LUMIQUED VS EXEVEA

Lumiqued was the Regional Director of DAR-CAR. He was charged by

Zamudio, the Regional Cashier, for dishonesty due to questionable gas
expenses under his office. It was alleged that he was falsifying gas receipts
for reimbursements and that he had an unliquidated cash advance worth
P116,000.00. Zamudio also complained that she was unjustly removed by
Lumiqued two weeks after she filed the two complaints. The issue was
referred to the DOJ. Committee hearings on the complaints were conducted
on July 3 and 10, 1992, but Lumiqued was not assisted by counsel. On the
second hearing date, he moved for its resetting to July 17, 1992, to enable
him to employ the services of counsel. The committee granted the motion,
but neither Lumiqued nor his counsel appeared on the date he himself had
chosen, so the committee deemed the case submitted for resolution. The
Investigating Committee recommended the dismissal of Lumiqued. DOJ Sec
Drilon adopted the recommendation. Fidel Ramos issued AO 52 dismissing
Lumiqued.
ISSUES: Whether or not Lumiqueds right to due process has been violated
Ruling: No. This is an administrative proceeding. Right to counsel is only
strictly observed in criminal proceedings. . In administrative proceedings, the
essence of due process is simply the opportunity to explain ones side.
Whatever irregularity attended the proceedings conducted by the committee
was cured by Lumiqueds appeal and his subsequent filing of motions for
reconsideration.

DOJ V. Lantion
Facts
Secretary Of Justice Franklin Drilon, representing the Government of the
Republic of the Philippines, signed in Manila the extradition Treaty Between
the Government of the Philippines and the Government of the U.S.A. The
Philippine
Senate
ratified
the
said
Treaty.
On June 18, 1999, the Department of Justice received from the Department
of Foreign Affairs U.S Note Verbale No. 0522 containing a request for the
extradition of private respondent Mark Jiminez to the United States.
On the same day petitioner designate and authorizing a panel of attorneys to
take charge of and to handle the case. Pending evaluation of the aforestated
extradition documents, Mark Jiminez through counsel, wrote a letter to
Justice Secretary requesting copies of the official extradition request from the
U.S Government and that he be given ample time to comment on the
request after he shall have received copies of the requested papers but the
petitioner denied the request for the consistency of Article 7 of the RP-US
Extradition Treaty stated in Article 7 that the Philippine Government must
present the interests of the United States in any proceedings arising out of a
request for extradition.
Issue: Whether or not to uphold a citizens basic due process rights or the
governments ironclad duties under a treaty.
Ruling: Petition dismissed. The human rights of person, whether citizen or
alien , and the rights of the accused guaranteed in our Constitution should
take precedence over treaty rights claimed by a contracting state. The duties
of the government to the individual deserve preferential consideration when
they collide with its treaty obligations to the government of another state.
This is so although we recognize treaties as a source of binding obligations
under generally accepted principles of international law incorporated in our
Constitution as part of the law of the land.

Gov't of USA v. Purganan

Facts:
Mark Jimenez was the subject of an arrest warrant issued by the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on 15 April 1999. The
Government of the United States of America, represented by the Philippine
DOJ, filed with the RTC on 18 May 2001, the appropriate Petition for
Extradition. The Petition alleged, inter alia, that Jimenez was the subject of
an arrest warrant issued by the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida on 15 April 1999.
Before the RTC could act on the Petition, Jimenez filed before it an Urgent
Manifestation/Ex-Parte Motion, which prayed that Jimenezs application for
an arrest warrant be set for hearing. In that hearing, Jimenez manifested its
reservations on the procedure adopted by the trial court allowing the
accused in an extradition case to be heard prior to the issuance of a warrant
of arrest. In his Memorandum, Jimenez sought an alternative prayer: that in
case a warrant should issue, he be allowed to post bail in the amount of
P100,000.
The alternative prayer of Jimenez was also set for hearing on 15 June 2001.
Thereafter, the court directed the issuance of warrant for his arrest and fixing
bail for his temporary liberty at P1 million in cash. After he had surrendered
his passport and posted the required cash bond, Jimenez was granted
provisional liberty via the challenged Order dated 4 July 2001. Hence, this
petition.
Issue: Whether Jimenez is entitled to notice and hearing before a warrant for
his arrest can be issued and whether he is entitled to bail and to provisional
liberty while the extradition proceedings are pending.
Ruling: No. To determine probable cause for the issuance of arrest warrants,
the Constitution itself requires only the examination under oath or
affirmation of complainants and the witnesses they may produce. There is
no requirement to notify and hear the accused before the issuance of

warrants of arrest. No. Extradition cases are different from ordinary criminal
proceedings. The constitutional right to bail flows from the presumption of
innocence in favor of every accused who should not be subjected to the loss
of freedom as thereafter he would be entitled to acquittal, unless his guilt be
proved beyond reasonable doubt.It follows that the constitutional provision
on bail will not apply to a case like extradition, where the presumption of
innocence is not at issue.

PGI v. COMELEC
Respondent delisted petitioner, a party list organization, from the roster of
registered national, regional or sectoral parties, organizations or coalitions
under the party-list system. It fails to participate in the last two (2) preceding
elections or fails to obtain at least two per centum (2%) of the votes cast
under the party-list system in the two (2) preceding elections for the
constituency in which it has registered.[Emphasis supplied.]
Petitioner was delisted because it failed to get 2% of the votes cast in 2004
and it did not participate in the 2007 elections. Petitioner filed its opposition
to the resolution citing among others the misapplication in the ruling of
MINERO v. COMELEC, but was denied for lack of merit. Petitioner elevated
the matter to SC showing the excerpts from the records of Senate Bill No.
1913 before it became the law in question
Issue: Whether or not there is legal basis in the delisting of PGBI.
Whether or not PGBIs right to due process was violated.

Ruling:
No. On the due process issue, petitioners right to due process was not
violated for [it] was given an opportunity to seek, as it did seek, a
reconsideration of [COMELEC resolution]. The essence of due process,
consistently held, is simply the opportunity to be heard; as applied to
administrative proceedings, due process is the opportunity to explain ones
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.