1.

Political Question As provided in the case of Javellana v Executive Secretary, it refers to "those
questions which, under the Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in
regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the Legislature or executive branch of the
government." It is concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality, of a particular measure."
2. Expanded Jurisdiction Art 8 S1(2) of the Constitution provides that judicial power includes the duty of
the courts of justice to settle actual controversies, involving rights which are legally demandable and
enforceable, and to determine, whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.
3. Effect of SCs Expanded Jurisdiction In the case of Araullo v Aquino, the Constitution states that
judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice not only "to settle actual controversies involving rights
which are legally demandable and enforceable" but also "to determine whether or not there has been a
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government." It has thereby expanded the concept of judicial power, which up to then
was confined to its traditional ambit of settling actual controversies involving rights that were legally
demandable and enforceable, which in turn limits the effects of a political question.
4. DEFINE
a. Parens Patriae Doctrine of parens patriae (father of his country). The doctrine [referring] to the
inherent power and authority of the state to provide protection of the person and property of a
person non sui juries. Under that doctrine, the state has the sovereign power of guardianship over
persons under disability. Thus, the state is considered the parens patriae of minors.
[Govt. of the P. I. v. Monte de Piedad, 35 Phil. 728].

b. Welfare State Concept - Our Constitutions, beginning with the 1935 document, have repudiated
laissez-faire as an economic principle. Although the present Constitution enshrines free enterprise
as a policy, it nonetheless reserves to the government the power to intervene whenever necessary
to promote the general welfare. This is clear from the following provisions of Art. XII of the
Constitution which, so far as pertinent, state:

Sec. 6. . . . Individuals and private groups, including corporations, cooperatives, and similar
collective organizations, shall have the right to own, establish, and operate economic enterprises,
subject to the duty of the State to promote distributive justice and to intervene when the common
good so demands.

Sec. 19. The State shall regulate or prohibit monopolies when the public interest so requires. No
combinations in restraint of trade or unfair competition shall be allowed.
[Association Of Philippine Coconut Desiccators v Philippine Coconut Authority]

c. Archipelagic Doctrine As provided under Article I, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution, the
national territory of the Philippines includes the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and
waters embraced therein; and the waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the
archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the
Philippines.

d. Principle of Subordinate Legislation

In Edu v. Ericta, the Court discussed that it is a fundamental principle flowing from the doctrine of
separation of powers that Congress may not delegate its legislative power to the two other
branches of the government, subject to the exception that local governments may over local affairs
participate in its exercise. What cannot be delegated is the authority under the Constitution to
make laws and to alter and repeal them; the test is the completeness of the statute in all its term
and provisions when it leaves the hands of the legislature. The Constitution is thus not to be
regarded as denying the legislature the necessary resources of flexibility and practicability.

To avoid the taint of unlawful delegation, there must be a standard, which implies at the very least
that the legislature itself determines matters of principle and lays down fundamental policy.
Otherwise, the charge of complete abdication may be hard to repel. A standard thus defines
legislative policy, marks its limits, maps out its boundaries and specifies the public agency to apply
it. It indicates the circumstances under which the legislative command is to be effected. It is the
criterion by which legislative purpose may be carried out. Thereafter, the executive or
 administrative office designated may in pursuance of the above guidelines promulgate
supplemental rules and regulations.

e. Substantive Due Process - requires the intrinsic validity of the law in interfering with the rights of
the person to life, liberty or property. In short, it is to determine whether it has a valid governmental
objective which must be reasonable. As discussed in Agustin v Edu, the law assailed is justified by
the doctrine of police power, which is the power of the state authority to enact legislation that may
interfere with personal liberty or property to promote the general welfare.

5. MCQ

6. MCQ

7. Are Constitutional Provisions self-executing? Why? Exceptions?

As a general rule they are self-executing. This is to avoid a situation wherein there is too much dependence on the
legislature to create laws. Exceptions are the ff:

a. When the provisions are incomplete

b. When the Constitution expressly provides that the provisions are not self-executing
c. When are meant to be guidelines (Tanada v Tuvera)

EXCEPTION to the EXCEPTIONS despite being found in Consti Art 2, these are considered to be
self-executing:
o Right to balanced and healthful ecology
o Promotion and protection of health
o National Patrimony (Sec II, Art. XII)

8. RE: China Arbitration Will it prosper?

No, the arbitration will not prosper. Despite both parties being signatories to the UNCLOS, the UNCLOS provisions
only cover issues relating to maritime disputes and not to claims on lands/islands.

9. Separation of Church and State Atheist filed a complaint regarding a religious fresco

Mr. As complaint will not prosper. What the constitution prohibits by the non-establishment clause in Art 3 Sec 5 is
the establishment of the state of a religion. The state may not give any advantage or discriminate against any religion.

In this case, the fresco is only an illustration of the religious nature of the Filipinos. It is a recognition of the religious
character of the Filipino people, similar to the courts decision in Aglipay v Ruiz. In this case the SC ruled that what
is guaranteed by our Constitution is religious liberty, not mere religious toleration.

Religious freedom, however, as a constitutional mandate is not inhibition of profound reverence for religion and is not
denial of its influence in human affairs. Religion as a profession of faith to an active power that binds and elevates
man to his Creator is recognized. And, in so far as it instils into the minds the purest principles of morality, its
influence is deeply felt and highly appreciated.

