40 questions for constitutional law

7/27/2019 40 Questions for Constitutional Law

1/10

Questions for Constitutional Law

1. Sec.1 Art. IX: Independent Commissions

CASE: Ombudsman vs. CSC

QUESTION: There are independent offices specifically authorized by the constitution to

appoint their officials. Does this imply that their appointment will not be subject to Civil

Service Law and Rules?

ANSWER: No. Since all matters pertaining to appointments are within the realm of

expertise to the CSC, all laws, rules and regulations it issues on appointments must be

complied with.

2.

Sec.1 Art. IX: Composition; Qualifications; Term

CASE: Cayetano vs. Monsod

QUESTION: How did the Supreme Court define practice of law in relation to

qualification of ConCom Members?

ANSWER: Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the

application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience. To engage in

the practice of law is to perform those acts which are characteristics of the profession.

Generally, to practice law is to give notice or render any kind of service, which device or

service requires the use in any degree of legal knowledge or skill

3. Sec.4 Art. IX: Supervision/Regulation of Public Utilities, Media Grants, Privileges

CASE: Philippine Press Institute vs. COMELEC

QUESTION: Can the COMELEC compel media outfits to reserve ad space for election

purposes?

ANSWER: No. Such order is violative of illegal seizure of private property. Just

compensation is necessary to compel reservation of ad space.

4.

Sec.7 Art. IX : Decisions of Commissions

CASE: Fillipinas Engineering Machine Shop vs. Ferrer

QUESTION: Based on the decision rendered in this case, who can only review

COMELECs final ruling , decisions and orders relative to the conduct of elections and

enforcement of election laws?

ANSWER: It has been consistently held that, the Supreme Court, not the Court of First

Instance, has the exclusive jurisdiction to review on certiorari final decisions, orders or

rulings of the COMELEC relative to the conduct of elections and enforcement of election

laws.


2/10

5.

Sec.2 Art. X : Local Autonomy

CASE: Limbona vs. Conte Mangelin

QUESTION: Are the Autonomous Goverments under the jurisdiction of the National

Courts? What is the extent of their Self-Government?

ANSWER: An examination of the very Presidential Decree creating the autonomousgovernments of Mindanao persuades us that they never meant to exercise autonomy in

which the central government commits an act of self-immolation. Presidential Decree

No. 1618, in the first place, mandates that the President shall have the power of general

supervision and control over Autonomous regions. Autonomous governments are part

of the country therefore subject to the laws and courts of the land.

6. Sec. 2 Art. X: Local Autonomy

CASE: Leynes vs. COA

QUESTION: Give one of the principles involved in granting allowances to judges?

ANSWER: The power of LGUs to grant allowances to judges has long been recognized

(since 1984 by virtue of LOI No. 1418) and, at present, it is expressly and unequivocally

provided in Sections 447, 458 and 468 of the Local Government Code of 1991.

7.

Sec. 4 Art. X : Supervision by the President

CASE: Ganzon vs. CA

QUESTION: Whether the Sec. of Local Government, as alter ego of the President, can

suspend and or remove local officials from position.

ANSWER: It is noteworthy that under the Charter, local autonomy is not instantly

self-executing, but subject to, among other things, the passage of a local government

code, a local tax law, income distribution legislation, and a national representation law,

and measure designed to realize autonomy at the local level. It is also noteworthy that

in spite of autonomy, the Constitution places the local government under the general

supervision of the Executive. Finally, that the Charter allows Congress to include in the

local government code provisions for removal of local officials, which suggest that the

Congress may exercise removal powers, and as the existing Local Government Code has

done delegate its exercise to the President.

Autonomy does not, after all, contemplate making mini-states out of local government

units.

8.

Sec.8 Art. X: Term of Local Officials

CASE: Borja vs. COMELEC

QUESTION: When will the three-term limit of local elective officials, except barangay

officials, apply?


3/10

ANSWER: The three-term limit will apply only when the local official concerned has

been elected three consecutive times and that he has fully served three consecutive

terms.

9.

Sec.9 Art. X: Local GovernmentCASE: MMDA vs. Bel Air Village Assoc. Inc.

QUESTION: Does MMDA have the authority to give orders?

ANSWER: No, MMDA is not vested police power, a local government is a political

subdivision of a nation or state which is constituted by law and has substantial control

on local affairs.

10.Sec.17 Art. X : Powers Not Vested to the ARMM

CASE: Abas Kida vs. Senate

QUESTION: Is ARMM different from the LGUs, thus should excluded in the election

synchronization as mandated in the Constitution.

