This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2016-01-12 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Administrative due process cannot be fully equated with due process in its strict judicial sense.[18] A formal hearing is not always necessary and the observance of technical rules of procedure is not strictly applied in administrative proceedings.[19] The essence of administrative due process is the right to be heard and to be given an opportunity to explain one's side.[20] Where the Commission hears both sides and considers their contentions, the requirements of administrative due process are complied with. | |||||
|
2015-11-10 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| We note that the petitioner's citizenship came to the fore because he himself asserted his Philippine citizenship in his answer to Pillos' petition to cancel his CoC in order to bolster his allegation of compliance with the one-year residency requirement. As such, he could not credibly complain about being denied due process, especially considering that he had been able to file an opposition to Pillos' motion for reconsideration. It is worthy to state that the observance of due process in administrative proceedings does not always require or involve a trial-type proceeding, for the demand of due process is also met whenever a person, being notified, is afforded the opportunity to explain or defend himself. Also, due process is satisfied by giving the opportunity to seek the reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.[26] The rule is the same in election cases.[27] | |||||
|
2015-01-21 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Justice Velasco's dissent relies on the ruling in Office of the Ombudsman v. Reyes (Reyes case),[15] an administrative case, in which a different set of rules of procedure and standards apply. Sen. Estrada's Petition, in contrast, involves the preliminary investigation stage in a criminal case. Rule III on the Procedure in Administrative Cases of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman applies in the Reyes case, while Rule II on the Procedure in Criminal Cases of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman applies in Sen. Estrada's Petition. In both cases, the Rules of Court apply in a suppletory character or by analogy.[16] | |||||
|
2015-01-21 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The Ruivivar case, like the Reyes[44] case, was also an administrative case before the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman found petitioner Rachel Beatriz Ruivivar administratively liable for discourtesy in the course of her official functions and imposed on her the penalty of reprimand. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision on the ground that she was not furnished copies of the affidavits of the private respondent's witnesses. The Ombudsman subsequently ordered that petitioner be furnished with copies of the counter-affidavits of private respondent's witnesses, and that petitioner should "file, within ten (10) days from receipt of this Order, such pleading which she may deem fit under the circumstances." Petitioner received copies of the affidavits, and simply filed a manifestation where she maintained that her receipt of the affidavits did not alter the deprivation of her right to due process or cure the irregularity in the Ombudsman's decision to penalize her. | |||||
|
2015-01-21 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Justice J.B.L. Reyes, writing for the Court, emphatically declared in Lozada v. Hernandez,[28] that the "rights conferred upon accused persons to participate in preliminary investigations concerning themselves depend upon the provisions of law by which such rights are specifically secured, rather than upon the phrase 'due process of law'." This reiterates Justice Jose P. Laurel's oft-quoted pronouncement in Hashim v. Boncan[29] that "the right to a preliminary investigation is statutory, not constitutional." In short, the rights of a respondent in a preliminary investigation are merely statutory rights, not constitutional due process rights. An investigation to determine probable cause for the filing of an information does not initiate a criminal action so as to trigger into operation Section 14(2), Article III of the Constitution.[30] It is the filing of a complaint or information in court that initiates a criminal action.[31] | |||||
|
2013-06-05 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The essence of due process is simply to be heard, or as applied to administrative proceedings, a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain one's side, or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.[22] Administrative due process cannot be fully equated with due process in its strict judicial sense. In administrative proceedings, a formal or trial-type hearing is not always necessary[23] and technical rules of procedure are not strictly applied. Hence, the right to cross-examine is not an indispensable aspect of administrative due process.[24] The petitioner cannot, therefore, argue that the affidavit of Bang-on and his witnesses are hearsay and insufficient to prove his guilt. | |||||