'TOL VIEWS
Senator Francis N. Tolentino
In the past two weeks as chairman of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, I have received numerous queries by reporters asking me who the guilty parties are in the subject anomalies. Time and time again, I say, that the hearings are still ongoing and we have yet to pass our final judgment after all the facts are set straight and duly supported by the necessary evidence. This due process we grant to those appearing before us in the committee hearings and to those accused of crimes standing before our courts of justice have, as its basis, our very own 1987 Constitution.
Article III, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution provides that, “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.” This right is also recognized in the international community through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, which also guarantees the right to life, liberty, and due process of law, among others.
In the case of Shu v. Dee, G.R. No. 182573 (2014), the Supreme Court explained the essence of due process to be the opportunity to be heard. In Secretary of Justice v. Lantion, G.R. No. 139465 (2000), it was further explained that, due process is comprised of two components — (1) substantive due process; and (2) procedural due process. Substantive due process requires the intrinsic validity of the law in interfering with the rights of the person to his life, liberty, or property, while procedural due process consists of the two basic rights of notice and hearing, as well as the guarantee of being heard by an impartial and competent tribunal.
In the same case, our Supreme Court explained that the basic rights of notice and hearing applies not just to criminal proceedings, but also civil and administrative proceedings as well. In so doing, the parties accused or suspected of committing certain acts are given the opportunity to present their side and to refute the position of the opposing parties.
Before the arrival of Spanish conquistadors in the Philippines, historical records showed that the datu of each barangay acted as the judge with the barangay elders sitting as jury. According to Filipino historian Teodoro A. Agoncillo, all trials, whether criminal or civil, were held in public. The litigants – both plaintiff and the defendant – were given the opportunity to present their claims and defenses with corresponding witnesses. In cases where the then court was in doubt as to which party is guilty, trial by ordeal was resorted to. For those unfamiliar of such trial in this modern society, trial by ordeal was an ancient practice wherein the guilt or innocence is determined by subjecting them to a painful or unpleasant experience. This primitive mode of trial has, as its premise, the belief that the gods would protect the innocent and punish the guilty.
As we continue on with the 19th Congress and the further hearings on the present controversies on the sugar importation and Department of Education laptop procurement, rest assured that the investigations would continue to respect the rights of persons appearing before the committee, holding due process absolute.The opinions we have as of today would only be based on the facts proven and evidence presented as of date and no man would be sentenced in any manner outside the bounds that due process requires.