of statutory due process.

Once more, in the case of Serrano vs NLCR, the SC refused to characterize the dismissal of an employee
without the compliance of a “Notice Requirement” as a violation of due process. And the reason given
by the majority of the Justices was that Due process is part of the bill of rights not against the
government and not against private person such as private employers, that was in 2000. In 2004, the SC
revisited Serrano and was able to characterized dismissal without compliance to the notice requirement
as a violation of due process, but for that purpose it have to come up with statutory due process. With
that action of the part of the court, it was then able to separate it with the traditional notion of due
process which is associated with constitutional due process.

I have to distinguish constitutional due process with statutory due process.

Constitutional Due Process is the one referred to, in the bill of rights and the one found in the
constitution. While statutory due process, is the due process provided for in a law such as the labor
code, the notice requirement in the labor code.

There is also a difference in the consequence of violation of due process, if it’s a violation of
constitutional due process, the general rule is the action or the judgment that has been taken or
rendered is null and void. And that appeared to be the important characterization in the case of serrano
why they refused to characterize a dismissal of an employee without notice as a violation of due
process. If it characterized as a violation of due process which at that time only referred as a violation of
constitutional due process then the dismissal of an employee who rightfully deserved to be dismissed
but there was a problem in the guide of the notice requirement would have meant that, that employee
would have to be reinstated. Because his dismissal could not have been ratified since it was void. Since it
was characterized as a violation of constitutional due process.

What about for statutory due process, the SC said in the case of Agapon, the effect depends upon the
law violated. IN the case of Agabon the law violated is the labor code, however the SC also noticed that
the LC does not provide the consequence of a violation of the notice requirement. Unlike when it comes
to the requirement for just authorized cause for dismissal. So the court said, it’s not the LC itself then we
have to look elsewhere. And what the court did was to go to the civil code and find provision for
nominal damages. So again, if the dismissal is caharaterized as a violation of constitutional due process
which the majority in Serrano did not want to do, that would have meant that an employee who
rightfully deserved would have been dismissed would have been ordered reinstated. Because that is the
normal effect of the violation of constitutional due process but the development of the statutory due
process we have now to rely on the law itself that was violated and does not have to follow the usual
result of the violation of the constitutional due process
When it comes to due process itself, remember the relativity of due process. Due Process it is generally
identifies as notice and hearing. But it is not just about notice and hearing. That could just be the
procedural aspect of due process. We also have substantive due process and which goes for the
justification and very reason for the law that may provide for the loss of life, liberty or property. In the
initial development of due process was only understood as a guarantee of procedural due process. But it
was also subsequently develop as a guarantee of substantive due process. So it’s not enough that there
must be a notice and hearing if the law itself providing for the loss of life , liberty or property is defective
pursuant to the standard of substantive due process. On the relativity of due process, that natural
person could not be equated with juridical persons in so far as enjoying the benefits of the constitution
are concern. Why ? Yiu correlate that once more to the idea that ours is a democratic and republican
state, sovereignty resides in the people and all government authorities emanates from them. That
means that you individual are not creature of the State. You do not owe your existence to the State,if
ever you are not alive simply for the purpose of serving the State instead the state should be serving
you. On the other hand, when it comes to the juridical person they are mere creatures of the State.
Therefore, they could be subject to greater control and supervision by the State. And which control
provision if applied to an individual may become unconstitutional. Same same when it comes to alien
and citizens, citizens are the one with the birth right to be in the country while aliens are merely here by
tolerance by the State. Therefore they will not be entitled to the same kind of privileges, liberties or
freedoms as the citizens. With regards to the constitutional guarantees of due process protecting life,
liberty and property, you also have to relate it to the hierarchy of rights Life and Liberty are certainly
much worth or worth so much more compare to property. Si if there is a conflict between Human Rights
such as life and liberty, and Property Rights,