Quiz 1

1. State the full preamble of the 1987 constitution

We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Almighty God, in
order to build a just and humane society, and establish a Government that
shall embody our ideals and aspirations, promote the common good,
conserve and develop our patrimony and secure to ourselves and our
posterity the blessings of independence and democracy under the rule of
law and regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality and peace, do
ordain and promulgate this Constitution.

2. Differentiate de jure from de facto government

A de jure government has rightful title but no power or control, either
because this has been withdrawn from it or because it has not yet actually
entered into the exercise thereof while a de facto government, is a
government of fact, that is, it actually exercises power or control but
without legal title.

3. Explain the doctrine of the supremacy of the Constitution

The doctrine of the supremacy of the Constitution states that the
Constitution is the basic and paramount law to which all other law must
conform and to which all persons, including highest officials of the land,
must defer. No act shall be valid, however noble its intentions, if it conflicts
with the Constitution. The Constitution must ever remain supreme. All must
bow to mandate of this law. Expediency must not be allowed to sap its
strength nor greed for power debase its rectitude. Right or wrong, the
Constitution must be upheld as long as it has not been changed by the
sovereign people lest its disregard result in the usurpation of the majesty
of law by the pretenders to illegitimate power. Further, if a law or contract
violates any norm of the constitution that law or contract whether
promulgated by the legislative or by the executive branch or entered into
by private persons for private purposes is null and void and without any
force and effect. Thus, since the Constitution is the fundamental,
paramount and supreme law of the nation, it is deemed written in every
statute and contract.

4. Discuss the “associative relationship” between the government and the

proposed Bangsamoro Judicial Enterprise in the province of North Cotobato
case
The provisions of the MOA indicate, among other things, that the Parties
aimed to vest in the BJE the status of an associated state or, at any rate, a
status closely approximating it. The concept of association is not
recognized under the present Constitution. No province, city, or
municipality, not even the ARMM, is recognized under our laws as having
an “associative” relationship with the national government. Indeed, the
concept implies powers that go beyond anything ever granted by the
Constitution to any local or regional government. It also implies the
recognition of the associated entity as a state. The Constitution, however,
 does not contemplate any state in this jurisdiction other than the Philippine
State, much less does it provide for a transitory status that aims to prepare
any part of Philippine territory for independence. The BJE is a far more
powerful entity than the autonomous region recognized in the
Constitution. It is not merely an expanded version of the ARMM, the status
of its relationship with the national government being fundamentally
different from that of the ARMM. Indeed, BJE is a state in all but name as it
meets the criteria of a state laid down in the Montevideo
Convention, namely, a permanent population, a defined territory, a
government, and a capacity to enter into relations with other states.

It contains many provisions which are consistent with the international

legal concept of association and can be described as a colonizer-colony
relationship, specifically the following: the BJE’s capacity to enter into
economic and trade relations with foreign countries, the commitment of the
Central Government to ensure the BJE’s participation in meetings and events
in the ASEAN and the specialized UN agencies, and the continuing
responsibility of the Central Government over external defense. Moreover, the
BJE’s right to participate in Philippine official missions bearing on negation of
border agreements, environmental protection and sharing of revenues
pertaining to the bodies of water adjacent to or between the islands forming
part of the ancestral domain, resembles the right of the governments of FSM
and the Marshall islands to be consulted by the US government on any
foreign affairs matter affecting them

5. What are the elements/ criteria for Statehood under the Montevideo
convention
The criteria for the establishment of a State specified by the Montevideo
Convention includes a permanent population, a defined territory, a
government, and a capacity to enter into relations with other states.

6. What is included in the territory of the Philippines

The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the
islands and waters embraced therein, and all other territories over which
the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial,
fluvial, and aerial domains, including its territorial sea, the seabed, the
subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas. The waters
around, between and connecting the island of the archipelago regardless
of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the
Philippines.

7. How does the state justify its measured act under the doctrine of Parens
Patriae
One of the important tasks of the government is to act for the State as
parens patriae, or guardian of the rights of the people. This doctrine has
been defined as the inherent power and authority of the state to provide
protection to the persons and property of the persons non-sui juris or an
individual who lacks the legal capacity to act on his or her own behalf,
 such as an infant or an insane person. Under such doctrine, the State has
the sovereign power of guardianship over persons under disability.

The Constitution provides that the State shall protect and strengthen the
family as a basic autonomous social institution. Jurisprudence provides that
when the State so intervenes, it is exercising it prerogative of parens patriae.
Parens patriae literally means “father or parent of his country.” It refers to the
inherent power and authority of the State to provide protection of the person
and property of a person non sui juris. Under such doctrine, the State has the
sovereign power of guardianship over persons under disabilities. Hence, the
State is considered the parens patriae of minors.

8. What type of government was our government during the 1935,1972,1987

Constitution

1935- Presidential form of government, commonwealth government

1972- Dictatorship government
1987- Republic with a presidential form of government where power is equally
divided among the three branches: executive,legislative,judicial.

