Case No.

ARSENIO P. LUMIQUED (deceased), Regional Director, DAR — CAR, Represented by his Heirs,
Francisca A. Lumiqued, May A. Lumiqued, Arlene A. Lumiqued and Richard A. Lumiqued, petitioners, 
vs.
Honorable APOLONIO G. EXEVEA, ERDOLFO V. BALAJADIA and FELIX T. CABADING, ALL
Members of Investigating Committee, created by DOJ Order No. 145 on May 30, 1992; HON.
FRANKLIN M. DRILON, SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, HON. ANTONIO T. CARPIO, CHIEF
Presidential Legal Adviser/Counsel; and HON. LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING, Senior Deputy
Executive Secretary of the Office of the President, and JEANNETTE OBAR-ZAMUDIO, Private
Respondent, respondents.

Facts:

Arsenio P. Lumiqued was the regional director of DAR-CAR until President Fidel V. Ramos
dismissed him from that position pursuant to Administrative Order No. 52 dated May 12, 1993. The
dismissal was the aftermath of the three complaints filed by DAR-CAR Regional Cashier and private
respondent Jeannette Obar-Zamudio with the Board of Discipline of the DAR. The first affidavit dated
November 16, 1989 charged Lumiqued with malversation through falsification of official documents for
committing at least 93 counts of falsification by padding gasoline receipt from May to September 1989.
The second affidavit dated November 22, 2014 private respondent accused Lumiqued with violation of
COA rules and regulations alleging that during the months of April, May, July, August, September and
October 1989, he made unliquidated cash advances in the total amount of P116,000.00. He defrauded the
government by deliberately concealing his unliquidated cash advances through the falsification of
accounting entries in order not to reflect on cash advances of other officials’ under code 8-70-600 of
accounting rules. The third affidavit dated December 15, 1989, charged him with oppression and
harassment, according to private respondent, her two previous complaints prompted Lumiqued to retaliate
by relieving her from her post as Regional Cashier without just cause.

Issue:
Does the due process clause encompass the right to be assisted by counsel during an
administrative inquiry?

Ruling:

In administrative proceedings, the essence of due process is simply the opportunity to explain
one’s side. An actual hearing is not always an indispensable aspect of due process. As long as a party is
given the opportunity to defend his interests in due course, he cannot be said to have been denied due
process of law, for this is the essence of due process. This constitutional mandate is deemed satisfied if a
person is granted an opportunity to seek reconsideration of the action complained. Lumiqued’s appeal and
filing of motions for reconsideration cured the irregularity attended the proceedings conducted by the
committee.

The Constitutional provision safeguards life, liberty and property. Hence, the right to due process
could rightfully be invoked. The right to security of tenure is not absolute of equal weight is the
countervailing mandate of the Constitution that all public officers and employees must serve with
responsibility, integrity loyalty and efficiency. In this case, it has been shown that Lumiqued did not live
up to this constitutional precept. On the evidence presented, the findings pinning culpability for the
charges of dishonesty and grace misconduct upon Lumiqued were not shown.

Wherefore, the instant petition for certiorari and mandamus is hereby dismissed and
Administrative Order No. 52 of the Office of the President is affirmed. Cost against petitioners.
Case No. 2

October 17, 2000

Secretary of Justice, petitioner
vs.
Hon. Ralph C. Lantion, Presiding Judge, RTC of Manila, branch 25, and Mark B. Jimenez, respondents

Facts:

On January 18, 2000 the petition at bar was dismissed and ordered the petitioner to furnish
private respondent copies of the extradition request and its supporting papers to grant him a reasonable
period within which to file his comment with supporting evidences. On April 5, 2000 petitioner filed an
Urgent Motion to allow continuation and maintenance of action and filing of reply and thereafter he filed
a manifestation with the attached note from the Embassy of Canada and from the Security Bureau of the
Hongkong SAR Government Secretarist.

Issues:
Whether or not the private respondent is entitled to the due process right to notice and hearing
during the evaluation stage of the extradition process.

Ruling:

For the temporary detention of the accused pending the extradition hearing may only be issued by
the presiding judge of the extradition court upon filing of the petition for extradition. As the extradition
process is still in the evaluation stage of pertinent documents and there is no certainty a petition for
extradition will be filed in the appropriate extradition court. The private respondent’s claim to due process
predicated on Section 1, Article III of the Constitution, which provides that “No person shall be deprived
of life, liberty or property without due process of law...” procedural due process of law lies at the
foundation of a civilized society which accords paramount importance to justice and fairness. It has to be
accorded the weight it deserves. The extradition proceeding is only at its evaluation stage, the nature of
the right being claimed by the private respondent is nebulous and the degree of prejudice he will allegedly
suffer is weak.

