Chavez vs COMELEC

Facts: In 2003, before he filed candidacy, Chavez was contracted to be the model of certain brands by
which he appeared on billboards. Subsequently in December, Chavez filed candidacy on the race for the
senate. In 2004, COMELEC enacted Res. No. 6520 which prohibited the appearance of the candidate in
any broadcast or propaganda material, or if existing shall be removed within three days after the
effectivity of said resolution, the violation of such would be considered premature campaigning thus a
violation of the Omnibus Election Code. Chavez, sought exception from COMELEC, but was denied.
Petitioner now contends the unconstitutionality of said law, saying that it is an invalid exercise of police
power.
Issue: Whether or not the Resolution was a valid exercise of police power?
Held: Yes, since it had lawful subject as shown in its will for fair play during elections, and a lawful means
since a candidate may pay the company to use him as endorser for publicity purposes.

Ang Tibay vs CIR

Facts: Ang Tibay was the supplier of leather for the Philippine Army. Due to the leather shortage, the
company layed off employees who were also members of the National Labor Union (NLU). However,
NLU contends the invalidity of the laying off. The Court of Industrial Relations decided and elevated the
case to SC. The NLU moves for new trial with the CIR.
Issue: What is the Administrative due process composed of?
Held:
The CIR is free from rigidity of certain procedural requirements, but this not mean that it can in
justiciable cases coming before it, entirely ignore or disregard the fundamental and essential
requirements of due process in trials and investigations of an administrative character. There are
cardinal primary rights which must be respected even in proceedings of this character:

(1) the right to a hearing, which includes the right to present ones cause and submit evidence in
support thereof;
(2) The tribunal must consider the evidence presented;
(3) The decision must have something to support itself;
(4) The evidence must be substantial;
(5) The decision must be based on the evidence presented at the hearing; or at least contained in the
record and disclosed to the parties affected;
(6) The tribunal or body or any of its judges must act on its own independent consideration of the law
and facts of the controversy, and not simply accept the views of a subordinate;
(7) The Board or body should, in all controversial questions, render its decision in such manner that the
parties to the proceeding can know the various Issue involved, and the reason for the decision rendered.