Quiz 2
1. Define social justice as enunciated in Calalang vs Williams
Social justice is neither communism, nor despotism, nor atomism, nor
anarchy, but the humanization of laws and the equalization of social and
economic forces by the State so that justice in its rational and objectively
secular conception may at least be approximated. Social justice means the
promotion of the welfare of all the people, the adoption by the Government of
measures calculated to insure economic stability of all the competent
elements of society, through the maintenance of a proper economic and social
equilibrium in the interrelations of the members of the community,
constitutionally, through the adoption of measures legally justifiable, or extra-
constitutionally, through the exercise of powers underlying the existence of all
governments on the time-honored principle of salus populi est suprema lex.
Social justice, therefore, must be founded on the recognition of the necessity
of interdependence among divers and diverse units of a society and of the
protection that should be equally and evenly extended to all groups as a
combined force in our social and economic life, consistent with the
fundamental and paramount objective of the state of promoting the health,
comfort, and quiet of all persons, and of bringing about "the greatest good to
the greatest number. (Calalang vs. William)

2. Is the Vatican City a state? Relate your answer to the montevideo

convention
Yes, Vatican is a state because it possesses all the requirements for
Statehood, which are: 1) permanent population; 2) a defined territory; 3)
government; and 4) the capacity to enter into relations with other States.
3. Differentiate jure imperii vs jure gestionis

Jure imperii are acts of the state that are of a sovereign and governmental
in nature and are subjected to immunity. Jure gestionis are commercial,
private, and proroetary acts in respect of which the state is not immune but is
subject to the jurisdiction of the territorial sovereign.

4. Explain the maxim “par in parem non habet imperium”. Relate your answer
to the doctrine of non suability of the state
Par in parem non habet imperium means all states are sovereign equals
and cannot assert jurisdiction over one another. If the acts giving rise to a suit
are those of a foreign government done by its foreign agent, although not
necessarily a diplomatic personage, but acting in his official capacity, the
complaint could be barred by the immunity of the foreign sovereign from suit
without its consent. Suing a representative of a state is believed to be, in
effect, suing the state itself. The proscription is not accorded for the benefit of
an individual but for the State.

5. Are the policies and principle in Article 2 a source of enforceable rights

No, the provisions under the Article are generally considered not self-
executing, and there is no plausible reason for according a different treatment
to the "equal access" provision. Like the rest of the policies enumerated in
Article II, the provision does not contain any judicially enforceable
constitutional right but merely specifies a guideline for legislative or executive
action. (Esquire vs. COMELEC)

6. In Deutsche Gesselschaft Fur Technische Zusammernabeit case, does

GTZ enjoy immunity from suit? Why or why not?
No. The GTZ was a private corporation and it had failed to secure from
the DFA a certification regarding its diplomatic status and its entitlement to
diplomatic privileges including immunity from suits that is generally enjoyed by
its parent country, the Federal Republic of Germany. However, assuming that
GTZ was an implementing agency of Germany, it does not automatically
invest GTZ with the ability to invoke State immunity from suit. GTZ’s own
website elicits that it is federally owned, a federal enterprise, and it appears
that GTZ was actually organized not through a legislative public charter, but
under private law, hence, it has a legal personality independent of that of the
Federal Republic of Germany. In this case, GTZ has failed to establish that
under German law, it has not consented to be sued despite it being owned by
the Federal Republic of Germany. There is
a rule that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, foreign laws on a
particular subject are presumed to be the same as those of
the Philippines, thus, GTZ is akin to a governmental owned or controlled
corporation without original charter which, by virtue of the Corporation Code,
has expressly consented to be sued.

7. As mentioned in Datu Michael Kidas case, do you agree that Article 2 is an

express limitation of the legislative power?Explain
Yes. As pointed out by the Supreme Court, the express limitations of the
legislative power are generally provided in some provisions of the Declaration
of Principles and State Policies (Article 2) and even in the provisions Bill of
Rights (Article 3) of the 1987 Constitution.

8. In the leauge of cities of the philippines case, the SC mentioned the

conditions for a valid classification under the equal protection clause.
Enumerate.
The conditions for a valid classification under the equal protection
clause are:
a. The classification must rest on substantial distinctions;
b. The classification must be germane to the purpose of the law;
c. The classification must not be limited to existing conditions only and;
d. The classification must apply equally to all members of the same class.

9. In Sema vs comelec, does the ARMM Regional Assembly have the power
to create local government units pursuant to the grant of autonomy to local
government? Expound.
No. R.A. 9054 is declared unconstitutional as it grants to the ARMM Regional
Assembly the power to create provinces and cities. The LGC states that an
only an Act of Congress can create provinces, cities or municipalities and t he
creation of LGUs must comply with three conditions which are: the creation of
LGU must follow the criteria fixed in the LGC, such creation must not conflict
with any provision of the Constitution and, there must be a plebiscite in the
political units affected. The creation of provinces and cities is a different
matter from the creation of municipalities and barangays, because the former
under the Constitution requires that “Each city with a population of at least
250,000, or each province, shall have at least 1 representative in the House of
Representatives”, and that any province whose population may increase to
more than 250,000 shall be entitled in the immediately following election to at
least one member. However, a province cannot be created without a
legislative district because it will violate the Constitution and the Ordinance,
which is also applied to a city with a population of 250,000 or more.
Furthermore, the legislative districts are created or reappointed only by an
Act of Congress, as the power to increase the allowable membership in the
House of Representatives and to reapportion legislative districts is vested
exclusively in Congress through a national law. An inferior legislative body,
created by a superior legislative body, cannot change the membership of the
superior legislative body. R.A. 9054 states that “The Regional Assembly may
exercise legislative power except on national elections”. Since the ARMM
Regional Assembly has no legislative power to enact laws relating to national
elections, it cannot create a legislative district whose representative is elected
in national elections. To allow the ARMM Regional Assembly to create a
national office is to allow its legislative powers to operate outside the ARMMs
territorial jurisdiction which would then violate Art. X Sec. 20 of the
Constitution which expressly limits the coverage of the Regional Assembly’s
legislative powers within its territorial jurisdiction. A province, like the Shariff
Kabunsuan, cannot legally be created without a legislative district because the
Constitution mandates that each province shall have at least one
representative. Thus, the creation of the said province through the Muslim
Mindanao Autonomy Act No. 201, without a legislative district is void.

