This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2015-01-21 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Justice Velasco's dissent cites the cases of Tatad v. Sandiganbayan[46] (Tatad) and Duterte v. Sandiganbayan[47] (Duterte) in an attempt to prop up its stand. A careful reading of these cases, however, would show that they do not stand on all fours with the present case. In Tatad, this Court ruled that "the inordinate delay in terminating the preliminary investigation and filing the information [by the Tanodbayan] in the present case is violative of the constitutionally guaranteed right of the petitioner to due process and to a speedy disposition of the cases against him."[48] The Tanodbayan took almost three years to terminate the preliminary investigation, despite Presidential Decree No. 911's prescription of a ten-day period for the prosecutor to resolve a case under preliminary investigation. We ruled similarly in Duterte, where the petitioners were merely asked to comment and were not asked to file counter-affidavits as is the proper procedure in a preliminary investigation. Moreover, in Duterte, the Ombudsman took four years to terminate its preliminary investigation. | |||||
|
2013-10-22 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Where the denial of the fundamental right to due process is apparent, a decision rendered in disregard of that right should be declared void for lack of jurisdiction. The rule is equally true for quasi-judicial bodies (such as the COMELEC), for the constitutional guarantee that no man shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process is unqualified by the type of proceedings (whether judicial or administrative) where the violation occurs.[53] Consequently, the assailed March 27, 2013 and May 14, 2013 COMELEC resolutions cancelling Reyes' CoC should be declared void for having been rendered in violation of her right to due process. | |||||
|
2011-11-28 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The cardinal precept is that where there is a violation of basic constitutional rights, courts are ousted from their jurisdiction. The violation of a party's right to due process raises a serious jurisdictional issue which cannot be glossed over or disregarded at will. Where the denial of the fundamental right to due process is apparent, a decision rendered in disregard of that right is void for lack of jurisdiction.[79] | |||||
|
2011-05-31 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Time and again, we have held that the essence of due process is simply an opportunity 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.[21] In the application of the principle of due process, what is sought to be safeguarded is not lack of previous notice but the denial of the opportunity to be heard.[22] As long as a party was given the opportunity to defend his interests in due course, he was not denied due process.[23] | |||||
|
2010-08-18 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| The cardinal precept is that where there is a violation of basic constitutional rights, courts are ousted from their jurisdiction. The violation of a party's right to due process raises a serious jurisdictional issue which cannot be glossed over or disregarded at will. Where the denial of the fundamental right to due process is apparent, a decision rendered in disregard of that right is void for lack of jurisdiction. This rule is equally true in quasi-judicial and administrative proceedings, for the constitutional guarantee that no man shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process is unqualified by the type of proceedings (whether judicial or administrative) where he stands to lose the same.[36] | |||||