Constitutional Law 1: Midterms Practice Questions
1. Archipelagic Doctrine and where is it embodied in the Constitution?
Answer: Archipelagic doctrine is the concept adopted by Unclos and its signatories such that the archipelago, which is a body of water studded with islands,
shall be regarded as a single unit. For this reason, it is prescribed under Unclos that its limit/baseline is to be determined by drawing straight lines and
connecting the points of the outermost islands while incircling the main islands and without departing to any appreciable extent from the coast.
This is embodied in the 1987 Philippine Constitution found in Article 1 where the Philippine territory is comprised of 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 seabead, subsoil, insular shelves and other submarine areas. The water aro und, between and connecting the
islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimension, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines.
2. Distinguish: The contiguous zone and the exclusive economic zone.
Answer: The contiguous zone refers to 12nm from the edge of the territorial sea where the coastal state can exercise jurisdiction and enforce laws on fiscal,
immigration, sanitary and custom matters. The EEZ refers to 200nm from the baseline, which includes the territorial sea and the contiguous zones, where the
coastal state has exclusive sovereign rights to explore, exploit, develop and protect the resources within its limits.
3. Is the President allowed to enter into an agreement allowing foreign nations to fish within our EEZ with condition the Filipinos are allowed to use their
equipment and learn from them?
Answer: No, the agreement would have to be invalidated and the President is not allowed to enter into these kind of agreements. According to Section 2 Article
12 of the 1987 Constitution, the use and enjoyment of the EEZ are reserved only to Filipino citizens.
4. Enumerate the rights of the coastal state in the exclusive economic zone.
Answer: The coastal state has exclusive sovereign rights to explore, exploit, develop and protect the resources within the EEZ.
5. A law was passed dividing the Philippines into three regions (Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao), each constituting an independ ent state. Is the law valid?
Answer: No, a law dividing the Philippines into 3 independent states would have to be invalidated. Section 1 Article 2 of the 1987 Co nstitution says that the
Philippines is a Democratic and Republican state, and dividing it would mean a change in our form of government into a Confederation which is in direct violation
of the Constitution. Not to mention that this division undermines the territorial integrity of our country as defined in Article 1.
6. Distinguish: The territorial sea and the internal waters of the Philippines.
Answer: The territorial sea refers to 12nm seaward from the baseline where the coastal state exercises sovereign rights while allowing right of innocent passage
of other states subject to laws and rules of the coastal state and other international laws in conformity of the Unclos convention.
On the other hand, internal waters refers to the waters landward from the base of the territorial sea where the coastal state exercises absolute sovereignty and
the right of innocent passage is not observed, unless otherwise explicitly provided by law.
7. Armed Forces; Servant of the People (2003). Article II. Section 3, of the 1987 Constitution expresses, in part, that the "Armed Forces of the Philippines is
the protector of the people and (of) the State." Describe briefly what this provision means. Is the Philippine National Polic e covered by the same mandate?
Answer: This part of the provision means that the Armed Forces of the Philippines is the instrument of the sovereign Filipino people to ensure that the
sovereignty of the State (i.e. of the people) and the integrity of our national territory is protected. Being an intrument of the people, the Armed Forces of the
Philippines is under the Civilian authority, and they cannot publicly take sides politically which may cause conflict of interest with the authority which they are
bound to protect. This is distinct from Police Power which is the power of the government to ensure that laws enacted are enforced for the common good.
8. Immunity from Suit: the Republic of Indonesia filed an action before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig. Rizal, to compel M arikina Shoe Corporation to
perform the balance of its obligations under the contract and for damages.. **Boots issue. How would th e court decide?
Answer: The petition to dismiss the counterclaim should be dismissed as it is in consequence of the complaint filed. Also, to invoke the right of immunity by the
Republic of Indonesia cannot be supported as they have waived this right when they filed the complaint. It would be unfair if they can file a suit but cannot be
sued in return.
9. The Republic of the Balau opened and operated in Manila an office engaged in trading Balau products with Philippine produc ts. In one transaction, the
local buyer complained that the Balau goods delivered to him were substandard and he sued the Republic of Balau, before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig,
for damages. Will such defense of sovereign immunity prosper? Explain.
Answer: No, the defense of sovereign immunity will not prosper. The sale of Balau products is commercial in nature and by entering into these kinds of ventures
with individuals outside its governmental function, the former has waived its right to immunity from suit. Immunity from suit can only be appreciated when the
activities are within the exercise of a governmental function.
10. A property owner filed an action directly in court against the Republic of the Philippines seeking payment for a parcel o f land which the national
government utilized for a road widening project. Can the government invoke the doctrine of non-suitability of the state? Can the owner petition to garnish
payment from government funds?
Answer: No, in this case the government cannot invoke immunity from suit. This is in violation of the rights of the people as mentioned in Section 9 of Article 3
where "private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation".
No, petition to garnish payment from government funds would be dismissed as it will violate Section 29 of Article 6 where "no money shall be paid out of the
Treasury except thru an appropriation made by law". The remedy would be to seek judgement for the payment of said parcel to be included in the general
appropriations for the next fiscal year.
State Immunity from Suit (1999)
11. a.) What do you understand by state immunity from suit? Explain. (2%) 2.) How may consent of the state to be sued be giv en? Explain. (2%)
Answer: State immunity from suit means that the State cannot be sued without its consent, i.e. the acts performed must be within their governmental function.
The State may provide its consent to be sued when it is expressed in a law, or may impliedly provide its consent whenever they enter into commercial, or
proprietary activities as well as counterclaims filed by an offended party which could arise from a complaint it initiated.
