Estrada vs Office of Ombudsman

Facts:

- The Ombudsman served upon Sen. Estrada a copy of the complaint in OMB-
C-C-13-0313, filed by the NBI and Atty. Baligod, which prayed, among
others, that criminal proceedings for Plunder as defined in RA No. 7080 be
conducted against Sen. Estrada. Sen. Estrada filed his counter-affidavit
inOMB-C-C-13-0313 on 9 January

- Estrada filed his request for “Request to be Furnished with Copies of

Counter-Affidavits of the Other Respondents, Affidavits of New Witnesses
and Other Filings” in pursuance to Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. This was
denied by the Ombudsman.

- Petitioner: THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, IN ISSUING THE

CHALLENGED ORDER DATED 27 MARCH 2014, ACTED WITHOUT
OR IN EXCESS OF ITS JURISDICTION OR WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF
JURISDICTION AND VIOLATED SEN. ESTRADA'S
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW

ISSUE: W/N there’s a grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Ombudsman

Supreme Court Ruling:

- The Ombudsman’s denial in its 27 March 2014 Order of Sen. Estrada’s

Request did not constitute grave abuse of discretion. Indeed, the denial did
not violate Sen. Estrada’s constitutional right to due process.

- First. There is no law or rule which requires the Ombudsman to furnish a

respondent with copies of the counter-affidavits of his co-respondents.
There was also no violation of Sen. Estrada’s right to due process because
 there is no rule which mandates that a respondent such as Sen. Estrada be
furnished with copies of the submissions of his corespondents.

- Sen. Estrada, however, fails to specify a law or rule which states that it is a
compulsory requirement of due process in a preliminary investigation that
the Ombudsman furnish a respondent with the counter-affidavits of his co-
respondents.

- What the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman require is for
the Ombudsman to furnish the respondent with a copy of the complaint and
the supporting affidavits and documents at the time the order to submit the
counter-affidavit is issued to the respondent

- Ang Tibay Case enumerated the constitutional requirements of due process,

which Ang Tibay described as the "fundamental and essential requirements
of due process in trials and investigations of an administrative
character."22These requirements are "fundamental and essential" because
without these, there isno due process as mandated by the Constitution. These
"fundamental and essential requirements" cannot be taken away by
legislation because theyare part of constitutional due process. These
"fundamental and essential requirements" are:

- (1) The first of these rights is the right to a hearing, which includes the right
of the party interested or affected to present his own case and submit
evidence in support thereof. x x x.

- (2) Not only must the party be given an opportunity to present his case and
adduce evidence tending to establish the rights which he asserts but the
tribunal must consider the evidence presented.
 - (3) "While the duty to deliberatedoes not impose the obligation to decide
right, it does imply a necessity which cannot be disregarded, namely, that of
having something to support its decision. A decision with absolutely nothing
to support it is a nullity, x x x."

- (4) Not only must there be some evidence to support a finding or conclusion,
but the evidence must be "substantial." "Substantial evidence is more than a
mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion." x x x.

- (5) The decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing,
or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected. x x x.
- (6) The Court of Industrial Relations or any of its judges, therefore, must act
on its or his own independent consideration of the law and facts of the
controversy, and not simply accept the views of a subordinate in arriving at a
decision. x x x.

- (7) The Court of Industrial Relations should, in all controversial questions,

render its decision in sucha manner that the parties to the proceeding can
know the various issues involved, and the reasons for the decisions rendered.
The performance of this duty is inseparable from the authority conferred
upon it.23
-

Valenzuela vs Bellosillo
Facts:
- Judge Bellosillo was charged with gross violation of Constitutional right
because he allegedly bailed the accused without the presence of the counsel.
Additionally, he requested the replacement of his counsel, which is Atty.
Valenzuela.
 - Atty. Valenzuela attached an affidavit executed by his client- Miriam
Colapo. But he failed to present her as the witness since she’s allegedly out
of town.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Respondent judge is guilty of gross misconduct
Ruling:
- No. On the issue of granting bail without the assistance of counsel, the Court
held that it was valid and sufficiently based on the Manifestation filed by
Atty. Valenzuela. With regard to the alleged act of respondent Judge
suggesting to the accused that she should change her counsel (complainant
Atty. V) and recommending a different lawyer, the Court found that the
evidence adduced by the complainant was insufficient to substantiate the
charges against him. The only evidence offered by complainant was the
Affidavit of his client Meriam Colapo, and it cannot be the basis of a finding
of guilt even in an administrative case. The complainant’s failure to present
his principal witness, in the absence of other evidence to prove his charges
was fatal and said Affidavit cannot be given credence and is inadmissible
without the said affiant being placed on the witness stand.

- The employment or profession of a person is a property right within the

constitutional guaranty of due process of law. This applies also to Judges.
Respondent judge cannot therefore be adjudged guilty of the charges against
him without affording him a chance to confront the said witness, Meriam
Colapo. Otherwise, his right to due process would be infringed.

