Sherre F.

Roche Administrative Law

Atty. Ariel B. Bacatan. Saturday (8:00Am-11:00AM)

JURISPRUDENTIAL 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.

In the case of People vs. Cayat1, it provided the meaning of due process of law, to wit: “(1) that
there shall be a law prescribed in harmony with the general powers of the legislative department
of the government; (2) that it shall be reasonable in its operation; (3) that it shall be enforced
according to the regular methods of procedure prescribed; and (4) that it shall be applicable alike
to all citizens of the state or to all of the class.”

There are two kinds of due process, substantive and procedural. Substantive due process serves
as a restriction on the government’s law and rule-making powers, on the other hand, procedural
due process serves as a restriction on actions of judicial and quasi-judicial agencies of the
government. The question actually posited is about procedural due process in administrative
proceedings.

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 Palanca2,
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; (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.”

It was extensively discussed in Vivo vs. Philippine Amusement and Game Corporatize 3 , 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.4 Administrative due process cannot be fully

1
G.R. No. 45987, May 5, 1939
2
31 Phil. 921, 934 (1918)
3
G.R. No. 187854, November 12, 2013
4
Office of the Ombudsman v. Reyes, G.R. No. 170512, October 5, 2011
equated with due process in its strict judicial sense, for in the former a formal or trial-type hearing
is not always necessary,5 and technical rules of procedure are not strictly applied.

Ledesma vs. Court of Appeals6 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.

It bears noting, while such administrative agencies are not always bound by the strict
requirements of judicial due process as mentioned above, they are still required to respect the
due process clause of our Constitution. Moreover, the case of Ang Tibay vs. Court of Industrial
Relations7, enumerated the following cardinal primary requirementrequirements” 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.”

The Court reiterated in Flores vs. Montemayor 8 , that “the essence of due process in
administrative proceedings is the opportunity to explain one’s side or seek a reconsideration of
the action or ruling complained of. As long as the parties are given the opportunity to be heard
before judgment is rendered, the demands of due process are sufficiently met. What is offensive
to due process is the denial of the opportunity to be heard.” As a rule, the non-observance of
notice and hearing will invalidate the administrative proceedings. A failure to comply with the
requirements may result in a failure to acquire jurisdiction. A hearing may take place after the
deprivation occurs. What the law prohibits is not the absence of previous notice but the absolute
absence thereof and the lack of opportunity to be heard.

5
Imperial, Jr. v. Government Service Insurance System, G.R. No. 191224, October 4, 2011
6
G.R. No. 166780, December 27, 2007, 541 SCRA 444.
7
69 Phil. 635, (1940)
8
G.R. No. 170146, June 6, 2011
 As cited in Nasecore vs ERC9, there has been “no denial of due process if any irregularity in the
premature issuance of the assailed decision has been remedied by an order giving the petitions
the right to participate in the hearing of the Motion for Reconsideration. The opportunity granted
by, technically, allowing petitioners to finally be able to file their comment in the case, resolves
the procedural irregularity previously inflicted upon petitioners.

9
G.R. No. 190795, July 6, 2011