Article 6
12. No.6
Answer: The contributions made by PAGCOR to Malacanang and to certain Congressmen are illegal. According to Sec 29 Art 6, no money shall be paid out of
the Treasury without an appropriation made by law, making the actions of PAGCOR as a direct violation of the Constitution.
13. No. 7
Answer: The resolution is unconstitutional and the suit for its nullification is valid. First, SP has no authority to appropriate funds as all appropriations must only
come from Congress, according to Art 6 Sec 24 of the Constitution. Second, discretionary funds are meant to be used only for public purposes according to Art
6 Sec 25(6) and not for personal use of some individuals as in this case. Lastly, no money shall be allocated or appropriated which directly or indirectly support
a sect or religion, according to Art 6 Sec 29 (1). There is lack of jurisdiction on the part of SP in appropriating the funds as well as grave abuse of discretion in
allotting public funds for personal use.
14. No. XVII
Answer: No, there is undue delegation of power to the Dept. Secretary, specifically where it authorizes the Dept. Sec. to prescribe penalties which is legislative
in nature and cannot be delegated. The delegation of power is only valid if the law is complete in itself and leaves nothing for the delegate to do except to
implement the policy.
15. Delegation of Powers; (Q6-2005)
Is the proviso granting the court the authority to impose a penalty or imprisonment in its discretion constitutional?
Answer: No, granting the court the authority to impose a penalty or imprisonment in its discretion is unconstitutional. There is undue delegation of power
where it grants the court the discretion to impose penalties and the law is incomplete as it fails to provide the fixed length for imprisonment. This is legislative
in nature. The law violates the separation of powers as well as non-delegability of legislative powers.
16. Delegation of Powers; Completeness Test; Sufficient Standard Test (Q6-2005)
Answer:
Completeness test means that the law must be complete in itself, with all its terms and conditions, leaving nothing for the delegate to do but to execute the
policy.
Sufficient Standard test, the law is compliant to this test if it provides the guidelines and sets limitation on the authority of the delegate as well as to define the
policy and the conditions for its implementation.
17. How may the Senators & Congressmen be removed from office?
Answer: Senators & Congressmen may be removed from office by expulsion, for a disorderly behavior, with the concurrence of 2/3 of all the members of the
house to which they belong, they may also be removed from office if they lose during an election contest filed against them.
18. Discipline; Suspension of a Member of the Congress (2002) No. II
Answer: No, Rep. Valera’s contention is incorrect. The suspension provided for in Art 6 Sec 16(3) is for the penalty of a disorderly behavior, and what
Sandiganbayan issued is not a penalty but only a preventive measure.
19. Elected Official; De Facto Officer (2004) (10-b)
Answer:
- No, Ave cannot collect salaries from the government of his supposed two terms as Congressman since during this term Bart is in office as the de facto
official and has validly received the said salaries and allowances, i.e. the gov has already paid its dues for the said office.
- No, Bart do not need to refund to the gov of the salaries and allowances he received. As the de facto official, his services are thus entitled for such
salaries and allowances.
- The Bills authored by Bart during his de facto term are valid and thus remain to be in effect.
20. Electoral Tribunal; HRET Members’ Right & Responsibilities (2002) No IV.
Answer: I agree with the contention of Representative X. Being a member of the Tribunal, he is afforded security of tenure just like the judiciary and may be
only removed for a valid cause. Also, he is to decide based on the evidences presented and without regard to its party membership. He is to exercise his function
as a non-partisan and cannot be removed from office for siding with the member of the other party.
21. Electoral Tribunal; Senate; Jurisdiction (1990) No. 3:
Answer: Since Y is already proclaimed as the winner, T may direct his election contest to the Senate Electoral Tribunal who is the sole judge of the election,
returns and qualification of their members, according to the Constitution. But in the case at bar his contention would be invalidated because Y as a son of a
naturalized Filipina mother is in effect a naturalized citizen.
22. Investigations in Aid of Legislation (1992) No. 8:
Answer: The conducted “legislative inquiry” is invalid as there was no mention of a proposed legislation which is the main requisite of a legislative inquiry.
He may refuse to testify since this is already a pending case in the Sandiganbayan in which he is a respondent.
23. Law Making; Process & Publication (1993) No. 2; When does a bill become a law even without the signature of the President?
When does the law take effect?
Answer: According to Art 6 Sec 27 (1), a bill becomes a law even if without the signature of the President if he/she fails to act within 30days after its receipt, the
bill is considered signed by inaction. Also, if the President vetoes the bill but is overridden by 2/3 votes of all the members of the Senate and HREP, it shall
become a law. It will take effect 15days after its publication thru a generally circulated newspaper or in the official gazette.
24. Law-Making; Appropriation Law; Automatic Renewal & Power of Augmentation, No XI
Answer:
- No, as provided in Art 6 Sec 25(7) if the Congress fails to submit the appropriation bill for whatever reason, the preceding appropriation will remain to
be in effect until such time that Congress is able to submit the said appropriation bill. Congress’ failure to pass the budget due to the “missing” CDF
budget would be unconstitutional. According to Art 6 Sec 25(1), Congress may not increase the appropriation budget submitted by the President, so
they are bound to act upon what is proposed.
- Yes, the use of AFP’s appropriation savings to cover up the losses of RSBS is unconstitutional since according to Art 6 Sec 25(5) the savings may only be
augmented for use in any item of the general appropriations for their respective offices.
25. Law-Making; Appropriation Law; Rider Provision (2001) No VII
Answer: The provision is unconstitutional because the abolition of ROTC is considered as a rider which is not allowed in the Constitution. As provided in Art 6
Sec 25(2) of the Constitution the provisions need to be germane to the subject or specifically relate to the appropriation bill.
Enrolled Bill doctrine
Stand-by-authority
doctrine of inappropriate provisions?
executive impoundment