10. What is the doctrine of incorporation

Doctrine of incorporation mandates that the Philippines is bound by
generally accepted principles of international law which automatically form
part of Philippine law by operation of the Constitution, where the international
law is deemed to have the force of domestic law.

11. Was there a violation of the principle of separation of church and state in
the Aglipay case?
No. Act No. 4052 appropriates the sum of Php 60,000 due to costs of
plates and printing of postage stamps with new designs and other expenses,
and authorizes the Ruiz, the Director of Post, with the approval of the
Secretary of Public Works and Communications, to dispose of the amount
appropriated in the manner indicated and "as often as may be deemed
advantageous to the Government". Such printing and issuance of postage
stamps have been approved by the President. The same Act only gives Ruiz
the discretionary power to determine when the issuance of special postage
stamps would be "advantageous to the Government." It does not authorize the
appropriation, use or application of public money or property for the use,
benefit or support of a particular sect or church, but the issuance of the
postage stamps was not inspired by any sectarian denomination. The stamps
were not issued and sold for the benefit of the Roman Catholic Church, nor
were money derived from the sale of the stamps given to that church. The only
purpose in issuing and selling the stamps was to advertise the Philippines and
attract more tourist to this country. The officials concerned merely took
advantage of an event considered of international importance to give publicity
to the Philippines and its people. The stamps contain a map of the Philippines
and the location of the City of Manila, and an inscription: "Seat XXXIII
International Eucharistic Congress, Feb. 3-7,1937." What is emphasized is not
the Eucharistic Congress itself but Manila, the capital of the Philippines, as
the seat of that congress. The Court concluded that there has been no
constitutional infraction in the said case.

12. What is the love story between Evelyn and Bobby and its constitutional
implication?
Evelyn was 30-year old teacher and class adviser in the 6 th grade, in Tay Tung
High School, where Bobby, a 16-year old student, was enrolled. Within the
period of Evelyn extending remedial instructions to Bobby, they fell in love with
each other and they got married later on. Upon knowing it, Tay Tung High
School filed with the Department of Labor an application for clearance to
terminate Evelyn’s employment due to abusive and unethical conduct
unbecoming of a dignified school teacher and that her continued employment
would downgrade the high moral values of the school. With regard to the
Constitution, Evelyn argued that her right to due process was violated when
the hearsay affidavits were admitted and considered in evidence without
presenting the affiants as witnesses and affording her the right to confront and
cross-examine them. However, the Court found no substantial evidence about
the imputed immoral acts committed by Evelyn. If the two fell in love, despite
the disparity in their ages and academic levels, this only lends substance to
the truism that the heart has reasons of its own which reason does not know.
But that gentle and universal emotion is not to be so casually equated with
immorality.

Quiz 3
1. Expound: “the principle of separation of powers prevents the concentration
of legislative, executive, and judicial powers to a single branch of government
by deftly allocating their exercise to the three branches of government…”
The principle of separation of powers states that the executive, legislative,
and judiciary powers of government should be divided into different branches
and not concentrated in one. These departments should be separate and
distinct because of the corrupting nature of power. If the body that made the
laws could also enforce them and adjudicate disputes, it would likely do so in
a preferential manner, undermining the rule of law and basic fairness.

2. How is republicanism related to the doctrine of separation of powers?

Separation of powers is an attribute of republicanism, in that, among other
reasons, it seeks to prevent monopoly or concentration of power to one
person or group of persons, and thereby ensuring that sovereignty resides in
the people. Government officials, who are the representatives of the people,
must exercise the powers of their office in the interest of the public. With this,
representational exercise of power brings out the essence of republicanism.

3. Explain the rule: potestas delegata non delgari potest

It states that a delegated power may not be further delegated by the person
to whom such power is delegated, and that in all cases of delegated authority,
where personal trust or confidence is reposed in the agent and especially
where the exercise and application of the power is made subject to his
judgment or discretion, the authority is purely personal and cannot be
delegated to another unless there is a special power of substitution either
express or necessarily implied.
4. Differentiate completeness test from sufficient standard test
The “completeness test” provides that a law is complete when it sets forth
therein the policy to executed, carried out, or implemented by the delegate.
The “sufficient standard test”, on the other hand, provides that a law is
complete when it provides adequate guidelines or limitation in the law to map
out the boundaries of the delegate’s authority.

5. Reconcile the principle of checks and balances with the separation of

powers
The system of separation of powers in the government works to prevent
monopoly or concentration of power to one person or group of persons. In this
light, the system of checks and balances is intended to make sure that no
branch of the government be allowed to exceed its bounds or to encroach
upon the exclusive sphere of the other co-equal branches of the government
by giving each branch the power to check the actions of the other.

6. In the interpretation of delegation of powers, should there be a concurrence

of completeness test and sufficient standard test? Or compliance with either
will suffice?
In the case of ABAKADA v Ermita, the Supreme Court ruled that in every
case of permissible delegation, there must be a showing that the delegation
itself is valid. It is valid only if the law (a) is complete in itself, setting forth
therein the policy to be executed, carried out, or implemented by the
delegate;and (b) fixes a standard — the limits of which are sufficiently
determinate and determinable — to which the delegate must conform in the
performance of his functions. Therefore, in order that the delegation be valid,
there must be a showing that the delegation complied with both the
completeness test and sufficient standard test.