10. Freedom of Religion Sacrilegious Art Exhibit

The sacrilegious art should not be removed. The Constitution provides that citizens right to believe is absolute.
However, acting on such belief is not absolute and is subject to government regulation. Government regulations on
this fundamental right may be valid if it passes the clear and present danger test or the compelling state interest test,
as was stated in the case of Ebralinag v Division Superintendent of Schools. Moreover, in INK v Geronilla, the
SC held that Freedom of religion implies respect for every creed. No one, much less a public official, is privileged to
characterize the actuation of its adherents in a derogatory sense.

11. Validity of an Act making elementary education in public schools mandatory

The Act is not valid. Under the Constitution, parents have the right and duty to take care of the youth. It is the right of
the parents to choose how their children may be taught. As was stated in the cases of Meyer v Nebraska and Pierce
v Society of Sisters, the state should support the parents in their right and duty to care for the youth by supporting
their choices and not imposing so many conditions. Thus, the act making mandatory elementary education in public
schools is unconstitutional.

12. State Immunity from Suit Is the repair of the Malacanang Palace a governmental or proprietary act?

The case will not prosper for lack of jurisdiction. The Constitution declares in Art 16, Sec 3 that the State may not be
sued without its consent. This is the doctrine of state immunity from suit. The legal philosophy is there can be no right
against the authority upon which right is granted. The practical reason is to avoid the diversion of state resources in
answering suits.

Case law has carved out exceptions, one of which is when the state enters into a contract to pursue its proprietary
functions.

Here the contract involved is the upkeep of the countrys capital. The repair and renovation of the Malacanang palace
is a governmental function, thus, although the government has entered into a contract it has not waived its immunity
from suit.

In US v Ruiz, the Supreme Court held for it to be said that the State has stepped down to the level of private entities,
the contract must have been entered into in its proprietary function. Thus, the case will not prosper.

13. Privilege Speech Accusation

No, the petition will fail. The constitutional provision on parliamentary immunity applies only to civil and criminal suits
against congressmen. The committee hearing is in the nature of an administrative hearing. In Osmena v Pendatun,
the SC ruled that Section 15, Article VI of our Constitution provides that "for any speech or debate" in Congress, the
Senators or Members of the House of Representative "shall not be questioned in any other place." The provision has
always been understood to mean that although exempt from prosecution or civil actions for their words uttered in
Congress, the members of Congress may, nevertheless, be questioned in Congress itself.

Furthermore, the Rules of the House which petitioner himself has invoked (Rule XVII, sec. 7), recognize the House's
power to hold a member responsible "for words spoken in debate."

Our Constitution enshrines parliamentary immunity whose purpose "is to enable and encourage a representative of
the public to discharge his public trust with firmness and success" for "it is indispensably necessary that he should
enjoy the fullest liberty of speech, and that he should be protected from the resentment of everyone it may offend."

It guarantees the legislator complete freedom of expression without fear of being made responsible in criminal or civil
actions before the courts or any other forum outside of the Congressional Hall. But it does not protect him from
responsibility before the legislative body itself whenever his words and conduct are considered by the latter disorderly
or unbecoming a member.

14. Truth Commission

(Depends on the facts who are appointed)

In the case of Flores v Drilon, the SC ruled that Sec. 7 of Art. IX-B of the Constitution Provides: No elective official
shall be eligible for appointment or designation in any capacity to any public office or position during his tenure.
Unless otherwise allowed by law or by the primary functions of his position, no appointive official shall hold any other
office or employment in the Government or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including government-
owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries. The subject proviso directs the President to appoint an elective
official i.e. the Mayor of Olongapo City, to other government post (as Chairman and CEO of SBMA). This is precisely
what the Constitution prohibits. It seeks to prevent a situation where a local elective official will work for his
appointment in an executive position in government, and thus neglect his constitutents.

15. Should the Anti-Graft and Corruption Coalition be allowed to join the party list elections?

Mr. Z is incorrect.

As provided in the case of Atom Paglaum Inc v Comelec, the Court ruled that the party-list system provisions of the
Constitution do not require that the sector should be represented by a party-list organization which belongs to the
marginalized, underprivilege and underrepresented. The rule now is that a party list organization coming from any
sector as long as they comply with the registration requirement and do not field candidates in legislative district
elections then they may participate in the election. Sectoral parties or organization may either be marginalized and
under-represented or lacking in well-defined political constituencies or those who belong to their sectors or must
have a track record of advocacy for their respective sector. Thus, the Anti-Graft and Corruption Coalition may vie for
a seat even if its members are not marginalized, underprivilege, or under-represented.

16. Validity of an act which allows the legislature to take part in the execution of the act - Poverty Alleviation
and Assistance Act

The grant of authority is unconstitutional for violating the principle of Separation of Powers. As provided in the
Belgica v Ochoa, the SC curtailed the aggregation of the power to create programs and the power to implement
them in one entity for violating the doctrine of Separation of Powers. Applying in this case, the creation of a
conditional cash transfer program is well within the Congress act but having a hand on its execution is an overreach
into the Executive power. Thus, the authority of the oversight committee is unconstitutional.