Practice question
An agency bases its dispositive factual conclusion on material privately obtained by the decision-maker and never disclosed so the affected party could address it. The agency says reasonable adequacy alone makes any opportunity to respond unnecessary. How does Ang Tibay bear on that claim?
- Substantial evidence abolishes administrative due process
- A secret record is always more reliable
- Only the decision-maker may know the evidence
- A supported decision and the required fair opportunity to know and address the evidentiary basis are distinct safeguards; one does not eliminate the other
- The agency may replace reasons with a one-word conclusion
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/courts/rules/pdf/am_19-08-15-sc_2019.pdf — A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC, current Rules 128 §3, 130 §§21–22, 131 §1, 133 §§1–2,4–6.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1940/feb1940/gr_46496_1940.html — Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations, G.R. No. 46496, February 27, 1940, EN BANC MAIN decision (substantial evidence and administrative due process).
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2022/apr2022/gr_248304_2022.html — Agapito v. Aeroplus Multi-Services, Inc., G.R. No. 248304, April 20, 2022, MAIN decision (limits on procedural and evidentiary liberality).
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.