Constitutional I Reviewer (Midterm) by AJMM PS: Suggested answers are based on the author’s perspective culled from different sources cited below

REVIEWER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL LAW MIDTERM EXAM I.

What is the Regalian doctrine? Ans. Ans. Regalian doctrine is anchored on the principle that State owns all lands and waters of the public domain. The doctrine is the foundation of the principle of land ownership that all lands that have not been acquired by purchase or grant from the Government belong to the public domain. Property of public dominion is that devoted to public use such as roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports and bridges constructed by the State, riverbanks, shores, roadsteads and that of a similar character. Those which belong to the S tate, not devoted to public use, and are intended for some public service or for the development of the national wealth, are also classified as property of public dominion. All other property of the State which is not of public dominion is patrimonial. Also, property of public dominion, when no longer intended for public use or public service, shall form part of the patrimonial property of the State.

II.

Who are the natural-born citizens? Ans. Natural-born Ans. Natural-born citizens: 1. Citizens of the Philippines from birth who do not need to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship. 2. Those who elect Philippine citizenship under Art. IV, Sec. 1(3) of 1987 Constitution.

III.

Naturalization Naturalization—the legal act of adopting an alien and clothing him with the privilege of a native/natural born citizen. Effects of naturalization: naturalization: 1. The legitimate minor children of the naturalized father become Filipinos as well. 2. The wife also becomes a Filipino citizen, provided that she does not have any disqualification which would bar her from being naturalized. Note: Naturalization is also allowed in our jurisdiction. It may be direct or derivative. Direct naturalization is effected: (1) by individual proceedings, usually judicial, under general naturalization laws; (2) by special act of the legislature, often in favor of distinguished foreigners who have rendered some notable service to the local state; (3) by collective change of nationality (naturalization en masse) as a result of cession or subjugation; and (4) in some cases, by adoption of orphan minors as nationals of the State where they are bon. i

IV.

What is the doctrine of constitutional supremacy? Ans. Under Ans. Under the doctrine of constitutional supremacy, 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

Constitutional I Reviewer (Midterm) by AJMM PS: Suggested answers are based on the author’s perspective culled from different sources cited below.

Page 1

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.







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. V.

What are the elements of the state? Ans. The Ans. The elements of the state are the following: (PTSG) 1. 2. 3. 4.

A community of persons, more or less numerous (PEOPLE) Permanently occupying a definite portion of territory (TERRITORY) Independent of external control (SOVEREIGNTY) Possessing an organized government to which the great body of inhabitants render habitual obedience (GOVERNMENT)

Notes:

Definition of “People” CODE: CNCH A Community of persons; Sufficient in Number; Capable of maintaining the continued existence of the community; and Held together by a common bond of law.    

Definition of “Sovereignty” LEGAL sovereignty The supreme power to make law. It is lodged in the people.   

POLITICAL sovereignty The sum total of all the influences in a state, Legal and non- legal, Which determine the course of law. According to the Principle of AUTO-LIMITATION: Sovereignty is the property of the state-force due to which it has the exclusive capacity of legal self-determinat s elf-determination ion and self-restriction.    

Definition of “Government” That institution or aggregate of institutions by which an independent society makes and carries out those rules of action which are necessary to enable men to live in a social state or which are imposed upon the people forming that society by those who possess the power or authority of prescribing them.     

Classification of governments De jure – one established by the authority of the legitimate sovereign De facto – one established in defiance of the legitimate sovereign  







 

the rightful legal government and maintains itself against the will of the latter.

b. Government of paramount force That which is established and maintained by military forces who invade and occupy a territory of the enemy in the course of war.   

That established as an independent government by the inhabitants of a country who rise in insurrection against the parent state.

Definition of “Republican State” It is one wherein whe rein all government authority emanates from the people and is exercised by representatives chosen by the people. Definition of Democratic State This merely emphasizes that the Philippines has some aspects of direct democracy such as initiative and referendum. VI.