7. In BOCEA vs Teves, the SC ruled that the non-delegation of powers admits

numerous exception. What was the exception discussed in the case?
The exception discussed in the case is that delegated power given to
various specialized administrative agencies. The rationale behind this is that
the various administrative agencies of the government, being specialized in
their own fields, will be able to execute laws that will deal adequately and
respond promptly to the needs of the people.

8. Is there a constitutional basis for the adherence to the principle of

separation of powers?
As provided in Article II of the 1987 Constitution, the Philippine Government
is democratic and republican. It follows that there be separation of powers, so
that as provided in Articles VI, VII and VIII, it divides itself into three branches:
Legislative, Executive, and Judicial.

9. How do you understand judicial independence in relation to separation of

powers?
The separation of powers works to distribute the powers of the government
into separate branches. The judiciary, being that branch which acts as the
arbitrator between the government and the people, should not be influenced
by the constraints of internal government and their policies in interpreting and
applying law to their decisions. They should be independent of pressure from
the Government and political and other groups, and therefore be able to
decide cases just and impartially. SC provided in a case that judicial
independence is broken into institutional and decisional independence hence
(insert freedom from outside forces etc)

10. Discuss the political question doctrine

A political question is a question of policy, it is best answered by the people
in their sovereign capacity and by the executive or legislative in their exclusive
authority. Political questions are therefore outside the realm of the judiciary.
The political question doctrine states that the Judicial Branch cannot decide
questions in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to
the legislative or executive branch of the government

11. In David vs Arroyo, SC stated the requirements for the exercise of the
power of judicial review. Enumerate the requirements.
The requirements for the exercise of judicial review are: first, there must be
an actual case or controversy; second, locus standi, petitioners have to raise
a question of constitutionality; third, the constitutional question must be raised
at the earliest opportunity; and fourth, the decision of the constitutional
question must be necessary to the determination of the case itself

12. What are the constitutionally allowed delegation of legislative powers by

Congress?
The constitutionally allowed delegation of legislative powers are: (1)
Delegation of tariff powers to the president under Arcticle 6, Section 28(2); (2)
Delegation of emergency powers to the President under Article 6, Section
23(2); (3) Delegation to the people at large; (4) Delegation to local
governements; and (5) Delegation to administrative bodies.

Quiz 4
1. A senator occupies the seat of chairmanship in the PH Red Cross, is it an
incompatible or forbidden office? (Case ni Dick Gordon)
The Supreme Court in this case holds that the office of the PNRC Chairman is
not a government office or an office in a government-owned or controlled
corporation for purposes of the prohibition in Section 13, Article VI of the 1987
Constitution. However, it is a forbidden office as it is not allowed only during
the term for which he was elected, when such office was created or its
emolument were increased. To which after such term, and even if the
legislator is re-elected, the disqualification no longer applied and he may
therefore be appointed to the office.

2. Define reapportionment
Reapportionment is the moving or changing of the boundaries of legislative
districts to accommodate a new one. Reapportionment of legislative districts
may be made through a special law. To hold that reapportionment can be
made only through a general law would create an inequitable situation where
a new city or province created by Congress will be denied legislative
representation for an indeterminate period of time.

3. What are the non legislative powers of Congress

The non-legislative powers include the power to canvass the presidential
elections, to declare the existence of a state of war, to give concurrence to
treaties and amnesties and to propose constitutional amendments and to
impeach.

4. Can 3 or 4 islands be considered one province without violating the

constitutional requirement on contiguous territory? (Dinagat islands case)
Yes. Jurisprudence on the creation of the dinagat province provides that The
constitutional requirement in contiguous territory while considered as an
indicator of viability of a LGU is not conclusive in showing that Dinagat cannot
become a province, taking into account its average annual income at the time
of its creation which is 4 times more than the minimum requirements for the
creation of a province. By which the delivery of basic services to its
constituents has been proven possible and sustainable

5. Expound dual citizenship from dual allegiance

Dual Allegiance differs from Dual Citizenship. While Dual Citizenship is
voluntary. Dual Allegiance is the result of an individual’s volition. Dual
Citizenship arises when as a result of the concurrent application of the
different laws of two or more states. A person is simultaneously considered a
national by the said states. However, Dual Allegiance refers to a situation in
which a person simultaneously owes, by some positive act, loyalty to two or
more states.

6. Discuss the three groups that can participate in the party-list system.
In Atong Paglaum vs COMELEC, the SC provided that Thus, the party-list
system is composed of three different groups: (1) national parties or
organizations; (2) regional parties or organizations; and (3) sectoral parties or
organizations. National and regional parties or organizations
are different from sectoral parties or organizations. National and regional
parties or organizations need not be organized along sectoral lines and need
not represent any particular sector. It is a national party when its constituency
is spread over the geographical territory of at least a majority of the regions. It
is a regional party when its constituency is spread over the geographical
territory of at least a majority of the cities and provinces comprising the region.
A sectoral party refers to an organized group of citizens belonging to
any of the sectors whose principal advocacy pertains to the special
interest and concerns of their sector.

7. Enumerate the verifiable indicators of viability in the creation of local

government units as mentioned in Navarro vs Ermita
As mentioned in the case of Navarro v. Ermita, the verifiable indicators of
viability in the creation of local government units are income, population, and
land area. Income must be sufficient, based on acceptable standards to
provide for all essential government facilities and services and special
functions commensurate with the size of its population as expected of the
LGU concerned. The population that shall be determined as the total number
of inhabitants within the territorial jurisdiction of LGU concerned. And a
contiguous land area, unless it comprises of two or more islands or is
separated by a LGU independent of the others and sufficient to provide for
such basic services and facilities to meet the requirements of its populace.

