FACTS: Petitioner Agustina M. Enemecio (Enemecio”) is a utility worker at the Cebu State College of Science and Technology, College of Fisheries Technology (CSCST-CFT”), Carmen, Cebu. Whether or not Section 17 of Republic Act 4119 is unconstitutional on the ground that power to enforce a final award made under the Workmen’s Compensation Act was vested in any court of record in the jurisdiction of which the accident occurred” (Section 51, Act 3428).
In reviewing the IPRs exemptions, the Administrative Court considered that the Tribunal could consider whether the use of the data to be disclosed (i.e. for epidemiological research) was in the public interest, even if that meant a breach of the operators’ rights.
It cannot be justified as a valid exercise of its function of promulgating rules and regulations for that function, to repeat, may legitimately be exercised only for the purpose of carrying the provisions of the law into effect; and since there is no prohibition or restriction on the employment of 57-year old persons in the statute—or any provision respecting age as a factor in employment—there was nothing to carry into effect through an implementing rule on the matter.
But on an overall assessment of the fairness of the procedures introduced—the requirement that the licence holder initiate proceedings and carry the burden of proof, the serious consequences for a licence holder of losing a licence, and the limitation on the right to appeal to the High Court on a point of law—’Donnell J held that the High Court decision that the 2014 Regulations are invalid must be upheld on the narrow grounds of breaching fair procedure 44-52.
In administrative 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 legal sense, for in the former a formal or trial-type hearing is not always necessary, and technical rules of procedure are not strictly applied.” CA correctly found that petitioner’s pleadings explicitly admitted his dismissal was effected through board resolutions.
