G.R. No. 201796 - GOVERNOR SADIKUL A. SAHALI AND VICE-GOVERNOR RUBY M. SAHALL, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (FIRST DIVISION), RASHIDIN H. MATBA AND JILKASI J. USMAN. R E S O L U T I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, it is the petitioners themselves and not the COMELEC First Division who should be faulted for their predicament. Further, this Court cannot see how due process was denied to the petitioners in the issuance of the COMELEC First Divisions March 5, 2012 Order. The petitioners were able to present their opposition to the said motion for technical examination in their manifestation and motion for reconsideration which they filed with the COMELEC First Division on March 9, 2012. Indeed, the petitioners objections to the technical examination of the said election paraphernalia were exhaustively discussed by the COMELEC First Division in its May 3, 2012 Resolution. Having filed a motion for reconsideration of the COMELEC First Divisions March 5, 2012 Order, the petitioners claim of denial of due process is clearly unfounded. The petitioners should be reminded that due process does not necessarily mean or require a hearing, but simply an opportunity or right to be heard. One may be heard, not solely by verbal presentation but also, and perhaps many times more creditably and predictable than oral argument, through pleadings. In administrative proceedings moreover, technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied; administrative process cannot be fully equated with due process in its strict judicial sense. Indeed, deprivation of due process cannot be successfully invoked where a party was given the chance to be heard on his motion for reconsideration. [32] Anent the issue on the technical examination of election paraphernalia, the petitioners contend that the COMELEC First Division cannot order a technical examination of the said election paraphernalia since there is as yet no published rule therefor. They assert that Section 1, Rule 18 of COMELEC Resolution No. 8804, the rule relied upon by the COMELEC First Division in ordering a technical examination, is vague as it failed to provide the documents that should be subjected to technical examination in election protest cases. At the core of the petitioners assertion is the power of the COMELEC First Division to order the technical examination of the said election paraphernalia. This Court agrees with the petitioners that Section 1, Rule 18 of COMELEC Resolution No. 8804 does not expressly authorize the conduct of technical examination of election paraphernalia as it merely provides for the procedure to be followed in the presentation and reception of evidence in election protest cases. Section 1, Rule 18 of COMELEC Resolution No. 8804, in part, reads: Sec. 1. Presentation and reception of evidence; order of hearing. - The reception of evidence on all matters or issues raised in the protest and counter-protests shall be presented and offered in a hearing upon completion of (a) the recount of ballots, or re-tabulation of election documents, or (b) the technical examination, if warranted. x x x x While Section 1, Rule 18 of COMELEC Resolution No. 8804 does not explicitly pro