Scribd
Upload
72 views3 pages

Evolution of Administrative Law

The document discusses the evolution of administrative due process in the Philippines. It explains that while administrative agencies are not bound by strict judicial due process requirements, they must still respect the constitutional right to due process. The landmark case of Ang Tibay v Court of Industrial Relations established the "cardinal primary requirements" of procedural due process in administrative proceedings as: (1) right to a hearing and present evidence; (2) tribunal must consider evidence; (3) decision must be supported; (4) substantial evidence. Another case, Ledesma v Court of Appeals, ruled that a "trial-type proceeding" is not always required for administrative due process - notice of charges and opportunity to respond are sufficient.

Uploaded by

Rengie Galo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
72 views3 pages

Evolution of Administrative Law

The document discusses the evolution of administrative due process in the Philippines. It explains that while administrative agencies are not bound by strict judicial due process requirements, they must still respect the constitutional right to due process. The landmark case of Ang Tibay v Court of Industrial Relations established the "cardinal primary requirements" of procedural due process in administrative proceedings as: (1) right to a hearing and present evidence; (2) tribunal must consider evidence; (3) decision must be supported; (4) substantial evidence. Another case, Ledesma v Court of Appeals, ruled that a "trial-type proceeding" is not always required for administrative due process - notice of charges and opportunity to respond are sufficient.

Uploaded by

Rengie Galo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

RENGIE C.

GALO JANUARY 25, 2020


ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

THE EVOLUTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE DUE PROCESS

Section 1, Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution provides that “(n)o 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 law.” The first rights guaranteed in our Bill of Rights are the rights to
due process and equal protection of the law.

Due process of law is an oft-invoked clause in most situations involving an individual’s


relationship with others, especially with the Government or the State. Anybody who stands
charged with anything under the sun or who may have been subjected to all sorts of suspicions
arising out of malicious insinuations or mere rumors invariably invoke this right. And they do so,
because they know it is firmly enshrined in the very fundamental law of our land. Thus Section
1, Article III of our Constitution provides in no unmistakable terms that "no person shall be
deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law". And just to be more emphatic,
the Constitution framers still saw the need of re-stating the due process clause more specifically
in criminal cases when it categorically states that "no person shall be held to answer for a
criminal offense without due process of law" (Sec. 14(1), Art. III).

The question actually posited is about procedural due process in administrative proceedings.
Procedural due process, as distinguished from substantive due process, is all about “procedural
fairness.” As the great American statesman and Sen. Daniel Webster describes due process, it is
a “law which hears before it condemns.”

Procedural due process in judicial proceedings should be distinguished from procedural due
process in administrative proceedings. In the landmark case of  Banco Espanol Filipino v
Palanca, 31 Phil. 921, 934 (1918), the Supreme Court enumerated the following essential
requirements of procedural fairness in judicial proceedings: “(1) There must be a court or
tribunal clothed with judicial power to hear and determine the matter before it (Pp. vs. Vera, 31
SCRA 711); (2) jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person of the defendant or over
the property which is the subject of the proceedings; (3) the defendant must be given the
opportunity to be heard; and (4) judgment must be rendered upon lawful hearing.”

However, there are also cases which are decided not by courts but by administrative agencies
(like the DepEd). I still remember how our Constitutional Law professor Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas,
SJ, explained this concept of procedural due process when I was in law school. Thus, while such
administrative agencies are not always bound by the strict requirements of judicial due process as
mentioned above and spelled out in more detail in the Revised Rules of Court (or other relevant
laws passed by Congress), they are still required to respect the due process clause of our
Constitution. The landmark case of Ang Tibay v Court of Industrial Relations, 69 Phil. 635
(1940), enumerated the following “cardinal primary requirements” of procedural due process in
administrative proceedings: “(1) The right to a hearing, which includes the right to present one’s
case and submit evidence in support thereof; (2) The tribunal must consider the evidence
presented; (3) The decision must have something to support itself; (4) The evidence must be
substantial. Substantial evidence means such reasonable evidence as a reasonable mind accept as
adequate to support a conclusion; (5) The decision must be based on the evidence presented at
the hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected; (6) The
tribunal or body or any of its judges must act on its own independent consideration of the law
and facts of the controversy, and not simply accept the views of a subordinate; (7) The Board or
body should, in all controversial questions, render its decision in such manner that the parties to
the proceeding can know the various issues involved, and the reason for the decision rendered.”

If we simplify what these two leading cases are actually saying, we could see that procedural due
process, whether judicial or administrative, is all about “notice and an opportunity to be heard.”

The answer now to the specific question asked of me, as to whether a “court-type” hearing is
necessary, was already answered by the Supreme Court in several cases, one of which is
Ledesma v Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 166780, December 27, 2007, 541 SCRA 44 .

“Opportunity to be heard” in relation to due process in administrative proceedings, does not


always require a “trial-type proceeding.” Thus, in the leading case of Ledesma v Court of
Appeals, the Supreme Court ruled that “(d)ue process, as a constitutional precept, does not
always and in all situations require a trial-type proceeding. Due process is satisfied when a
person is notified of the charge against him and given an opportunity to explain or defend
himself. In administrative proceedings, the filing of charges and giving reasonable opportunity
for the person so charged to answer the accusations against him constitute the minimum
requirements of due process. The essence of due process is simply 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.”

The essence of procedural due process is embodied in the basic requirement of notice and a real
opportunity to be heard. In administrative proceedings, as in the case at bar, procedural due
process simply means the opportunity to explain one’s side or the opportunity to seek a
reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. ‘To be heard’ does not mean only verbal
arguments in court; one may also be heard thru pleadings. Where opportunity to be heard, either
through oral arguments or pleadings, is accorded, there is no denial of procedural due process.’
This was extensively discussed in Vivo v. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation as
follows:

The observance of fairness in the conduct of any investigation is at the very heart of procedural
due process. The essence of due process is to be heard, and, as applied to administrative
proceedings, this means a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain one’s side, or an opportunity
to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. Administrative due process
cannot be fully equated with due process in its strict judicial sense, for in the former a formal or
trial-type hearing is not always necessary, and technical rules of procedure are not strictly
applied. Ledesma v. Court Appeals [(565 Phil. 731, 740 [2007])] elaborates on the well-
established meaning of due process in administrative proceedings in this wise:
Due process, as a constitutional precept, does not always and in all situations require a trial-type
proceeding. Due process is satisfied when a person is notified of the charge against him and
given an opportunity to explain or defend himself. In administrative proceedings, the filing of
charges and giving reasonable opportunity for the person so charged to answer the accusations
against him constitute the minimum requirements of due process. The essence of due process is
simply 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.”
(Emphasis supplied)

In the above-cited jurisprudence, with facts that are similar to your situation, a Show Cause
Memorandum was issued to the respondent. The same was construed sufficient to cover the due
process requirements under the law, as discussed above. Ultimately, the respondent’s cause was
remanded to the agency concerned for proper administrative proceedings.

Succinctly, the same circumstance may attend your situation. We deem it best that you
personally consult a lawyer for the propriety of your responses for further administrative
proceedings you shall face.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy