Daniel
Webster was an attorney who also served as a Senator in the United
States Senate. Primarily recognized for his Senate tenure, Webster was a
key figure in the institution's "Golden days". So well-known was his
skill as a Senator throughout this period that Webster became the
northern member of a trio known as the "Great Triumvirate", with his
colleagues Henry Clay from the west and John C. Calhoun from the south.
His "Reply to Hayne" in 1830 was generally regarded as "the most
eloquent speech ever delivered in Congress." Daniel Webster is also
famous for explaining what due process of law is. According to him in
his argument in the Dartmouth College case, due process of law is the
law of the land, a law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds
upon inquiry and renders judgment only after trial. "The meaning is,
that every citizen shall hold his life, liberty, property, and
immunities, under the protection of the general rules which govern
society."
Though the words "due process of law" does not have a very long history, the doctrine implied by them has history in Anglo-American law which extends for more than seven hundred years—back, indeed, to the signing of the Magna Charta. And yet, notwithstanding this long period during which countless opportunities have presented themselves for its application and judicial definition, the exact meaning of "due process of law" has yet to be defined.
*****
It would appear, then, that a complete knowledge of the meaning of
the doctrine of due process of law can be obtained only by a study of
every case in which its application has been sought. "The historical
antecedents of the phrase 'due process of law' may be clearly traced
back to the expression per legem terrae as it occurs in the
Charter wrung by the Barrons from King John. The 39th chapter of that
document provides that ‘no freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or
disseized, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed; nor shall we
go upon him or send upon him, but by lawful judgment of his peers or by
the law of the land’ (per legem terrae). The phrases 'due
process of law' and 'the law of the land' had come to be synonymous,
both indicating, that the guaranty insisted upon was that persons should
not be imprisoned except upon due indictment, or without an opportunity
on their parts to testify the legality of their arrest and detention,
and that their property should not be taken except in proceedings
conducted in due form in which fair opportunity was offered to the one
claiming ownership or right to possession to appear and show cause, if
any, why the seizure should not be made.
*****
In American practice, the exact phrase 'due process of law' was not
employed in any of the eleven State constitutions adopted prior to the
Federal Constitution, but that it early found expression in substance,
if not in very words, in those instruments. The very words do, however,
appear in the Declaration of Rights of the State of New York, adopted in
1777, and in one of the amendments proposed by that State to the
Federal Constitution as drafted by the Constitution of the United
States, adopted in 1791. That amendment provides, inter alia, that 'nor shall any person . . . be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.'
*****
Our concept of due process – as well as most of the other rights
guaranteed under Article III of our constitution (the Bill of Rights) --
has its roots in American constitutional law. The very first section of
Article III of the Philippine Constitution provides: "Sec.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."
*****
The constitution, in declaring that no State shall deprive any person
of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor to deny
any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,
undoubtedly intended, not only that there should be no arbitrary
deprivation of life, liberty or arbitrary spoliation of property but the
equal protection and security should be given to all under like
circumstances in the enjoyment of their personal and civil rights. All
persons should be equally entitled to pursue their happiness and acquire
and enjoy property. They should have like access to the courts of the
country for the protection of their persons and property, the prevention
and redress of wrongs, and the enforcement of contracts. No impediment
should be interposed to the pursuits by anyone except as applied to the
same pursuits by others under like circumstances. In the administration
of criminal justice no different or higher punishment should be imposed
upon one that such as is prescribed to all for like offenses.
*****
As seen, the requirement as to due process includes the guarantee of
equal protection of the laws. The State should have no favors to bestow,
and designs to inflict no arbitrary deprivation of rights. Special
privileges are always obnoxious and discriminations against persons or
classes are still more so. This is because equality of rights,
privileges, and capacities should unquestionably be the aim of the law. 
0 comments:
Post a Comment