Quiz 5
1. What is the enrolled bill doctrine
An enrolled bill is a legislative bill that is signed by the President of the
Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the secretaries of both
Houses, and approved and signed by the President. The doctrine posits that
an enrolled bill duly signed and approved is conclusive of its due enactment
and must be given respect by the courts, except however, when the
President, Senate President and Speaker of the House withdraw their
signatures due to some anomaly surrounding the printing of the final copy of
the bill, the bill is no longer an “enrolled bill”. (Astorga v. Villegas, April 30,
1974)

2. Explain the concept of executive privilege

In Senate v Ermita, executive privilege has been defined as the power of the
Government to withhold information from the public, the courts and the
Congress. It also includes the right of the president and high-level executive
branch officers to withhold information that are either

3. What is the meaning of securing prior consent from the President for
secretaries or head of offices to appear in congress?
Pursuant to Article VI, Section 22 of the 1987 Constitution, Executive Order
464 of then President Arroyo, all heads of departments of the Executive
branch of the government shall secure the consent of the president prior to
appearing before either the Senate or the House of representatives. However,
in Senate v. Ermita, where several provisions of EO 464 were invalidated, the
Supreme Court held that the requirement to secure prior consent from the
president is applicable only to inquiries during question hour in the exercise of
Congress’ oversight functions. The requirement cannot be applied to
appearances in inquiries in aid of legislation, and thus, securing prior consent
is not a requirement and the absence of which will not bar the Congress to
compel the appearance of the heads of departments of the executive.

4. Enumerate the bills that must originate in the house of representatives

Article VI, Section 24 of the 1987 Constitution provides that all appropriation,
revenue or tariff bills, bills authorizing the increase of public debt, bills of local
application, and private bills, shall exclusively originate in the house of
representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments.

5. Differentiate initiative from referendum

Initiative is the power of the people to propose amendments to the
Constitution or to propose or enact legislations through an election called for
the purpose.Referendum is the power of the electorate to oppose or reject a
legislation through an election called for the purpose. (Sections 3(a) and 3(b)
of RA 6735)
6. What is a pocket veto
A pocket veto is a legislative maneuver that allows a president or other official
with veto power to exercise that power over a bill by taking no action (instead
of affirmatively vetoing it).

Quiz 6
1. State the oath or affirmation of the President and Vice President
I, _______________, do solemnly swear [or affirm] that I will faithfully and
conscientiously fulfill my duties as President [or Vice-President or Acting
President] of the Philippines, preserve and defend its Constitution, execute its
laws, do justice to every man, and consecrate myself to the service of the
Nation. So help me God.
[In case of affirmation, last sentence will be omitted.]

2. To what type of appointment is Sec 15 Art 7 of the Constitution directed

against
Section 15 of Article 7 of the Constitution is directed against two types of
appointments like those made for buying votes and those made for partisan
considerations. The first refers to those appointments made within two months
preceding the Presidential election and are similar to those declared election
offenses in the Omnibus Election Code and which the second consist of the
so- called “midnight” appointments.

3. Did former president estrada resign as president or should he be

considered resigned as of january 2001 when president gma took her oath as
president?
It was ruled in the case of Estrada v. Arroyo that the resignation of President
Estrada could not be doubted as confirmed by his leaving Malacañang. The
following instances show the clear intent to relinquish the Presidency. First, as
he acknowledged the oath-taking of GMA as President. Second, he
emphasized he was leaving the palace for the sake of peace and in order to
begin the healing process. Third, he expressed his gratitude to the people for
the opportunity to serve them as President. Fourth, he assured that he will not
shirk from nay future challenge that may come in the same service of the
country and he called on his supporters to join him in the promotion of a
constructive national spirit of reconciliation and solidarity.

4. Explain executive immunity from suit

In David vs Macapagal-Arroyo the SC stated that: “Settled is the doctrine that
the President, during his tenure of office or actual incumbency, may not be
sued in any civil or criminal case, and there is no need to provide for it in the
Constitution or law. It will degrade the dignity of the high office of the
President, the Head of State, if he can be dragged into court litigations while
serving as such. Furthermore, it is important that he be freed from any form of
harassment, hindrance or distraction to enable him to fully attend to the
performance of his official duties and functions. Unlike the legislative and
judicial branch, only one constitutes the executive branch and anything which
impairs his usefulness in the discharge of the many great and important duties
imposed upon him by the Constitution necessarily impairs the operation of the
Government.”

5. Can a former president invoke executive immunity from suit

No. In Rodriguez vs Macapagal Arroyo the SC stated that: It is well settled
doctrine that the President during his tenure of office or actual incumbency,
may not be sued on any civil or criminal case and there is no need to provide
for it in the constitution or law. Therefore, it is stressed through that
Presidential immunity from suit exists only in concurrence with the president’s
incumbency

6. What is executive privilege

As ruled in the case of Neri v. Senate, It is the right of the President and high-
level executive branch officials to withhold information from Congress, the
courts and the public. It is a privilege of confidentiality which applies to certain
types of information of a sensitive character that would be against the public
interest to disclose. Executive privilege is based on the constitution because it
relates to the President’s effective discharge of executive powers. Its ultimate
end is to promote public interest and no other.