How citizenship may be lost? Ans. A Filipino citizen may lose his citizenship in any of the following ways and/or events: 1. By naturalization in a foreign country; 2. By express renunciation of citizenship; 3. By subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the constitution or laws of a foreign country upon attaining twenty-one years of age or more: Provided, however, That a Filipino may not divest himself of Philippine citizenship in any manner while the Republic of the Philippines is at war with any country. 4. By rendering services to, or accepting commission in, the armed forces of a foreign country, and the taking of an oath of allegiance incident thereto, with the consent of the Republic of the Philippines, shall not divest a Filipino of his Philippine citizenship if either of the following circumstances is present: a. b.

The Republic of the Philippines has a defensive and/or offensive pact of alliance with the said foreign country; or The said foreign country maintains armed forces on Philippine territory with the consent of the Republic of the Philippines: Provided, That the Filipino citizen concerned, at the time of rendering said service, or acceptance of said commission, and taking the oath of allegiance incident thereto states that he does so only in connection with his service to said foreign country: And, Provided, finally, That any Filipino citizen who is rendering service to, or is commissioned in, the armed







country. Upon his discharge from the service of the said foreign country, he shall be automatically entitled to the full enjoyment of his civil and political rights rights as a Filipino Filipino citizen; (As amended amended by R. A. 106, R. A. 2639 and R. A. 3834). 5. By cancellation of the certificates of naturalization; 6. By having been declared by competent authority, a deserter of the Philippine armed forces in time of war, unless subsequently, a plenary pardon or amnesty has been granted; and 7. In the case of a woman, upon her marriage to a foreigner if, by virtue of the laws in force in her husband's country, she acquires his nationality. VII.

What is the difference between citizenship and allegiance? Ans. Citizenship is personal and more or less permanent membership in a political community. It denotes possession within that particular political community of full civil and political rights subject to special disqualifications such as minority. It imposes the duty of allegiance to the political community. ii Meanwhile------------Notes: Modes of acquiring citizenship c itizenship 1. Jus sanguinis—basis of blood relationship, hence, there is no distinction between legitimate or illegitimate children as long as either of their parents is Filipino; if a child is born under the 1973 or 1987 Constitution, and either his father or mother is a Filipino citizen at the time the child is born, the child is a Filipino citizen no matter where he may be born 2. Jus soli—basis of place of birth 3. Through naturalization, or the legal act of adopting an alien and clothing him with the privilege of a native born citizen. Prior to the adoption of the 1935 Constitution, the Supreme Court applied the principle of jus soli to determine the citizenship of persons who were born in the Philippines. Thus, in one case, it was held that "all inhabitants of the Philippine Islands who were Spanish subjects on the 11th day of April, 1899, and then resided in said islands and their children born subsequent thereto, shall be deemed and held to be citizens of the Philippine Islands, except such as shall have elected to preserve their allegiance to the Crown of Spain in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty of Peace between the United States and Spain, signed in Paris, December tenth, 1898, and except such others as have since become citizens of some other country." The Supreme Court later abandoned this principle15 in favor of the principle of jus sanguinis. It has been held, however, that the abandonment of the principle of jus soli did not, in certain cases, divest those who have been conferred Philippine citizenship under the principle of res judicata. At present, basic b asic Philippine Ph ilippine law follows the rule of jus sanguinis based on Section 1 (2) of Article IV of the 1987 Constitution. The jus soli rule, on the other hand, is the one being used in countries like the United States and Canada. iii







Citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of the 1973 Constitution 1. 2. 3. 4.

