Due process as embodied in our Constitution covers all proceedings or governmental action whether executive, legislative or judicial. Thus, it possesses two characteristics or comes in two forms: The substantive and the procedural. Substantive refers to what should be done while procedural concerns how it should be done.
To satisfy the substantive due process requirement, "official action must not outrun the bounds of reason and result in oppression. It frowns on arbitrariness, it is the antithesis of any government act that smacks of whim and caprice" (Fernando, Constitution of the Philippines Annotated, pp. 526-527). Substantive due process is the more flexible standard. It is not strictly bound by any rigid technicality or fixed set of rules. It is sensitive to the peculiarities of a situation or the specialness of certain circumstances. Its only mandate is to uphold reason and fairness.
Procedural due process, on the other hand, conforms to a more or less fixed formula. Thus, in civil cases or suits, procedural due process has the following requisites: (1) There must be a court or tribunal with judicial power to hear and determine the matter before it; (2) jurisdiction must be acquired over the person of the parties to the case or over the property which is the subject matter of the proceedings; (3) the parties must be given an opportunity to be heard; and (4) judgment must be rendered upon lawful hearing (Banco Espanol vs. Palanca, 37 Phil. 921). In criminal proceedings, procedural due process would require (1) that the accused be informed as to why he is proceeded against and what charge he has to meet; (2) that the accused be given the full opportunity to rebut the evidence presented against him; (3) that he is convicted only on the basis of evidence that is not tainted with falsity; (4) that the sentence imposed be in accordance with a valid law; and (5) that it is imposed by a court of competent jurisdiction (Pp. vs. Vera, 31 SCRA 711).
On the other hand the cardinal primary requirements of procedural due process in administrative proceedings are (1) the right to a hearing, which includes the right to present one’s case and submit evidence in support thereof; (2) the agency concerned must consider the evidence presented; (3) the decision must have something to support itself; (4) the evidence must be substantial or such evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion; (5) the decision must be based in the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the records and disclosed to the parties affected; (6) the body or any of its offices must act on its or his own independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy, and not simply accept the views of a subordinate; and (7) the body or agency should, in all controversial questions, render its decision in such manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the various issues involved and the reason for the decision rendered (Ang Tibay vs. CIR 69 Phils. 635).
It is in the administrative proceedings where the right to due process, whether substantive or procedural, is often violated. There is always a tendency on the part of some administrative agencies to disregard the due process clause of our Constitution either perhaps out of sheer ignorance of the due process requirements or the out of a predilection to abuse the power acquired or simply out of inexperience and inability to handle the power given to them.
These administrative actions often end up in Court and result in oppressive and unjust actions. Administrative bodies should therefore be more circumspect in using their powers and guard against any abuse thereof especially because their salaries come from the taxes paid by their victims.