CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Sample Exams With Suggested Answers

 

LAW –  I (PRELIM EXAM)  CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – WITH SUGGESTED ANSWERS  1. a) When may the State invoke its immunity from suit? What is the Restrictive Theory of State State Immunity?   Answer: a)  The  The State may invoke its sovereign immunity from suit in the following instances:   i.  ii. 

When the Republic is sued by name;   When the suit is against an unincorporated government agency as the same is so called because it has no separate juridical personality but is merged in the general machinery of the government; or   iii.  When the suit is on its face against a government officer but ultimate liability will be on the government as it will require the latter to perform an affirmative act like appropriating public funds for the satisfaction of the judgment. The Restrictive Theory of State Immunity means that a State may be said to have descended to the level of an individual and can thus be deemed to have tacitly given its consent to be sued only when it enters into business contracts. However, the restrictive application of State immunity is proper only when the  proceedings arise out of commercial transactions tr ansactions of the foreign sovereign, its commercial activities or economic affairs. It does not apply where the contract relates to the exercise of of its sovereign functions. (United States vs. Ruiz) Ruiz)  

b) What is the effect of the expanded jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under section 1 of Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution on the political question doctrine?   Ans.  The so-called expanded jurisdiction of the Supreme Court particularly under the second clause of the second paragraph of section 1 of Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution actually limits the political question doctrine which, heretofore, was forbidden territory for the courts. Under this expanded jurisdiction, a political question is no longer an insurmountable obstacle to the exercise of judicial power.  However, this expanded jurisdiction does not do away with the political question doctrine. It was inserted in the Constitution to prevent prevent courts from making use of the doctrine to evade what otherwise are justiciable controversies. The intendment is to stop weak courts and  judges from seeking refuge behind the political politica l question doctrine when afraid to displease di splease the  powerful.  2. The President proposes amendments to the Constitution advocating a shift from the Presidential system of government to a Parliamentary one and calls for a plebiscite, appropriating public funds therefor, in which to submit said proposal to the people for ratification. Mr. Walang Packy, a citizen and a taxpayer, challenges the Presidential acts aforesaid. In turn the Solicitor General contends: i) that Mr. Packy has no l o c u s s t a n d i  to   to bring the action; ii) that the issue is not justiciable; and iii) that there is no law or constitutional provision that prohibits the President from proposing amendments to the Constitution. Decide.  Mr. Packy has locus standi to bring the action. This involves a valid taxpayer’s Ans.  suit. The settled rule is that a taxpayer like Mr. Packy has substantial interest in inquiring into the legality of official acts that involve expenditure of public funds.   The issue raised is legal and justiciable. Where the vortex of the controversy refers to the legality or validity of the contested acts, the matter is definitely definitely justiciable or non-political. It does not concern itself with the wisdom of the act of the President in proposing amendments to

 

the Constitution, but his constitutional authority to perform such act or to assume the power of a constituent assembly. Whether the Constitution confers on the President that power to propose amendments to the Constitution is therefore a downright justiciable question. Since the Constitution provides how it may be amended, the judiciary as the interpreter of the Constitution, can declare whether the procedure followed or the authority assumed in proposing amendments thereto is valid or not. (Sanidad vs. Commission on Elections)   While it may be true that there is no law or Constitution provision that prohibits the President fromprovision proposing amendments to the Constitution, it is equally true that is no law or constitutional that empowers the President to propose amendments tothere the Constitution or to assume the power of a constituent assembly. Article XVII of the Constitution expressly  provides that amendments to the Constitution Constitutio n may be proposed by Congress, acting as a constituents assembly, by a constitutional convention, or directly by the people through initiative. Amendment of the Constitution, being an exercise exercise of sovereignty, must be construed construed against the existence of the power to propose amendments in a person or entity not authorized by the people. A departure from the procedure laid down by the people is pro tanto the establishment of a new constitution. It is doing for the people people what they have not not chosen to do for themselves – themselves  – a  a mockery of our constitutional system.   3. As an aftermath of the Escalante Massacre, the President issued E.O. # 19 which created the Escalante Commission for the “purpose of conducting an investigation into the incident.”  incident.”   The commission recommended that the victims or their heirs be compensated by the government. Based on this recommendation, the victims filed an action for damages against the Republic and the military officers officers involved in the incident. The Solicitor General moved to dismiss the suit invoking state immunity, consent not having been first obtained. The victims argued that there was waiver of state immunity when the commission recommended the indemnification of the victims or their heirs. a) Was there a waiver of state immunity? b) Is the State liable for damages?   Ans. a)  No,  No, there was no valid waiver of state immunity. The recommendations of the commission can not be construed as a waiver of the immunity of the State from suit. Waiver of immunity, being a derogation of sovereignty, will not be inferred lightly, but must be construed in strictissimi juris. Moreover, the recommendation is not a legislative act. The consent of the State to be sued must emanate from statutory authority. Waiver of State immunity can only be made by an act of the legislative body. (Republic vs. Feliciano)  b) The State is not liable for damages. Where a public officer acted beyond the scope of his authority or in bad faith, no liability attaches to the State as the latter only authorizes the legal acts of its officers. The State as a person can do no wrong. (Shauf vs. Court of of Appeals)

