Free Access to the Courts

Free Access to the Courts

      Section 11. Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty.

   The time-honored doctrine that the dispensation of justice for all, regardless of creed or color, rich or poor is embodied in this constitutional mandate. Accordingly, any person no matter how poor he may be cannot be legally-

            a) denied of access to judicial or quasi-judicial bodies
            b) as well as adequate legal assistance

   But there are government requirements which by reason of poverty,  a person may be denied access to the courts for the protection of his life, liberty, or property. The requirements of paying docket fees in filing of pleadings or service thereof; securing copies of the necessary government documents, or transcripts of records may be excessive that the party concerned may not be able to exercise his right of access to the courts or adequate legal assistance. For instance, low salaried employees, domestic servants and laborers who, in order to collect their salaries which their employers refuse or delay payment therefore, may have to resort to courts for their enforcement and yet, may not have the means to pay such filing fees, sheriff's fees or attorney's fees.

   Of course with respect to filing fees, he may be allowed to prosecute his claim as a forma pauperis or as a pauper litigant and as such, maybe exempt from paying docket fees, but not attorney's fees with respect to civil cases, necessary government documents or transcripts of record. In criminal cases, while he may be provided counsel de officio in case he cannot afford the services of counsel, he is not, however, exempt from securing necessary documents required in connection with his case.

Adequate Legal Assistance

   Aside from the fact that the court may appoint a de officio counsel should the accused in a criminal case appear without counsel, the State, in its implied duty to provide free legal assistance to citizens, the Citizen Legal Assistance Office under the Department of Justice  was created.

   Six other specialized government agencies were create to extend legal assistance to indigents which include:

   a) The Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance under the Department of Agrarian Reform which extends legal assistance to farmers before the courts.
   b) The Free Legal Assistance Office under the Department of Labor and Employment, which extends legal assistance to workers and employees before the National Labor Relations Commission and the administrative offices of the Department. 
   c) Presidential Assistance on Cultural Minorities under the office of the President which give legal assistance to cultural minorities. 
   d) The Department of National Defense;
   e) The National Police Commission 
   f) The Integrated National Police to give legal assistance to any policemen facing charges before the fiscals and the courts in connection with the performance of their duty, through lawyers authorized by the respective agencies. 

Due Process as Substantive Law

Due Process as Substantive Law

   Substantive due process of law requires the following elements:

      1.) The law is in harmony with the general powers of the legislature;
      2.)  Such law is reasonable in its operation; and
      3.) It is enforced according to regularly prescribed methods; and
      4.) Such law is applicable to all as a class.

   Due process as a principle requires that the law affecting life, liberty, or property is in itself a valid law; that is to say that the law is a valid exercise of police power or of the power of eminent domain.

   Due process of law is denied when excessive penalties are attached to the violation of statutory or administrative orders as to make it practically impossible for the individual to test their validity by violating them.

   Due process is not violated whenever an administrative official is suspended without previous hearing pending administrative investigation of the charges filed against him.

   A person should not be held liable under the due process clause under a criminal law where the crime charged is not clearly defined as to enable him to determine just what offense he has committed, that is to say that the act by its terms are so vague that a person of common intelligence must necessarily guess as to its meaning and differ as to its application.

   Due process of law is violated by a law that arbitrarily and unreasonably prescribes that certain acts innocent in themselves shall constitute criminal offense.

   Thus, the requirements of substantive and procedural due process of law are satisfied when both are present whenever a person is hailed before the court to answer for the commission of a crime.

   The highest tribunal of the land had an occasion to declare with clarity in the case of Insular Government vs. Ling Su Fan (15 Phil. 73) -

      " When the person is deprived of his life, or liberty, therefore, under a law prescribed by the proper lawmaking body of the state and such law is within the power of said department to make, and is reasonable, and is then enforced according to the regular methods of procedure prescribed, and is applicable to all citizens or to all citizens of a particular class within the state, such person is not deprived of his property or of his life or liberty without due process of law."