Of all the rights guaranteed by the 1987 Constitution, the right to due process is one of the most significant. It is in fact our foremost safeguard against any invalid act that curtails our right to life, liberty and property. Thus, the fundamental law declares: No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, and property without due process of law...".
Contrary to common notion, the right to due process is not only inherent in judicial proceedings but in administrative proceedings, as well. An employee can only be removed for just cause. This "just cause" must be proved by clear, convincing evidence before a tribunal, a tribunal that is impartial. The process must not however end there; the tribunal must hear the defending party, with or without the service of counsel. In addition, when the defending party presents controverting evidence the tribunal must consider such evidence presented; otherwise, the process is incomplete, therefore undue or invalid. After both parties have been accorded their respective day in court, the tribunal renders judgment based only on the matters proved and evidences duly submitted. In sum, this is the essence of due process--hear, after wards, condemn if warranted.
Due process as a principle is inherent in any civilized and moral society. This is because due process is based on fairness and equity, which are foundations of any God-fearing community. There is thus no point in making due process limited to legal and administrative proceedings; it must be sacredly observed even in our day-to-day dealings.A father, before he employs the harshness of the rod, must hear his child first; otherwise, the lesson he wants to impose is likewise lost by such denial. More so with persons who are privileged to hold high offices. With more reason that they should act with caution. They must be responsible in whatever words they utter and whatever judgment they make. A false belief, which is held as "the" truth by the official becomes "the" truth that almost everybody believes in. If the official opines that a group is "bad" and all "rotten eggs", the people who hears the opinion will be more inclined to hold that the opinion is true. As people differ in understanding situations, there will be those who will believe that the opinion is flawless whether or not it has basis. And when this happens, we perpetrate injustice. We perpetrate an act of depriving some faultless individuals with their right to a clean name. And there is nothing more regretful than that....