 

In addition, the recommendation made by the commission to compensate the victims or their heirs does not in any way mean that liability automatically attaches to the State. The Commission was created merely for the ―purpose of conducting an investigation into the incident,‖   Thus, its recommendation does not in any way bind the State. (Republic vs. Sandoval)  Furthermore, the State can never be held liable if it does not first consent to be sued. (Municipality of San Fernando, La Union vs. Judge Firme)  4.  a) Distinguish constituent power from legislative power? b) What is the source and and basis of the authority of Congress when it acts as a constituent assembly? c) Are the acts of Congress, acting as a constituent assembly, justiciable?   a)  Constituent Ans.   Constituent power is the power to make or amend the Fundamental Law. Legislative  power, on the other hand, is essentially lawmaking power. It is the power to make laws and to alter or repeal them. A general grant of legislative power to the legislature under the Constitution

 

does not include the grant of constituent power. Constituent power is part of the inherent powers of the people — as the repository of sovereignty in a republican state, such as ours — to make, and, hence, to amend their own Fundamental Law. (Tolentino vs. Commission on Elections)  b )   The source and basis of the authority of Congress when it acts as a constituent assembly is  The

the Constitution itself. Congress may propose amendments to the Constitution merely because the same explicitly grants such power, unlike the people, when performing the same function, (of amending the Constitution) for their authority does not emanate from the Constitution — they are the very source o f all powers of government including the Constitution itself. (Tolentino vs. Commission on of Elections)    The acts of Congress  The Congress when acting as a constituent assembly are obviously justiciable. Since, c )  when proposing, as a constituent assembly, amendments to the Constitution, the members of Congress derive their authority from the Fundamental Law, it follows, necessarily, that they do not have the final say on whether or not their acts are within or beyond constitutional limits. Otherwise. they could brush aside and set the same at naught, contrary to the basic tenet that ours is a government of laws, not of men, and to the rigid nature of our Constitution.   In short, the issue whether or not the acts of Congress - acting as a constituent assembly - are legal or constitutional is essentially justiciable and not political, and, hence, subject to judicial review.  5.  Mr. Lukas Lakatlangit was born in the United States of a Filipino father and a Russian mother on January 16, 1973. He returned to the Philippines when he was eighteen years of age, carrying an American passport and he was registered as an alien with the Bureau of Immigration. Lukas ran and won in the congressional elections of 1998. Mr. Perde Gana, the losing candidate for Congressman, filed a quo warranto case against Lukas on the ground that the latter is disqualified for not being a Filipino citizen. Decide.  Ans. Ans.   Whether or not Lukas is a Filipino citizen would depend on whether he is a legitimate child or not.    Assuming that Lukas is a legitimate child, he is a Filipino citizen. All the constitutions (Constitutions of 1935, 1973, and 1987) that governed the Philippines provide that those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines are Filipino citizens. The registration of a Filipino citizen as an alien with the Commission on Immigration does not necessarily amount to a renunciation of his Filipino citizenship. Likewise, the mere use of of a foreign passport is not a ground for loss of Philippine citizenship. He is therefore qualified to run for Congressman.  However, assuming that Lukas is an illegitimate child, he is not qualified to run for Congress. An illegitimate child follows the citizenship of his known parent parent –  –  his mother. Since his mother is a Russian, he will also be a Russian citizen, even is his father is a Filipino citizen. (In re Mallare)  6.  In 1986, the Republic of the Philippines filed a case against XYZ Corporation to recover alleged ill-gotten assets. Before the case could be set for hearing, Mr. Mando Rugas, Rugas, together with other stockholders of XYZ Corporation, filed a motion with the Sandiganbayan for leave to intervene by attaching their answer in intervention. The Sandiganbayan granted the motion and admitted their answer in intervention. The Solicitor General contends that the Sandiganbayan acted erroneously because the Republic being a sovereign state cannot be sued without its consent and the intervention is in legal effect a suit against the state. The Supreme Court invited you as a m i c u s c u r i a e  to   to give your comments on the contentions of the Solicitor General. What will your comments be? 