ANSWER: The inclusion of autonomous regions in the enumeration of political

subdivisions of the State under the heading Local Government indicates quite clearly

the constitutional intent to consider autonomous regions as one of the forms of local

governments. The Constitution mentions only the national government and the local

governments and does make a distinction between the local government and the

regional government, is particularly revealing, betraying as it does the intention of the

framers of the Constitution to consider the autonomous regions not as separate forms

of government, but as political units which, while having more powers and attributes

than other local government units, still remain under the category of local governments.

Since autonomous regions are classified as local governments, it follows that elections

held in autonomous regions are also considered as local elections.

11.

Sec.18 Art. X: Organic Act for Autonomous Regions

CASE: Pandi vs. CA

QUESTION: How may any provision of the Organic Act be amended?

ANSWER: An ordinary statute, whether general or special, cannot amend an Organic Act

that provides for an Autonomous Region which under the Constitution may only be

created, and therefore change, through a plebiscite called for the purpose.

12.

Sec. 20 Art. X : Legislative Powers of the Autonomous Regions

CASE: Province of North Cotabato vs. Govt of the Phils. Peace Panel

QUESTION: Can ARMM push the MOA in this case?


4/10

ANSWER: As a rule, it should be constitutional and second, for it to take effect; it

should be recognized and approved by the Executive department. It is beyond the

power of the Autonomous regions to legislate on matters that are of national concerns.

Peace is one of the major responsibilities of the State and cannot be decided by the

Autonomous regions on their own more so legislate.

13.Sec.7 Art. XI: Tanodbayan as Special Prosecutor

CASE: Acop vs. Ombudsman

QUESTION: May the military deputy investigate civilian police?

ANSWER: Because the power of the Ombudsman is broad and because the deputy

Ombudsman acts under the direction of the Ombudsman, the power of the military

deputy to investigate members of the civilian police has also been affirmed.

14.

Sec.2 Art.XII : Regalian Doctrine

CASE: Lee Hong Kok vs. David

QUESTION: How can private person or persons validly acquire public lands?

ANSWER: It is well-settled that no public land can be acquired by private persons

without any grant, express or implied, from the government. It is indispensable then

that there be a showing of a title from the state or any other mode of acquisition

recognized by law.

15.

Sec.2 Art. XII: Regalian Doctrine

CASE: Republic vs. Enciso

QUESTION: For reclaimed land to be registered as private property what is required?

ANSWER: Two things are required. First, since reclaimed land is part of the inalienable

public domain, there must be proof tat the land had been classified as alienable.

Second, the person seeking registration must show proof of having acquired the

property. Inalienable land cannot be acquired by prescription.

16.


CASE: Laurel vs.Garcia

QUESTION: Can a property that is given to the Philippine government which is located

outside of the country be alienated?

ANSWER: Under the Philippine law, there can be no doubt that it is of public dominion

unless it is convincingly shown that the property has become patrimonial. As property of

public dominion, which is outside the commerce of man, it cannot be alienated.


5/10

17.


CASE: JG Summit vs.CA

QUESTION: Is ownership by aliens of real properties applies only to lands?

ANSWER: The prohibition under Section 7, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution applies

only to land. The said prohibition does not extend to immovable or real property asdefined under Article 415 of the Civil code, otherwise, there would have a strange

situation where the ownership of immovable property such as trees, plants and growing

fruit attached to the land would be limited to Filipinos and Filipino corporations only.

18.

Sec.2 Art. XII: Alienation

CASE: San Miguel Corporation vs. CA

QUESTION: Can prescription transform public land into private land?

ANSWER: Yes, if it is alienable. Exclusive and notorious occupation of the disputed

properties for more than 30 years must be established.

19.Sec.3 Art. XII: Lands of Public Domain

CASE: Republic vs.CA

QUESTION: Can private owner of an Agricultural land have the right to extract or utilize

the mineral deposits found in a land without the permission of the state? And can a land

have mixed classification?

ANSWER: Under the Regalian Doctrine, once minerals are discovered in the land,

whatever the use to which it is being devoted at the time, such use may be discontinued

by the state to enable it to extract the minerals therein in the exercise of its sovereign

prerogative. The land is thus converted to mineral land and may not be used by any

private party for any other purpose that will impede the mining operations to be

undertaken therein.

The rights over the land are indivisible and that the land cannot be half mineral and half

agricultural. The classification must be categorical: the land must be completely mineral

or completely agricultural.

20.

Sec.3 Art. XII: Lands of Public Domain

CASE: Republic vs.Intermediate Court of Appeals

QUESTION: Does the prohibition on acquisition of public lands apply to corporations

sole?

ANSWER: Yes, to the same extent that the prohibition is applicable to private

corporations. EvenIf a corporation sole is different from other corporations in other

respects, in the matter of acquisition of public land they are treated like corporations.