7. As ruled in Neri vs Senate, enumerate the types of executive privilege

-deliberative process privilege
-presidential communications privilege
-executive privilege on matters relating to diplomacy or foreign relations
*the ff are found in akbayan vs aquino:
state secrets (regarding military, diplomatic and other security matters)
- identity of government informers
- information related to pending investigations

8. Who is the president under the constitution?

The President is the Chief Executive or the Head of Government which
means that it is the Executive and no else is. He or she is also the Head of
State, Head of the Cabinet and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of
the Philippines. The President of the Philippines had vested the Executive
Power. The scope of this power is set forth in Art. VII of the Constitution. But
this power is not limited to those set forth therein. The SC, in Marcos v.
Manglapus, referred to the RESIDUAL powers of the President as the Chief
Executive of the country, which powers include others not set forth in the
Constitution.

Quiz 7
1. In Macalintal vs PET, are the COMELEC, HRET and SET considered courts
of law? Why or why not?
Not considered courts of law. The SC in Macalintal vs PET stated that: “At
the higher levels – city, provincial, and regional, as well as congressional and
senatorial – exclusive and original jurisdiction is lodged in the COMELEC and
in the House of Representatives and Senate Electoral Tribunals, which are
not, strictly and literally speaking, courts of law. Although not courts of law,
they are, nonetheless, empowered to resolve election contests which involve,
in essence, an exercise of judicial power, because of the explicit constitutional
empowerment found in Section 2(2), Article IX-C (for the COMELEC) and
Section 17, Article VI (for the Senate and House Electoral Tribunals) of the
Constitution.”

2. In Galicto vs Aquino, had RA10149 not been legislated by Congress, do

you think EO7 is constitutional?

3. In Francis Saez case, rule on the proposition that the president can not be
automatically dropped as a respondent pursuant to the doctrine of command
responsibility
Pursuant to the doctrine of command responsibility, the President, as
the Commander-in-Chief of the AFP, can be held liable for affront against
the petitioner’s rights to life, liberty and security as long as substantial
evidence exist to show that he or she had exhibited involvement in or can be
imputed with knowledge of the violations, or had failed to exercise
necessary and reasonable diligence in conducting the necessary
investigations required under the rules. The Court also stresses that rule that
the presidential immunity from suit exists only in concurrence with the
president’s incumbency.
Conversely, this presidential privilege of immunity cannot be invoked
by a non-sitting president even for acts committed during his or her
tenure.33 Courts look with disfavor upon the presidential privilege of
immunity, especially when it impedes the search for truth or impairs the
vindication of a right

4. As ruled in Funa vs Ermita, differentiate appointment from designation

Appointment may be defined as the selection, by the authority vested with
the power, of an individual who is to exercise the functions of a given office.
When completed, usually with its confirmation, the appointment results in
security of tenure for the person chosen unless he is replaceable at pleasure
because of the nature of his office. Designation, on the other hand, connotes
merely the imposition by law of additional duties on an incumbent official, as
where, in the case before us, the Secretary of Tourism is designated
Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Philippine Tourism Authority, or
where, under the Constitution, three Justices of the Supreme Court are
designated by the Chief Justice to sit in the Electoral Tribunal of the Senate or
the House of Representatives. It is said that appointment is essentially
executive while designation is legislative in nature.
Designation may also be loosely defined as an appointment because it
likewise involves the naming of a particular person to a specified public office.
That is the common understanding of the term. However, where the person is
merely designated and not appointed, the implication is that he shall hold the
office only in a temporary capacity and may be replaced at will by the
appointing authority. In this sense, the designation is considered only an
acting or temporary appointment, which does not confer security of tenure on
the person named

5. In Funa vs Ermita, what is the rationale for the disqualification laid down in
Sec 13 Article 7?
 The disqualification laid down in Section 13, Article VII is aimed at
preventing the concentration of powers in the Executive Department officials,
specifically the President, Vice-President, Members of the Cabinet and their
deputies and assistants.

6. State the rules on succession in the case of the president (consti provision)

7. Differentiate legislative power from executive power

8. In Rubrico vs Arroyo, what was the basis for dropping president arroyo as a
respondent?

9. State the oath or affirmation of the President.

I, _______________, do solemnly swear [or affirm] that I will faithfully and
conscientiously fulfill my duties as President [or Vice-President or Acting
President] of the Philippines, preserve and defend its Constitution, execute its
laws, do justice to every man, and consecrate myself to the service of the
Nation. So help me God.
[In case of affirmation, last sentence will be omitted.]

10. Define the residual powers of the president as discussed in the “Review
Center” case
Residual Powers. - Unless Congress provides otherwise, the President shall
exercise such other powers and functions vested in the President which are
provided for under the laws and which are not specifically enumerated above,
or which are not delegated by the President in accordance with law. Unstated
residual powers are implied from the grant of executive power and which are
necessary for her to comply with her duties under the Constitution.

11. InSanlakas case, the issue was the authority of the President to declare a
state of rebellion. How did the Court rule? The Court ruled that the president
has the power to declare a state of rebellion. Thus, the Presidents authority to
declare a state of rebellion springs in the main from her powers as chief
executive and, at the same time, draws strength from her Commander-in-
Chief powers. Indeed, as the Solicitor General, in the case, accurately points
out, statutory authority for such a declaration may be found in Section 4,
Chapter 2 (Ordinance Power), Book III (Office of the President) of the Revised
Administrative Code of 1987. The petitions do not cite a specific instance
where the President has attempted to or has exercised powers beyond her
powers as Chief Executive or as Commander-in-Chief. The President, in
declaring a state of rebellion and in calling out the armed forces, was merely
exercising a wedding of her Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief
powers. These are purely executive powers, vested on the President by
Sections 1 and 18, Article VII,

