E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 13 of 48 http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63027 Due to the failure of the respondents to observe and comply with the basic requirements of due process, the Court is of the view that the certifications/re-certifications and the distribution of the questioned contraceptive drugs by the respondents should be struck down as violative of the constitutional right to due process. Verily, it is a cardinal precept that where there is a violation of basic constitutional rights, the courts are ousted from their jurisdiction. The violation of a party's right to due process raises a serious jurisdictional issue which cannot be glossed over or disregarded at will. Where the denial of the fundamental right to due process is apparent, a decision rendered in disregard of that right is void for lack of jurisdiction. This rule is equally true in quasi-judicial and administrative proceedings, for the constitutional guarantee that no man shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process is unqualified by the type of proceedings (whether judicial or administrative) where he stands to lose the same.[41] The Court stands by that finding and, accordingly, reiterates its order of remand of the case to the FDA. Procedure in the FDA; No Trial-Type Hearing The Court is of the view that the FDA need not conduct a trial-type hearing. Indeed, due process does not require the conduct of a trial-type hearing to satisfy its requirements. All that the Constitution requires is that the FDA afford the people their right to due process of law and decide on the applications submitted by MAHs after affording the oppositors like the petitioners a genuine opportunity to present their science-based evidence. As earlier pointed out, this the FDA failed to do. It simply ignored the opposition of the petitioners. In the case of Perez, et al. v. Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Company, et al.,[42] it was stated that: A formal trial-type hearing is not even essential to due process. It is enough that the parties are given a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their respective sides of the controversy and to present supporting evidence on which a fair decision can be based. In the fairly recent case of Vivo v. Pagcor,[43] the Court explained: The observance of fairness in the conduct of any investigation is at the very heart of procedural due process. The essence of due process is to be heard, and, as applied to administrative proceedings, this means a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain one's side, or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. Administrative due process cannot be fully equated with due process in its strict judicial sense, for in the former a formal or trial-type hearing is not always necessary, and technical rules of 4/21/2020, 9:19 AM