6/10

21.

Sec.10 Art. XII: Filipinization

CASE: JG Summit vs. CA

QUESTION: Is the prohibition under Section 7, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution

against ownership by aliens of real properties applies only to lands?

ANSWER: The prohibition under Section 7, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution appliesonly to ownership of land. The said prohibition does not extend to immovable or real

property as defined under Article 415 of the Civil Code. Otherwise, there would have a

strange situation where the ownership of immovable property such as trees, plants, and

growing fruit attached to the land would be limited to Filipinos and Filipino corporations

only.

22.Sec.10 Art. XII : Filipinization

CASE: Manila Prince Hotel vs. GSIS

QUESTION: Is the Filpino First Policy a self-executing policy?

ANSWER: A provision which is complete in itself and becomes operative without the aid

of supplementary or enabling legislation, or that which supplies sufficient rule by means

of which the right it grants may be enjoyed or protected, is self-executing. Thus a

constitutional provision is self-executing if the nature and extent of the right to

conferred and the liability imposed are fixed by the constitution itself, so that they can

be determined by the examination and construction of terms, and there is no language

indicating that the subject is referred to the legislature for action. The Filipino First

Policy is complete and is therefore self-executing.

23.

Sec.11 Art. XII: Public Utilities

CASE: Tatad vs.Garcia

QUESTION: May a foreigner own assets of a public utility corporation?

ANSWER: The prohibition in the Constitution is against foreigners and foreign

corporations being given a franchise to operate a public utility. But they may own the

facilities. Thus, in the case at bar, held that, a foreign corporation could construct and

own the facilities for a light rail transit system but it may not be given the franchise to

operate the system.

24.

Sec.11 Art. XII: Public Utilities

CASE: Republic vs.Express Telecommunications Co.

QUESTION: Can a public utility franchise be exclusive?

ANSWER: No. Neither Congress nor the NTC can grant an exclusive franchise,

certificate, or any other form of authorization to operate a public utility. In the case at


7/10

bar, the court held that, the Constitution is quite emphatic that the operation of a

public utility shall not be exclusive.

25.

Sec.17 Art. XII: Temporary Take-Over

CASE: Agan vs. PiatcoQUESTION: Can the State temporarily take over a business affected with public interest?

ANSWER: Yes. The nature and extent of the emergency is the measure of the duration

of the takeover as well as the terms thereof. It is the state that prescribes such

reasonable terms which will guide the implementation of the temporary takeover as

dictated by the exigencies of the time.

26.Sec.3 Art. XVI: General Provision

CASE: Santos vs. Santos

QUESTION: Can a state or its government be sued?

ANSWER: No, The principle that the state or its government cannot be sued without its

consent and has its root in the juridical and practical notion that the state can do no

wrong.

27.

Sec.3 Art. XVI: Immunity from Suit

CASE: Republic vs. Purisima

QUESTION: What makes or constitutes a valid consent for the State to be sued?

ANSWER: It is a well-known doctrine that the State, including its offices and agencies,

from suit without its consent, cannot be sued without its consent. The consent, to be

effective though, must come from the state acting through a duly enacted statute.

28.

Sec. 3 Art. XVI : Immunity from Suit

CASE: Liang vs. People

QUESTION: When can immunity to suit be invoked?

ANSWER: It has been ruled that the mere invocation of the immunity clause does not

ipso facto result in the dropping of the charges. The determining factor is that the

person should have acted under his official capacity when performing the act to be able

to invoke immunity from suit. In this case however, the utterances made were not in his

official capacity and therefore not covered by the immunity clause.

29.

Sec.3 Art. XVI: Immunity From Suit

CASE: Lansang vs. Court of Appeals

QUESTION: When is a suit against a public official a suit against the state?


8/10

ANSWER: The rule is that the suit must be regarded as one against the state where

satisfaction of the judgment against the public official concerned will require the state

itself to perform a positive act, such as appropriation of the amount necessary to pay

the damages awarded to the plaintiff. The rule does not apply where the public official is

charged in his official capacity for acts that are unlawful and injurious to the rights ofothers.

30.

Sec.3 Art. XVI: Immunity From Suit

CASE: Shell vs. Jalos

QUESTION: Does Shell's service contract with the state give it immunity from suit?

ANSWER: No. Shell is not an agent of the Republic of the Philippines. It is but a service

contractor for the exploration and development of one of the country's natural gas

reserves.

31.

Sec.3 Art. XVI: Government Officers

CASE: Festejo vs. Fernando;Ministero vs. CFI

QUESTION: What recourse is there for a private person whose property has been taken

for the State by an unauthorized act of a public officer?