12. In the AKBAYAN case, did the court overturn its ruling in Senate vs Ermita
that executive privilege should be invoked by the President or through the
Executive Secretary by order of the President
No, the SC did not overturn the ruling in senate v. ermita as it stated that:
“For reasons already explained, this Decision shall not be interpreted as
departing from the ruling in Senate v. Ermita that executive privilege should be
invoked by the President or through the Executive Secretary by order of the
President.”
When the Court in Senate v. Ermita limited the power of invoking the privilege
to the President alone, it was laying down a new rule for which there is no
counterpart even in the United States from which the concept of executive
privilege was adopted. The Court observes, however, that the claim of
privilege appearing in respondents Comment to this petition fails to satisfy in
full the requirement laid down in Senate v. Ermita that the claim should be
invoked by the President or through the Executive Secretary by order of the
President.Respondents claim of privilege is being sustained, however, its flaw
notwithstanding, because of circumstances peculiar to the case.
The assertion of executive privilege by the Executive Secretary, who is one of
the respondents herein, without him adding the phrase by order of the
President, shall be considered as partially complying with the requirement laid
down in Senate v. Ermita. The requirement that the phrase by order of the
President should accompany the Executive Secretarys claim of privilege is a
new rule laid down for the first time in Senate v. Ermita, which was not yet
final and executory at the time respondents filed their Comment to the
petition. A strict application of this requirement would thus be unwarranted in
this case.

Quiz 8
1. What is a midnight appointment?
A midnight appointment is an appointment in violation of Section 15, Article VII
of the 1987 Constitution, which provides for the prohibition of appointments
being made by a President or an Acting President within two months
immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the end of his
term.

2. Enumerate the appointed officials who are required to be confirmed by the

CA
Under Section 16 of Article VII of the 1987 Constitution, the officials
appointed by the President, who requires the confirmation of the Commission
on Appointments are the heads of the executive department, ambassadors,
other public ministers and consuls, or other officers of the armed forces from
the rank of colonel or naval captain, and other officers whose appointments
are vested with the President.

3. Define: executive order, administrative order, proclamation

An executive order is an act of the president providing for the rules of a
general or permanent character in implementation or execution of
constitutional or statutory powers. An administrative order is an act of the
president which relates to particular aspects of governmental operations in
pursuance of his duties as administrative head. Proclamations are acts of the
president fixing a date or declaring a status or condition of public moment or
interest, upon the existence of which, the operation of a specific law or
regulation is made to depend, and which shall have the force of an executive
order. (Chapter 2, Book III of Administrative Code of 1987 or Executive Order
292)
4. In Ampatuan vs Puno, did PGMA validly exercise emergency powers
In Ampatuan v. Puno, the Supreme Court held that the president did not
exercise emergency powers, as she did not proclaim a national emergency,
but only a state of emergency in some places and she did not act pursuant to
any law enacted by Congress that authorized her to exercise emergency
powers. What the president exercised in this case was the “calling-out” power
directly vested by the Constitution to the president, and not emergency
powers.

5. Discuss the nature of an acting appointment

In Pimentel v. Ermita, the Supreme Court discussed the nature of acting
appointment as an acting capacity of a temporary nature. It is a stop-gap
measure intended to fill an office for a limited time until the appointment of a
permanent occupant to the office. Further, the Administrative Code of 1987
provides that the

6. In Gudani vs Senga, what is the legal basis for the President to issue an
order to the members of the AFP preventing them from testifying?
In Gudani v. Senga, Section 18 of Article VII of the 1987 Constitution provides
as basis for the president’s order to prevent military officers from testifying. It
provides that the president is the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces
and is vested with absolute authority over persons and actions of the armed
forces. This authority includes the ability of the president to restrict the travel,
movement and speech of military officers and members of the Armed Forces.

7. Enumerate the limitations of president’s military powers

A.) the president may call out the armed forces when it becomes necessary to
prevent lawless violence, invasion or rebellion only; B.) the grounds for the
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus and the proclamation
of martial law are now limited only to invasion or rebellion, when the public
safety requires it; C.) the duration of such suspension and proclamation shall
not exceed sixty days, following which it shall be automatically lifted; D.) within
forty-eight hours after such suspension or proclamation, the President shall
personally or in writing report to the Congress. If not in session, Congress
must convene within 24 hours without need of a call; E.) the Congress may
then, by a majority vote of all its members voting jointly, revoke his action; F.)
the revocation may not be set aside by the President; G.) by the same vote
and in the same manner, the Congress may, upon initiative of the President,
extend his suspension or proclamation for a period to be determined by the
Congress if the invasion or rebellion shall continue and the public safety
requires the extension. H.) the action of the President and the Congress shall
be subject to review by the Supreme Court which shall have the authority to
determine the sufficiency of the factual basis of such action. This matter is no
longer considered a political question and may be raised in an appropriate
proceeding by any citizen. Moreover, the Supreme Court must decide the
challenge within thirty days from the time it is filed. I.) martial law does not
automatically suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or the
operation of the Constitution. The civil courts and the legislative bodies shall
remain open. Military courts and agencies are not conferred jurisdiction over
civilians where the civil courts are functioning. J.) the suspension of the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall apply only to persons facing
charges of rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly connected with
invasion. Any person arrested for such offenses must be judicially charged
therewith within three days. Otherwise he shall be released.

8. In Garcia vs Executive Secretary, enumerate the powers of the president as

commander in chief of the afp
In Garcia v. Executive Secretary, the powers of the President as the
Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces as provided by the Articles of War,
includes the power to confirm the sentence of a Court Martial, and incidental
to this power is the power to disapprove the whole or any part of the
sentence, the power to remand a case for hearing, the power to confirm only
a finding of guilty of a particular offense, and also the power to mitigate or
remit the whole or part of the sentence.

