I. B. 3. a.

LUMIQUED v. EXEVEA
GR Number 117565
November 18, 1997
Art. III
FACTS:
Petitioner was the Regional Director of the Department of Agrarian Reform-Cordillera
Autonomous Region (DAR-CAR) until President Ramos dismissed him pursuant to
Administrative Order No. 52 (May 12, 1993). His dismissal resulted from 3 complaints filed
with the Board of Discipline of DAR charging petitioner with malversation, falsification,
violation of COA rules and regulations, and oppression and harassment. The complaints were
referred to the Department of Justice for action. A committee was created to investigate the
complaints against the petitioner. Committee hearings were conducted but petitioner was not
assisted by a counsel. The committee then recommended his dismissal or removal from office,
without prejudice to the filing of criminal charges against him. Justice Secretary Drilon adopted
the same and President Ramos issued AO 52 finding petitioner administratively liable for
dishonesty and dismissing him from service with forfeiture of his retirement and other benefits.
Subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied by the Office of the President.
Petitioner filed a second motion for reconsideration alleging that he was denied his
constitutional right to counsel during the hearing, but before the motion could be resolved, he
died. Secretary Quisumbing denied the second motion for lack of merit. Hence, the instant
petition was instituted by his heirs.
Issue:
Whether or not the due process clause of the Constitution includes the right to be assisted
by a counsel during an administrative inquiry.
Ruling:
No. The right to counsel is a right afforded a suspect or an accused during custodial
investigation. It is not an absolute right and may be invoked or rejected in an administrative
inquiry. The petitioner cannot invoke the right of an accused in criminal proceedings because he
was not accused of any crime in the said proceeding. The investigation was conducted to
determine whether he is administratively liable or not.
In an administrative proceeding, a respondent has the option of engaging the services of a
counsel or not (Section 32, Article VII of the Civil Service Act and Section 39, Paragraph 2, Rule
XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of the Administrative Code). Excerpts of the
stenographic notes of hearings clearly show that petitioner was confident of his capacity and
opted to represent himself. The Court said that in administrative proceedings, the essence of due
process is simply the opportunity to explain ones side and this mandate is deemed satisfied is
one is given the opportunity to seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.
Petitioner has appealed and filed motions of reconsiderations during the proceedings conducted
by the committee and by virtue of this actions, any irregularity on the due process was deemed to
be cured.
The Court even explained that the Due Process clause safeguards life, liberty, and
property. But jurisprudence dictates that public office is not property within the sense of the
constitutional guarantee of due process of law for it is a public trust or agency.

Prepared by: Cecille Diane DJ. Mangaser

I. B. 3. a.

Prepared by: Cecille Diane DJ. Mangaser