Your Seven (+1) Cardinal Rights in Administrative Proceedings
1.The right to a hearing which includes the right For the first cardinal right, the discussion
of the party interested or affected to present his would mainly be focus on the right to “due
own case and submit evidence in support
thereof.
2. The tribunal must consider the evidence
presented.
3. The decision must have something to
support itself.
4. Evidence must be substantial.
process”
• Applicable law: 1987
Constitution, Article 3, Section 1. No person
shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property
without due process of law, nor shall any
person be denied the equal protection of the
laws.
• Due Process (Administrative
Cases): The right to be heard, right to explain
one’s side, and right to defend their interests.
For the second cardinal right, the discussion
would mainly be focused on the “equal
protection of laws.”
• Applicable law: 1987
Constitution, Article 3, Section 1. No person
shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property
without due process of law, nor shall any
person be denied the equal protection of the
laws.
• Equal Protection: Everyone is
entitled to the equal protection of laws. The
doctrine refers to the idea that every person
must be treated equally.
• Ang Tibay: While deliberating on an
issue of a case by an administrative agency
does not mean a right of a person is formally
being decided on, it’s still important and it
cannot be ignored because decisions made
need well-deliberated support. A decision with
absolutely nothing to support it is invalid.
• Samalio v. CA: Decisions
and resolutions by administrative agencies
must be supported by substantial evidence.
Cases must be decided on based on
pleadings and papers submitted by the
concerned parties and must rely on the
records of the proceedings such as criminal
complaints, resolutions, and testimonies. In
this case, there was enough substantial
evidence to prove and support a conclusion or
a decision of a case in administrative
proceedings.
• Ang Tibay: Substantial evidence is
evidence that is relevant and adequate
enough to support a conclusion. Mere
unconfirmed hearsay or rumor does not
constitute substantial evidence.
• GSIS v. CA: In the field of
administrative law, strict rules of evidence are
not needed in quasi-judicial proceedings.
However, in presenting evidence, the basic
rule is that mere allegation is not considered
as evidence and it must be disregarded.
• Montemayor v. Bundalian:
In administrative proceedings, technical rules
of procedure and evidence are not strictly
applied. Administrative due process is not the

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.
same as judicial due process. It is enough that
the party is given the chance to be heard
before the case against him is decided.
• Estrada: Hearsay evidence is
allowed in determining probable cause in a
preliminary investigation because such
investigation does not involve deciding with
finality the rights and obligations of people.
However, in administrative cases, where
rights and obligations are finally decided
upon, "substantial evidence" is required which
cannot rely on hearsay evidence.
• In order for the interest of justice to be
better served, this right gives the movant an
opportunity to present at the hearing the
documents referred to in his motion and such
other evidence as may be relevant to the main
issue involved. (Ang Tibay v. CIR)
• In Ang Tibay v. CIR, the SC
granted the motion for a new trial and
remanded the entire record of the case to the
Court of Industrial Relations, with instruction
that it reopen the case, receive all such
evidence as may be relevant and otherwise
proceed in accordance with the requirements
set forth.
• Applicable laws: 
• Rule 112 (3) (a) & (c) of the
ROC:
◦ (a) The complaint shall state
the address of the respondent and shall be
accompanied by the affidavits of the
complainant and his witnesses,as well as
other supporting documents to establish
probable cause. ..
◦ (c) Within ten (10) days from
receipt of the subpoena with the complaint
and supporting affidavits and documents, the
respondent shall submit his counter-affidavit
and that of his witnesses and other supporting
documents relied upon for his defense. The
counter-affidavits shall be subscribed and
sworn to and certified as provided in
paragraph (a) of this section, with copies
thereof furnished by him to the complainant.
• Section 4 of Rule II of
Administrative Order No. 07 issued on
April 10, 1990:
◦ a) If the complaint is not
under oath or is based only on official reports,
the investigating officer shall require the
complainant or supporting witnesses to
execute affidavits to substantiate the
complaints.
◦ b) After such affidavits have
been secured, the investigating officer shall
issue an order, attaching thereto a copy of the
affidavits and other supporting
documents,directing the respondents to
submit, within ten (10) days from receipt
thereof, his counter-affidavits and
controverting evidence with proof of service
thereof on the complainant.The complainant
may file reply affidavits within ten (10) days
after service of the counter-affidavits
• Section 3, Rule 112 of the
Rules of Court expressly provides that the
respondent shall only have the right to:
◦ Submit a counter-affidavit, 
◦ Examine all other evidence
submitted by the complainant and;
◦ Where the fiscal sets a
hearing to propound clarificatory questions to
the parties or their witnesses, to be afforded
an opportunity to be present but without the
right to examine or cross examine. 
• Estrada v. Office of the
Ombudsman
◦ It is a fundamental principle
that the accused in a preliminary investigation
has no right to cross-examine the witnesses
which the complainant may present. 
◦ Preliminary investigations do
not adjudicate with finality rights and
obligations of parties, while administrative
investigations governed by Ang Tibay, as
amplified in GSIS, so adjudicate. 
◦ Ang Tibay, as amplified in
GSIS, requires substantial evidence for a
decision against the respondent in the
administrative case. In preliminary
investigations, only likelihood or probability of
guilt is required. To apply Ang Tibay and
GSIS to preliminary investigations will change
the quantum of evidence required to establish
probable cause. 
◦ Hence, the respondent in an
administrative case has the right to an actual
hearing and to cross-examine the witnesses
against him. In preliminary investigations, the
respondent has no such rights. 
• Samalio v. CA
◦ In administrative cases, the
requirement of notice and hearing does not
connote full adversarial proceedings. Due
process in an administrative context does not
require trial-type proceedings similar to those
in courts of justice. Where opportunity to be
heard either through oral arguments or
through pleadings is accorded, there is no
denial of procedural due process. 
◦ Any seeming defect in the
observance of this right is cured by the filing
of a motion for reconsideration.
• DLSU v. CA
◦ The requirements are
satisfied where the parties are afforded fair
and reasonable opportunity to explain their
side of the controversy at hand. 
◦ Where a party was afforded