ANSWER: If the property can still be restored, the suit for restoration and damages must

be against the officer in his private capacity. If the property can no longer be restored

and is in fact being enjoyed by the State, then the State must be deemed to have

submitted to the jurisdiction of the court for purposes of fixing the just compensation.

32.

Sec.6 Art. XVI: Police Force

CASE: Mendoza vs. PNP

QUESTION: Does the Civil Service have jurisdiction over the PNP?

ANSWER: Section 6, Article XVI of the Constitution provides that the state shall establish

and maintain one police force which shall be civilian in character. Consequently, the PNP

falls under the civil service pursuant to Section 2(1), Article IX-B.

33.

Sec.3 Art. XVI: Foundation of the Rule: A suit against the State

CASE: Republic of Indonesia vs. Vinzons

QUESTION: Can a foreign government invoke State Immunity in our court?

ANSWER: Yes. Our courts respect State Immunity of foreign government especially for

its governmental function. The maintenance of Indonesias embassy in the Philippines is

a governmental function thus, immune from action.


9/10

34.

Sec.1 Art. XVII: Amendment or Revision

CASE: Imbong vs. COMELEC

QUESTION: Can the Congress enact implementing legislation to fill the gaps created by

the Constitutional Assembly?

ANSWER: While the authority to call a constitutional convention is vested by thepresent constitution solely and exclusively in Congress acting as a constituent assembly,

the power to enact the implementing details does not exclusively pertain to Congress

acting as a Constituent Assembly. Such implementing details are matters within the

competence of Congress in the exercise of its comprehensive legislative power, which

power encompasses all matters not expressly or by necessary implications withdrawn or

removed by the constitution from the ambit of legislative action. And as long such

statutory details do not clash with any specific provision of the Constitution, they are

valid.

35.

Sec. 2 Article XVII: Initiative

CASE: Defensor-Santiago vs. COMELEC

QUESTION: Does the "Petition to Amend the Constitution to Lift Term Limits of Elective

Officials by People's Initiative" filed by Atty. Delfin with the COMELEC constitutes

amendment of the Constitution or does it constitutes a revision?

ANSWER: It does not involve a mere amendment to, but a revision of, the Constitution

because it would involve a change from a political philosophy that rejects unlimited

tenure to one that accepts the unlimited tenure; and although the change may appear

to be an isolated one, it can affect other provisions, such as, on the synchronization of

elections and on the State policy of guaranteeing equal protection of laws to access

opportunities for the public service and prohibiting political dynasties. A revision cannot

be done by initiative which, by express provision of Section 2 of Article XVII of the

Constitution, is limited to amendments. The prohibition against the reelection of the

President and the limits provided for all other national and local elective officials are

based on the philosophy of governance.

36.

Sec.4 Art. XVII: Ratification

CASE: Gonzales vs. COMELEC

QUESTION: Who decides whether amendments or revision should be proposed by

Congress or by a constitutional convention?

ANSWER: The choice of which constituent assembly should initiate amendments or

revision is a matter of wisdom left to the discretion of Congress.


10/10

37.

Sec.25 Art. XVII : Foreign Military Bases, Troops or Facilities

CASE: Bayan vs. Zamora

QUESTION: Which constitutional provision is applicable in this case and why?

ANSWER: The VFA is an agreement which defines the treatment of the United States

troops and personnel visiting the Philippines. It provides for the guidelines to governsuch visits of military personnel, and further defines the rights of the United States and

the Philippine government in the matter of criminal jurisdiction, movement of vessel

and aircraft, importation of equipment, materials and supplies. Undoubtedly, Sec.25,

Article XVIII, which specifically deals with treaties involving foreign military bases,

troops, or facilities, should apply in the instant case.

38.Sec.15 Art. XVIII: Term of Carry-over Commission

CASE: Gaminde vs. COA

QUESTION: Did the incumbent members of the Constitutional Commissions at the time

of the ratification of this Constitution enjoy security of tenure?

ANSWER: Yes, but only for one year. In effect, they were allowed to occupy the first

year of the term of those who would later be appointed.

39.

Sec.26 Art. XVIII: Sequestration Orders

CASE: COCOFED vs. PCGG

QUESTION: May property be sequestered if its public ownership is being questioned?

ANSWER: Provided that there is prima facie evidence that the property is public, it may

be sequestered.

40.Sec.27 Art. XVIII: Effectivity

CASE: De Leon vs. Esguerra

QUESTION: When did the 1987 Constitution take effect?

ANSWER: On February 2, 1987, the day of the ratification, that is, the day on which the

votes of the people were cast to signify their acceptance of the draft.

40 questions for constitutional law

Documents