Lao Gi vs CA

Facts:
- Filomeno Chia Jr. was made a Filipino Citizen by Opinion 191 but was
revoked on the grounds of fraud and misrepresentation of his father’s
citizenship.
- Petitioners were required to register as aliens but refused.
- They filed a motion for reconsideration of the of the order directing them to
register as aliens and to oppose the motion for their arrest but was denied by
Acting Commissioner Nituda.
-
ISSUE: W/N the petitioners are entitled to right of due process even if they’re
aliens

Ruling: Yes

Section 37 of the Immigration Act provides that arrest and deportation of aliens
may be done after adetermination of the Board of Commissioners that a ground
for deportation exists. After the charges are filed,respondents should be notified
of the grounds and a hearing should be conducted and it is only after a
hearinghas been conducted may the alien be deported and the Opinions
rendered will bear weight in the determinationof their citizenship. Nituda can
only direct or order respondents to register as aliens once there is a
positivefinding that the respondents are aliens."The power to deport an alien is
an act of the State. It is an act by or under the authority of thesovereign power.
It is a police measure against undesirable aliens whose presence in the country
is found to beinjurious to the public good and domestic tranquility of the
people."

Considering that it is a harsh and extraordinary administrative proceeding

affecting the freedom andliberty of a person, the constitutional right of such
person to due process should not be denied. Rules of CriminalProcedure are to
be used.Before a charge should be filed in the CID, a preliminary investigation
should be conducted to determineif there is sufficient cause for the respondent
to be charged of deportation. SC does not find the private prosecutor a
participant with legal standing, should there be establishment of damages
arising from thedeportation charge against the alien, this can only be acted upon
in ordinary courts. [spell, deportation chargesare exclusively for CID and those
with jurisdiction, between the state and the alien]. Petition granted and CID isto
continue hearing the case and determine if respondents should be deported.
 Corona vs United Harbor Pilots Association

Facts:

- The Philippine Ports Authority was created through PD 505 with the
amendment of PD 857 that pilots must be holders of pilot licenses [3]and
must train as probationary pilots in outports for three months and in the Port
of Manila for four months. It is only after they have achieved satisfactory
performance [4] that they are given permanent and regular appointments by
the PPA itself [5] to exercise harbor pilotage until they reach the age of 70,
unless sooner removed by reason of mental or physical unfitness by the PPA
General Manager

PPA Manager, Dayan issued PPA-AO No. 04-92 which states that all existing
regular appointments which have been previously issued either by the Bureau of
Customs or the PPA shall remain valid up to 31 December 1992 only and that all
appointments to harbor pilot positions in all pilotage districts shall, henceforth, be
only for a term of one (1) year from date of effectivity subject to yearly renewal or
cancellation by the Authority after conduct of a rigid evaluation of performance.
- The respondents United Harbor Pilots Association and the Manila Pilots
Association, through Capt. Alberto C. Compas, questioned PPA-AO No. 04-
92.
- The Office of the President issued an abeyance in the implementation of
PPA but through the Assistant Secretary For Legal Affairs, Corona
dismissed the petition

ISSUE: WoN the PPA is Constitutional

Ruling:

- The Court is convinced that PPA-AO No. 04-92 was issued in stark
disregard of respondents right against deprivation of property without due
process of law. Consequently, the instant petition must be denied
- Section 1 of the Bill of Rights lays down what is known as the due process
clause of the Constitution

- In order to fall within the aegis of this provision, two conditions must
concur, namely, that there is a deprivation and that such deprivation is done
without proper observance of due process. When one speaks of due process
of law, however, a distinction must be made between matters of procedure
and matters of substance. In essence, procedural due process refers to the
method or manner by which the law is enforced, while substantive due
process requires that the law itself, not merely the procedures by which the
law would be enforced, is fair, reasonable, and just. PPA-AO No. 04-92
must be examined in light of this distinction

- Respondents argue that due process was not observed in the adoption of
PPA-AO No. 04-92 allegedly because no hearing was conducted whereby
relevant government agencies and the pilots themselves could ventilate their
views. They are obviously referring to the procedural aspect of the
enactment.

- In the case at bar, respondents questioned PPA-AO No. 04-92 no less than
four times [16] before the matter was finally elevated to this Tribunal. Their
arguments on this score, however, fail to persuade

- Neither does the fact that the pilots themselves were not consulted in any
way taint the validity of the administrative order. As a general rule, notice
and hearing, as the fundamental requirements of procedural due process, are
essential only when an administrative body exercises its quasi-judicial
function. In the performance of its executive or legislative functions, such as
issuing rules and regulations, an administrative body need not comply with
the requirements of notice and hearing

- It is readily apparent that PPA-AO No. 04-92 unduly restricts the right of
harbor pilots to enjoy their profession before their compulsory retirement. In
the past, they enjoyed a measure of security knowing that after passing five
examinations and undergoing years of on-the-job training, they would have a
license which they could use until their retirement, unless sooner revoked by
the PPA for mental or physical unfitness. Under the new issuance, they have
to contend with an annual cancellation of their license which can be
temporary or permanent depending on the outcome of their performance
evaluation. Veteran pilots and neophytes alike are suddenly confronted with
one-year terms which ipso facto expire at the end of that period. Renewal of
their license is now dependent on a rigid evaluation of performance which is
conducted only after the license has already been cancelled. Hence, the use
of the term renewal. It is this pre-evaluation cancellation which primarily
makes PPA-AO No. 04-92 unreasonable and constitutionally infirm. In a
real sense, it is a deprivation of property without due process of law.