6. The tribunal or body must act on its own
independent consideration of the law and facts
of the controversy.
7. The tribunal or body should, in all
controversial questions, render its decision in
such a manner that the parties to the
proceeding can know the various issues
involved, and the reasons for the decisions
rendered.
an opportunity to participate in the
proceedings but failed to do so, he cannot
complain of deprivation of due process.
• The second, third, fourth, fifth, and
sixth aspects of the Ang Tibay requirements
are reinforcements of the right to a hearing
and are the inviolable rights applicable at the
deliberative stage, as the decision maker
decides on the evidence presented during the
hearing. These standards set forth the guiding
considerations in deliberating on the case and
are the material and substantial components
of decision making. (IA1 Erwin L. Magcamit
vs. Internal Affairs Service - Philippine
Drug Enforcement Agency, G.R. No.
198140, January 25, 2016)
• Briefly, the tribunal must
consider the totality of the evidence presented
which must all be found in the records of the
case (i.e., those presented or submitted by
the parties); the conclusion, reached by the
decision-maker himself and not by a
subordinate, must be based on substantial
evidence. (Mendoza v. COMELEC, G.R. No.
188308, October 15, 2009, 603 SCRA 692,
713.)
• In the case of GSIS v. CA,
the Court of Appeals reversed the ruling of the
ECC, a quasi-judicial body and ignored the
findings of the ECC on technical matters
concerning the nature of the deceased's
illness. This is one instance when, a tribunals
zeal [CA] in bestowing compassion should
have yielded to the general rule in
administrative law that in absence of grave
abuse of discretion, courts should not interfere
with and should respect the findings of quasi-
judicial agencies [ECC] in fields where they
are deemed and held to be experts due to
their special technical knowledge and training.
(GSIS v. CA)
• This right comes in the latter part of
the proceedings and relates to the form and
substance of the  decision of the tribunal or
body
• This right can also be seen in
the Constitution where Sec. 14, Art. VIII
provides that, “[n]o decision shall be rendered
by any court without expressing therein clearly
and distinctly the facts and the law on which it
is based.”
• It is important that the facts
and laws that led to the decision are clearly
explained and the reason for the decision is
understood by the people involved (Mendoza
v. Comelec). This will help them decide which
steps to take after the decision is rendered.
• This will also be important in
the event that the person loses the case and
he has to appeal so that he will be able to

8. An impartial tribunal dictates that one who  is
called upon to resolve a dispute may not sit as
judge and jury simultaneously, neither may he
review his decision on appeal.
identify the alleged erroneous facts and/or law
that the tribunal or body relied on.
• This right lets the litigants seek
disqualification of judges to maintain an
impartial and disinterested tribunal. This is in
connection with the duty of a judge to render a
just decision in a “manner completely free
from suspicion as to its fairness and as to his
integrity.” (Republic v. Sereno)
• This right relates to the faith
and confidence of the people on the judicial
system.
• The problem with a person
being the jury and a judge at the same time is
that the former has collected the information
and has already pre-judged the case. This
means that the jury is not impartial or
objective on the matter. A judge must be
impartial and disinterested to be able to
render a valid and just decision. 
• A judge cannot also review
his decision on appeal because it will deprive
the person the opportunity for the decision to
be reviewed by a higher court or office which
may possibly turn the tides in favour of the
person.