5. VIII.

Those who are citizens of the Philippine islands at the time of the adoption of the 1935 Constitution Those born in the Philippine Islands of foreign parents who, before the adoption of this Constitution, had been elected to public office in the Philippine islands Those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines and, upon reaching the age of majority, elect the Philippine citizenship —governs those who are born before the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution Those who are naturalized in accordance with the law

Why does the state allows dual citizenship but not dual allegiance? Section 5, Article IV of the 1987 Constitution provides, "Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to national interest and shall be dealt with by law." Dual Allegiance refers to the situation in which a person simultaneously owes, by some positive act, loyalty to two or more states. It says that while dual citizenship is involuntary, dual allegiance is the result of an individual's volition. iv Notes: Philippine citizenship is a gift that must be deserved to be retained. The Philippines, for all her modest resources compared to those of other states, is a jealous and possessive mother demanding total love and loyalty from her children."

IX.

Why is the state immune from suit?

Ans. The immunity of the State from suit, known also as the doctrine of sovereign immunity or non-suability of the State, is expressly provided in Article XVI o f the 1987 Constitution. Section 3. The State may not be sued without without its consent. The immunity from suit is based on the political truism that the State, as a sovereign, can do no wrong. Notes: Moreover, as the eminent Justice Holmes said in Kawananakoa v. Polyblank that, “ A sovereign is exempt from suit, not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends. ” Practical considerations dictate the establishment of an immunity from suit in favor of the State. Otherwise, and the State State is suable at the instance instance of every other individual, individual, government service may be severely obstructed and public safety endangered because of the number of suits







[A] continued adherence to the doctrine of non-suability is not to be deplored for as against the inconvenience that may be caused private parties, the loss of governmental efficiency and the obstacle to the performance of its multifarious functions are far greater if such a fundamental principle were abandoned and the availability of judicial remedy were not thus restricted. With the well-known propensity on the part of our people to go to court, at the least provocation, the loss of time and energy required to defend against law suits, in the absence of such a basic principle that constitutes such an effective obstacle, could very well be imagined. An unincorporated government agency without any separate juridical personality of its own enjoys immunity from suit because it is invested with an inherent power of sovereignty. Accordingly, a claim for damages against the agency cannot prosper; otherwise, the doctrine of sovereign immunity is violated.[11] However, the need to distinguish between an unincorporated government agency performing governmental function and one performing proprietary functions has arisen. The immunity has been upheld in favor of the former because its function is governmental or incidental to such function;[12] it has not been upheld in favor of the latter whose function was not in pursuit of a necessary function of government but was essentially a business.v X.

How the state can be sued? Ans. Ans. The States' consent may be given either expressly or impliedly. impliedly. Express consent may be made through a general law law or a special law. In this jurisdiction, the general law waiving the the immunity of the state from suit is found in Act. No. 3083, where the Philippine government 'consents and submits to be sued upon any money claim involving liability arising from contract, express or implied, which could serve as a basis of civil actions between private parties.' parties.' Implied consent, on the other, is conceded when the State itself commences limitation, thus opening itself to a counter-claim, or when it enters into a contract."

XI.

What is the difference between liability and suability? Ans. Suability does not necessarily mean liability on the part of the particular instrumentality or agency of the government; hence – "When the State gives its consent to be sued, it does not thereby necessarily consent to an unrestrained execution against it. Tersely put, when the State waives waives its immunity, all it does, in effect, is to give the other other party an opportunity to prove, if it can, that that the State has a liability. liability. In Republic vs. Villasor this Court, in nullifying the issuance of an alias writ of execution directed against the funds of the Armed Forces Forces of the Philippines to satisfy a final and executory executory judgment, has explained, thus - " The universal rule that where the State gives its consent to be sued by private parties either by general law or special law, it may limit claimant's action 'only up to the completion of proceedings anterior to the stage of execution' and that the power of the Court ends when the judgment is rendered, since government funds and properties may not be seized under writs of execution or garnishment to satisfy such judgments, is based on obvious considerations of public policy.









paralyzed or disrupted by the diversion of public funds from their legitimate and specific objects, as appropriated by law." XII. XIII.

