Abstract
Public administration involves the performance of administrative justice and adjudication process which are the powers that are inherent to the office of a public administrator. In carrying out this administrative function, the law requires that due process should be observed in all administrative adjudication procedures. Other than this rule, administrators are given the discretionary power on how they may carry out the investigation process in order to help them perform their adjudicatory functions more efficiently. This paper will discuss about the essence of due process and hearing in public administration and to differentiate the rule making procedure and adjudicatory procedure involved in public administration. The author will also discuss why it is best to exercise flexibility and informality in the administrative adjudication procedure as effective in carrying out administrative justice and how administrators should approach with caution the exercise of their discretionary powers in adjudicating matters of concerns and issues in the exercise of their authority by virtue of their public office.
Public administrators have the serious responsibility of living up to the tax payer’s expectations to uphold the confidence reposed upon them by the public. Their duties are to ensure honest, accountable, competent and ethical public administration that upholds the public trust and confidence. Anent to the administration process, due process in involved which is often described to be a complex process in public administration. It involves the procedural process that is required in order to accord the parties the right to be heard and to ventilate their side. According to Milakovich and Gordon (2009), the essential consideration in the due process in public administration is emphasized on the means and not the ends of the administrative process. It involves the procedures that will safeguard the rights of individuals against unfair processes that deprives them to explain and express their side. The complexities associated with the due process in public administration is often associated with how the public administrator is able to adhere to the standard procedures policies and requirement set forth by the administrative bodies when hearing administrative concerns and issues even under the fact that administrative procedures are often informal ones. Connected to the due process observed in public administration is the conduct of hearings which is important in the delivery of administrative adjudications. An important clause in the due process of the law is the conduct of hearings which is the process that provides the parties the opportunity to explain and be appraised with the nature of the case claimed against him. The hearing is essentially granted in order to help the public administrator to understand fully the facts involved before reaching a final administrative adjudication about the issues before him. The process of hearing will offer not only the party involved in an issue but also the administrator who is endowed with the responsibility to render a decision about the issues or concerns laid down before him. The grant of the due process is a procedure process that also aids the administrator in making the appropriate and ethical decisions on matters concerning his adjudicatory powers to resolve issues involving issues under the concern of his office. In many jurisprudence and administrative law cases, the conduct of hearing forms an indispensable part on the guarantee of due process in public administration.
Public administrators may exercise both the rule making and adjudication powers and functions. There are differences between the rule making procedure and adjudicatory procedures. The rule making process in public administration usually involves the formulation of the new rules and policies including the amending or repealing of the existing ones that will be implemented for the public compliance. The rule making procedures are always carried out according to the established implementing rules and guidelines with high regard to the existing lawful regulation and Constitutional provisions that will ensure that the rules formulated by administrative bodies are lawful and not contrary to public policy and other Constitutional guarantees of the law. The procedure for rule making in administrative agencies may sometimes involve the due process of involving the public to participate in the rule making process to ensure that the public interest is considered. On the other hand, the adjudicatory process involves the decision making procedures that are carried out by the public administrators who are required to hear issues, concerns and matters that are within their jurisdiction. The adjudicatory procedure differs from the rule making procedure in the manner where it requires recognizing the rights of an individual to be heard and even their right to a counsel when needed. This is a procedural requirement that enforces the due process that accords an individual the right to be heard, to understand the nature of the accusations made against him, to provide evidence in his defense and to present witnesses before the administrative body. The requirement of a hearing is essential in adjudicatory procedures because the public administrator needs to obtain information and facts that will aid him in his decision making when hearing the matters and concerns that need his decision. The adjudication process is the most challenging to a public administrator because he is faced with a situation that demands his impartiality, objective findings and ethical decision making without any stringent guidelines and policies on how to conduct them other than the compliance of the due process requirement. As an adjudicator, an administrator needs to exercise a judgment that should be based on law and a morally and ethically wise decision. Individual rights are affected by the exercise of the adjudicatory process thus an administrator has the burden to weigh the matters before his hand in order to administer justice and equity among the parties involved. Because the performance of adjudication often involves subjective and discretionary powers (Cooper, 2007) that may be exercised by the adjudicator, the challenge lies on how the administrator could appreciate the facts and evidences presented before him in order to make a decision that would be just to the parties involved without any bias and partiality.
In the exercise of public administration, administrators are endowed with the inherent power to exercise their own discretionary decisions owing to the informal nature of the adjudicatory procedure involved in public administration. However, this approach is taken with caution because administrators are regarded as public officers who are supposed to safeguard the public interest and to uphold the lawful exercise of the authorities given to them by virtue of their office. The use of procedural processes in public administration is regarded with public trust and the flexibility and informality involved in the administrative procedures has claimed controversies in the field of public administration policies. Owing to the informal nature of administrative procedures, I agree that flexibility should be exercised by public administrators. The nature of administrative proceedings does not adhere to the strict rules implemented in judicial adjudication of cases. The formalities required in judicial administration of justice are not observed in administrative proceedings therefore the administrative adjudicators should exercise prudent, lawful, ethical and unbiased decisions according to their appreciation of the evidence presented before them. The informal process of administrative law and justice only requires that the parties will be given the due process to be heard and to present the evidence for their cause and defense. The administrator is left to rely on his own knowledge and ability to appreciate the facts and evidence given under the circumstances and they need to be more flexible in the decision making process because there is no requirement to observe the formal procedural process in presenting evidence such as those practiced in the courts of justice. The mere conduct of hearing is the only requirement to meet the due process in administrative justice thus an administrator should exercise a flexible approach in deciding matters of concerns without bias on his part. In the exercise of discretionary power, the administrator should prove that the steps he has taken are within the bounds of law and will not cause injustice to the parties involved. Through a flexible approach in decision making, without any stringent procedure and policies to guide him throughout the conduct of an investigation owing to the informal nature of the administrative adjudication process, an administrator can choose to implement certain requirements that he deems to be relevant and necessary in order to help him make an unbiased, just, competent, ethical and lawful decisions that will not be arbitrary to the parties (Devi, 1994). An administrative justice is not a court of justice thus it usually dispenses from the stringent formalities required by laws to hear cases. I agree with this informal approach because this is in line with the purpose of ensuring that in carrying out administrative adjudication, decision making is more efficient and justice is administered without any delay.
In conclusion, public administrators are essentially required to observe the due process requirement of the law which is indispensable in carrying out their adjudicatory functions. This pertains to the recognition of the right of the parties to a hearing in order to present their claims or defense. Other than this requirement, an administrator has the discretionary power on how he may carry out the adjudication of the matters and concerns presented before him and he is required to exercise flexibility in determining the necessary procedures he deem to find fit and effective in order to aid him in carrying out his adjudicatory powers in deciding cases.
Reference
Cooper, P.J. (2007). Public Law and Public Administration. Belmont, CA: Thompson Wadsworth.
Devi, P.H. (1994). Administrative Discretion and Judicial Review. New Delhi: Mittal Publications.
Milakovich, M.E. and Gordon, G.J. (2009). Public Administration in America. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
