The late Jolly Bugarin was the Director of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) when the late Ferdinand E. Marcos was still the president of the country from 1965-1986. After the latter’s downfall in 1986, the new administration, through the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), filed a petition for forfeiture of properties under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 1379 against him with the Sandiganbayan.
The properties of Bugarin acquired from 1968 to 1980 which were disproportionate to his lawful income during the said period were ordered forfeited in favor of petitioner Republic of the Philippines. Bugarin died in September 2002. His heirs filed for dismissal of the case.
Petitioners accuse the Sandiganbayan of allegedly reducing their rights to a simple mathematical equation of subtracting the late Bugarin’s amassed wealth against his lawful income for the same period and using the difference as basis for choosing the properties to be forfeited for the sole reason that their total acquisition cost was closest to said difference. However, when the government, through the PCGG, filed forfeiture proceedings against Bugarin, it took on the burden of proving the following:
1. The public official or employee acquired personal or real properties during his/her incumbency; 2. This acquisition is manifestly disproportionate to his/her salary or other legitimate income; and 3. The existence of which gives rise to a presumption that these same properties were acquired prima facie unlawfully.
After the government had established these, the burden to debunk the presumption was shifted to Bugarin. There were tables showing summaries of Bugarin’s real property acquisitions, business investments, as well as shares in exclusive clubs, which were laid out and evaluated. Proceeds of sales, rentals, fees and pensions were likewise enumerated and studied. For the period from 1968 to 1980, he amassed wealth in the amount of P2,170,163.00. On the other hand, his total income from 1967 to 1980 amounted only to P766,548.00.
Bugarin was given his day in court to prove lawful acquisition of his properties. Those whose acquisition dates cannot be ascertained were exempted in his favor. Personal expenses for his family were also subtracted from his income again in his favor. The fact that the case was remanded to Sandiganbayan was proof that petitioners were accorded due process. Every motion filed either for reconsideration or leave of court were heard. Five more hearings after January 12, 2005 were set and petitioners were represented.
The essence of due process, we have consistently held, is simply the opportunity to be heard; as applied to administrative proceedings, due process is the opportunity to explain one's side or the opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. A formal or trial-type hearing is not at all times and in all instances essential. The requirement is satisfied where the parties are afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their side of the controversy at hand.
Thus, when the party seeking due process was in fact given several opportunities to be heard and air his side, but it is by his own fault or choice he squanders these chances, then his cry for due process must fail.