What is the rule on money claims in relation to... What is the doctrine of civilian supremacy? Ans. Sec 3. Civilian authority is, is, at all times, supreme supreme over the military. military. The Armed Forces Forces of the Philippines is the protector of the people and the State. State. Its goal is to secure the sovereignty of the State and the integrity of the national territory. ---------------Civilian authority/supremacy clause (1st sentence) Civilian authority simply means the supremacy of the law because authority, under our constitutional system, can only come from law. Under this clause, the soldier renounces political ambition.

XIV.

What are the requisites for the exercise of the power of judicial review? Ans. The power of judicial review is subject to limitations, to wit: 1. There must be an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power; 2. The person challenging the act must have the standing to question the validity of the subject act or issuance; otherwise stated, he must have a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result of its enforcement; 3. The question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity; andt 4. The issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case. (Lis mota literally means "the cause of the suit or action.")vi Notes: This requisite of lis mota rule of judicial review is simply an offshoot of the presumption of validity accorded the executive and legislative acts of our co-equal branches of the government. Ultimately, it is rooted in the principle of separation of powers. Given the presumed validity of an executive act, the petitioner who claims otherwise has the burden of showing first that the case cannot be resolved unless the constitutional question he raised is determined by the Court.vii







2) If there exists a mere possibility of collateral legal consequences if the court does not act. 3) Voluntary cessation from the wrongful act by the defendant, if he is free to return to his old ways. Ripeness – A constitutional question may come to the court either too early or prematurely, so that it is still abstract (advisory opinion), or too late, so that the court's decision would no longer affect the parties (mootness). The court must resolve constitutional issues only when they come to it at the right time (ripeness). No Standing – A party has a standing in a case if his interest is such that he stands to be benefited if the case is resolved in his favor, and he stand to be really injured if it is decided against him. Standing is established by two nexuses: the party's status and the type of legislative act being questioned, or his status and the precise nature of the constitutional infringement. The test of standing is whether the party has alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure such concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions (Baker v Carr, supra.)A person has standing to challenge the governmental act only if he has a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result of its enforcement. (People v. Vera, infra.) XV.

What is a political question and justiciable question? Ans. An issue is a political question when it does not deal with the interpretation of a law and its application to a case, but with the very wisdom of the law itself. When a judge attempts to resolve a political question, he is not exercising a judicial function, but is rather supplanting his conscience to that of the political branch of the government. Political Question has two (2) aspects, namely: 1. Those questions which, under the Constitution are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, 2. In regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislature or executive branches of government viii Meantime, a justiciable question is one which is a definite and concrete dispute touching on the legal interest which may be resolved by a court of law through the application of a law ix







resolution. One class of cases wherein the Court hesitates to rule on are “political questions.” questions.” The reason is that political questions are concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not the legality, of a particular act or measure measure being assailed. Moreover, the political question question being a function of the separation of powers, the courts will not normally interfere with the workings of another co-equal branch unless the case shows a clear need for the courts to step in to uphold the law and the Constitution.xi

XVI.

What is the doctrine of operative fact? Ans. Under the general rule, a void law or an administrative act cannot be the source of legal rights or duties. However, the doctrine of operative fact is an exception to the general rule. Under the doctrine, a judicial declaration of invalidity may not necessarily eliminate all the effects and consequences of a void act prior to such declaration. Notes: Prior to the declaration of nullity, such challenged legislative or executive act must have been in force and had to be complied with as they were presumed to be valid. Only the courts can declare a law invalid, and without such d eclaration, taxpayers would have had no other choice but to follow the existing rules or in this case the practice of filing the judicial claim within the twoyear period. In the case of Yap v. Thenamaris Ship’s Management, the Operative Fact Doctrine was discussed in that: As a general rule, an unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is inoperative as if it has not been passed at all. The general rule is supported by Article 7 of the Civil Code, which provides: Art. 7. Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones, and their violation or non-observance shall not be excused by disuse or custom or practice to the contrary. The doctrine of operative fact serves as an exception to the aforementioned general rule. In Planters Products, Inc. v. Fertiphil Corporation, the Supreme Court held that: The doctrine of operative fact, as an exception to the general rule, only applies as a matter







Note: 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 ensure economic stability of all the component 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 extraconstitutionally, through the exercise of powers underlying the existence of all governments on the time-honored principle of salus populi est supremo lex. (This is based on words of Justice Jose P. Laurel on the landmark case of Calalang vs. Williams, 70 Phil. 726 (1940), which dealt on the issue of police power for public welfare) XVIII.

