Republic vs Express Telecom

Procedural and substantive due process

Facts: National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) granted Bayantel the provisional authority to
operate a Cellular Mobile Telephone System/Service (CMTS) on its own initiative applying Rule 15,
Section 3 of its 1987 Rules of Practice and Procedures. Respondent Extelcom contends that the NTC
should have applied the Revised Rules which were filed with the Office of the National Administrative
Register where the phrase “on its own initiative” were deleted and since the 1993 Revised Rules were
filed with the UP Law Center.

Issue: Whether the right of Extelcom to due process was violated when it was not afforded the
opportunity to question the motion for revival of application?

Ruling: No. It cannot be said that Extelcoms right to procedural due process was prejudiced. It will still
have the opportunity to be heard during the full-blown adversarial hearings that will follow. In fact, the
records show that the NTC has scheduled several hearing dates for this purpose, at which all interested
parties shall be allowed to register their opposition. The Supreme court held that there is no denial of
due process where full-blown adversarial proceedings are conducted before an administrative body.
With Extelcom having fully participated in the proceedings, and indeed, given the opportunity to file its
opposition to the application, there was clearly no denial of its right to due process.