E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 14 of 48 http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63027 procedure are not strictly applied. Ledesma v. Court of Appeals elaborates on the well-established meaning of due process in administrative proceedings in this wise: x x x Due process, as a constitutional precept, does not always and in all situations require a trial-type proceeding. Due process is satisfied when a person is notified of the charge against him and given an opportunity to explain or defend himself. In administrative proceedings, the filing of charges and giving reasonable opportunity for the person so charged to answer the accusations against him constitute the minimum requirements of due process. The essence of due process is simply to be heard, or as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one's side, or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. [Emphasis supplied; citations omitted] Best Evidence Available Section 5, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court provides: Section 5. In all cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, a fact may be deemed established if it is supported by substantial evidence, or the amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. As applied to certification proceedings at the FDA, "substantial evidence" refers to the best scientific evidence available,[44] "including but not limited to: meta analyses, systematic reviews, national clinical practice guidelines where available, and recommendations of international medical organizations," needed to support a conclusion whether a contraceptive drug or device is an abortifacient or not. The FDA need not be bound or limited by the evidence adduced by the parties, but it can conduct its own search for related scientific data. It can also consult other technical scientific experts known in their fields. It is also not bound by the principle of stare decisis or res judicata, but may update itself and cancel certifications motu proprio when new contrary scientific findings become available or there arise manifest risks which have not been earlier predicted. On the Competence of the Court to review the Findings of the FDA The fact that any appeal to the courts will involve scientific matters will neither place the actions of the respondents beyond the need to comply with the requirements of Ang Tibay nor place the actions of the FDA in certification proceedings beyond judicial review. It should be pointed out that nowhere in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended, are the courts ousted of their jurisdiction whenever the issues involve questions of scientific nature. A court is not considered incompetent either in reviewing the 4/21/2020, 9:19 AM