9. In Pichay vs ODESLA, does the president have the power to reorganize

offices?
Yes, it was held in Pichay v ODESLA, that the president is vested with the
power and continuing authority to reorganize the offices under him by virtue of
Section 31, of the Administrative Code of 1987 in order to achieve simplicity,
economy and efficiency. This continuing authority gives the president a
freehand in dealing with the internal structure of the Office of the President
Proper to which the ODESLA and the PAGC are under.

10. Differentiate pardon from amnesty

a.) Amnesty is usually addressed to crimes against the sovereignty of the
State, to political offense, forgiveness being deemed more expedient for the
public welfare than prosecution and punishment; pardon condones infractions
of the peace of the State. b.) Amnesty is usually addressed o classes or even
communities of persons; pardon is usually addressed to an individual. c.) In
amnesty, there may or may not be distinct acts or acceptance, so that if other
rights are dependent upon it and are asserted, there is affirmative evidence of
acceptance; in pardon there must be distinct acts of acceptance. d.) Pardon
does not require the concurrence of Congress; amnesty requires such
concurrence. e.) Pardon is a private act of the President which must be
pleaded and proved by the person pardoned because the courts do not take
judicial notice of it; amnesty is a public act of which the courts take judicial
notice. f.) Pardon looks forward and relieves the offender from the
consequences of an offense which he has been convicted; while amnesty
looks backward and abolishes and puts into oblivion the offense itself with
which he is charged that the person released by amnesty stands before the
law precisely as though he had committed no offense.

11. What us the doctrine of qualified political agency

As cited in Manubay v. Garilao,under the doctrine of qualified political agency,
department secretaries are alter egos or assistants of the President and their
acts are presumed to be those of the latter unless disapproved or reprobated
by him.
12. State section18 article 7 of the constitution
The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the
Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed
forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. In case
of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he may, for a period
not exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law. Within forty-
eight hours from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the president shall sumit a report in
person or in writing ti the Congress The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of
at least majority of all its Members in regular or special session, may revoke
such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by
the President. Upon the initiative of the President, the Cingress may, in the
same manner, extend such proclamation or suspension for a period to be
determined by the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and
public safety requires it.
The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty four hours following
such proclamation or suspension convene in accordance with its rules without
any need of a call.
The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any
citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or
the suspension of the privilege of the writ or the extension thereof, and must
promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing.
A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution,
nor supplant the functioning of the civil courts or the legislative assemblies nor
authorize the conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over
civilians where civil courts are able to function, nor automatically suspend the
privilege of the writ.
The suspension of the privilege of the writ shall apply only to persons
judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly connected
with the invasion.
During the suspension of the privilege of the writ, any person thus
arrested or detained shall be judicially charged within three days, otherwise
he shall be released.

Quiz 9
(absent ako,iuupdate ko pa to pagkakuha ko booklet ni pastor)

Quiz 10
1. State section 5 article 8 of the constitution
Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:
1.Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public
ministers and consuls, and over petitions for certiorari, prohibition,
mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus.
2.Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law
or the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts
in:
a.All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international
or executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order,
instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question.
b.All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any
penalty imposed in relation thereto.
c.All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue.
d.All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or
higher.
e.All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.
3.Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to other stations as public interest
may require. Such temporary assignment shall not exceed six months without
the consent of the judge concerned.
4.Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice.
5.Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of
constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the
admission to the practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal assistance to
the under-privileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive
procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of
the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights.
Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain
effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.
6.Appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary in accordance with the
Civil Service Law.

2. Mr A and Mr B were VP candidates. A emerged as winner with a 100,000

lead. B filed a protest with the PET. PET ruled that B is the winner. A filed a
certiorari with the SC challenging the decision of the PET. Does SC have
jurisdiction?
The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over the petition. The Presidential
Electoral Tribunal is not simply an agency to which the Members of the
Supreme Court were assigned. It is not separate from the Supreme Court.
(Macalintal vs. Presidential Electoral
Tribunal, 631 SCRA 239.) *Suggested answer sa UPLAW

3. What is the inherent power doctrine of the court?

The inherent power doctrine of the court is a doctrine which states that Courts
have inherent power to preserve their integrity, maintain their dignity and to
insure effectiveness in the administration of justiceIn a manner of speaking,
courts have not only the power to maintain their life, but they have also the
power to make that existence effective for the purpose for which the judiciary
was created. They can, by appropriate means, do all things necessary to
preserve and maintain every quality needful to make the judiciary an effective
institution of Government. (Province of Bataan vs Hon Villafuerte Jr.)Rule 135
of the Rules of Court also enumerate specific inherent powers of the court.

4. What are the requisites for judicial review?

The requisites of a judicial review/inquiry are:
a.There must be an actual case or controversy;
b.The question of constitutionality must be raised by the proper party;
c.The constitutional question must be raised at the earliest possible
opportunity; and
d.The decision of the constitutional question must be necessary to the
determination of the case itself.

5. Should the court still resolve the case despite the issue has been moot and
academic? What are the exceptions?
Generally the court should no longer resolve a case if it has been moot and
academic. However there are exceptions,it has been pronounced that the
“moot and academic” principle is not a magical formula that can automatically
dissuade the courts in resolving the case. Courts will decide cases, otherwise
moot and academic, if:
a.There is a grave violation of the Constitution;
b.The exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest
is involved;
c.When the constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling
principles to guide the bench, the bar, and the public; and
d.The case is capable of repetition yet evading review.