What is intergenerational responsibility doctrine? Ans. In the case of Oposan v. Factoran, the basic principles stated in the concept of intergenerational responsibility states that: Essentially, the principle means that we hold the natural resource treasures of the earth in trust for the benefit, enjoyment and use of the generations of humankind yet to come. It is therefore a trust endowed upon us as trustee trustee and depository to use and enjoy. While our generation has the right to use the the earth’ s resources, as as a trustee and depository, depository, we are are also duty bound not to misuse or exhaust it, so that those of our species to come in much later years will still have something to use. This, in simple terms is the meaning of sustainable development, using natural resources without exhausting them. This concept was tested in the legal forum in the Philippines. On July 30, 1993, one year after the Earth Summit that produced Agenda 21, the Philippine Supreme Court had the occasion to rule on the legal standing of children to sue before a court of law on a question of nationwide significance of the issue of deforestation.

XIX.

What is the doctrine of separation of powers? Ans. The doctrine of separation of powers conveys the idea of grouping the powers of government into three classes and of their apportionment among three coordinate departments,







Notes: This doctrine is being carried out until this modern day that it is now incorporated in the constitutions of many states. Among which is the United States of America where in Kilbourne vs. Thompson, 103 US 168, 190, 25L.ed. 377, the SC ruled that: The separation of powers operates to maintain the legislative powers to the legislative department, executive powers to the executive department, and those which are judicial in character to the judiciary. Through this allocation of powers, the person entrusted shall not be permitted to encroach upon the power confided to the others, but that each shall, by the law of its creation, be limited to the exercise of the powers appropriate to its own department and no other. There must be independence and equity of the several departments. xiii XX.

What is taxpayer suit? Ans. A taxpayer suit is a case where the act complained of directly involves the illegal disbursement of public funds derived derived from taxation. In a nutshell, a taxpayer is is allowed to sue where there is a claim claim that public funds are are illegally disbursed, or that public public money is being deflected to any improper purpose, or that there is wastage of public funds through the enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law. A person suing as a taxpayer, however, must show that the act complained of directly involves the illegal disbursement of public funds derived from taxation. For a taxpayer's suit to prosper, two requisites must be met. These include: 



public funds derived from taxation are disbursed by a political subdivision or instrumentality and in doing so, a law is violated or some irregularity is committed the petitioner is directly affected by the alleged act xiv

Notes: Requisites for a Taxpayers Petition That money is being extracted and spent in violation of specific constitutional protections against abuses of legislative power; That public money is being deflected to any improper purpose; That the petitioner seeks to restrain respondents from wasting public funds through the 

 









x

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/aug2000/14128 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/juri sprudence/2000/aug2000/141284.htm 4.htm

xi ibid xii

http://politicsandgovernance.blogspot.com/2010/06/doctrine-of-separation-of-powers.html http://politicsandgovernance.blogspot.com/2010/06 /doctrine-of-separation-of-powers.html

xiii ibid xiv xv

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013aprildecisions.php?id=326 http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013aprildecisions.php?id=326 http://www.scribd.com/doc/48941920/TAXPAYERS-SUIT http://www.scribd.com/doc/48941920/TAXPAYE RS-SUIT

Constitutional I Reviewer (Midterm) by AJMM PS: Suggested answers are based on the author’s perspective culled from different sources cited below

Recommend Documents