The court stresses that it is not ruling that the private respondent has no right to due process at all
throughout the length and breadth of the extrajudicial proceedings. Procedural due process required a
determination of what process is due, when it is due and the degree of what is due. The extraditee’s right
to know is momentarily withheld during the evaluation stage of the extradition process to accommodate
the more compelling interest of the State to prevent escape of potential extradites which can be
precipitated by premature information of the basis of the request of his extradition.

Wherefore, the urgent motion for reconsideration is granted. Decision is promulgated and is
reversed. The temporary restraining order issued by the court on August 17, 1999 is made permanent and
RTC of Manila Branch 25 is enjoined from conducting further proceedings.
Case No. 3

September 24, 2002

Government of the United States of America, represented by the Philippine Department of Justice,
petitioner,
vs
Hon. Guillermo Purganan, Presiding Judge Regional Trial Court of Manila and Marc Jimenez a.k.a.
Marcnio Batacan Crespo, respondent

Facts:

The US Government sent to the Philippine Government Note Verbale No. 0522 supplemented
and accompanied by duly authenticated documents requesting the extradition of Mark B. Jimenez also
known as Mario Batacan Crespo. The Secretary of Foreign Affairs transmitted the receipt of notes and
documents from Secretary of Justice for appropriate action pursuant to Section 5 of PD No. 1069 also
known as Extradition Law. Jimenez sought and was granted a TRO by the RTC of Manila, Branch 25. It
prohibited the DOJ from filing with the RTC a petition for his extradition. The court voted of 9-6
dismissing the petition. The SOJ ordered to furnish private respondents copies of the extradition request
and its supporting papers and to grant the latter a reasonable period within which to file a comment and
supporting evidence. Motion for Reconsideration filed by the SOJ, this Court issued its Resolutions. It
held that private respondent was bereft of the right to notice and hearing during the evaluation stage of the
extradition process.

Issues:
1. Whether or not respondent is entitled to notice and hearing before warrants for their arrest can
be issued?
2. Whether or not respondent is entitled to the right to bail and provisional liberty while the
extradition proceedings are pending?

Rulings:

The essence of due process is the opportunity to be heard at the same time, point out that the
doctrine does not always call for a prior opportunity to be heard.

Under Article III, Section 13. All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by
reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient
sureties, or be released recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired
even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. It does not detract from the rule that
the constitutional right to bail is available only in criminal proceedings. It cannot be taken to mean that
the right is available even in extradition proceedings that are not criminal in nature. The constitutional
provision on bail will not apply to a case like extradition where the presumption of innocence is not at
issue.

Respondent Mark B. Jimenez maintains that this constitutional provision secures the right to bail
of all persons, including those sought to be extradited. Supposedly, the only exception are the ones
charged with offenses punishable with RP, when evidence of guilt is strong.

Extradition proceedings should be conducted with all deliberate speed to determine compliance
with the Extradition Treaty and Law, while safeguarding basic individual rights, to avoid the legalistic
contortion s, delays and technicalities that may negate the purpose.

Wherefore, petition is granted. The assailed RTC order is declared null and void while the
challenged order is set aside insofar as it granted bail to respondent Mark Jimenez. The bail bond posted
by private respondent is cancelled. The RTC of Manila is directed to conduct the extradition proceedings
before it, with all deliberate speed pursuant to the spirit and the letter of our Extradition Treaty with the
US.
Case No. 4

April 29, 2010

Philippine Guardians Brotherhood, Inc. represented by its Secretary-General George Duldulao
vs
Commission of Elections

Facts:

Issues:

Whether PGB’s right to due process was violated

Rulings:

The court ruled that they agree with the COMELEC that PGBIs right to due process was not
violated for PGBI was given an opportunity to seek, as it did seek, a reconsideration of Resolution No.
8679. The essence of due process, it consistently held simply the opportunity to be heard, as applied to
administrative proceedings, due process is the opportunity to explain one’s side or the opportunity to seek
a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. A formal or trial-type hearing is not at all times
and in all instances essential. The requirement is satisfied where the parties are afforded fair and
reasonable opportunity to explain their side of the controversy at hand. What is frowned upon is absolute
lack of notice and hearing. It was obvious under the attendant circumstances that PGBI was not denied
due process given the result of this resolution, PGBI has no longer any cause for complaint on due
process grounds.

Wherefore, premises considered and grant the petition and accordingly annul COMELEC
Resolution No. 8679 dated October 13, 2009 insofar as the petitioner PGBI is concerned and the
resolution which denied PGBI’s motion for reconsideration. PGBI is qualified to be voted upon as a
partylist group in the coming election