 

Ans. Ans.   The Solicitor General’s contention that Mr. Rugas’ intervention is a suit or counter suit against the State is bereft of merit. Mr. Rugas and the other other stockholders merely assumed a defensive position vis-à-vis vis-à-vis the Republic’s suit against XYZ Corporation, Corpo ration, of which they are stockholders. The fact that they interjected themselves into the case at their own initiative initiative does not alter the essential nature of theirintervention. They intervened merely to unite with the defendant XYZ Corporation in resisting the claims of of the Republic, as plaintiff. It would have been different if they were the ones who took the initiative in an action against the Republic by filing a complaint in intervention or a complaint. Therefore, the suit in intervention is not a suit or counter suit against thethat State can bring operation theits fundamental postulate vs. of our system of government thethat state may notinto be sued without consent. (Republic Sandiganbayan, Feb. 28, 1990)   7.  Ms. Wayna Dudla, because of her extraordinary achievement of flunking the Philippine Bar Exams for a record 29 times, was granted honorary citizenship by the State of Utopia, a country where lawyering is considered a crime. Wayna readily accepted such citizenship. Did Wayna lose her Filipino citizenship?   Ans. Ans.  

No, Wayna did not lose her Filipino citizenship.  

Section 3 of Article IV of the Constitution provides that Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner provided by law. The law governing loss of Philippine Philippine citizenship is Commonwealth Act No. 63, as amended. The grounds, however, for the loss of Filipino citizenship, as provided in said law, do not include the acceptance of the grant of honorary citizenship in another country. The elementary principle of statutory construction that when the law contains an express enumeration of items, what is not included should be excluded, finds application in this case. Expressio unios est est exclusio alterius. As long as Wayna would not expressly renounce her Filipino citizenship or subscribe to an oath of allegiance support the constitution or laws of a foreign country, she would not lose her Filipino citizenship.   8.  Mr. Nan Gigil raped Ms. Gin Lugus (not her real name), a pretty girl of tender age. However, before Gin could file criminal charges, she died of cancer of the toenails. Since Gin was a minor who had no known parents, grandparents or guardian, in what capacity may the State help in vindicating the violation of her womanhood?   Ans.  Ans.  The State may, in its capacity as parens patriae or guardian of the rights of its people, help in vindicating the outrage outrage done to Ms. Gin Lugus by bringing her abuser to justice. To the State is cast the duty of protecting the rights of persons or individuals who, because of age or incapacity, are in an unfavorable position vis-à-vis other parties.

 

This prerogative of parens patriae is inherent in the supreme power of every State, whether that power is lodged in a royal person or in the legislature, and has no affinity to those arbitrary powers which are sometimes exerted by irresponsible monarch to the great detriment of the people and the destruction of their liberties. On the contrary, it is a most beneficent function, and often necessary to be exercised in the interest of humanity, and for the prevention of injury to those who cannot protect themselves. (Government of P.I. vs. Monte de Piedad)  9.  In 19 February 1994, Jane Roe, a victim of rape who was then in the first trimester of her pregnancy, filed a petition to declare Art. Art. 258 of the Revised Penal Penal Code unconstitutional. The said article punishes abortion practiced by the woman herself. She contends that said article article violates the equal protection clause for it fails to distinguish between those who became pregnant by being raped raped and those who are pregnant by their own consented consented act. However, while Jane’s petition was pending pen ding in the Supreme Court, she had given birth to the son of her abuser. The termination of her pregnancy rendered the case moot and academic as she is no

 

longer exposed to the punitive effects of Art. 258. Will the mooting of the case foreclose the exercise by the Supreme Court of its power of judicial review?   Ans.   The general rule in our jurisdiction is that the power of judicial review may not be Ans. exercised in vacuo, which means that an actual case or controversy must exist, not only at the time of the filing of the action but more importantly at the time of the rendition of the decision. Thus, it is axiomatic that the mooting of the case ipso facto results in the loss of the  jurisdiction over the case, thus foreclosing the exercise by the judiciary judic iary of its power of judicial judicia l review.

 

However, the Supreme Court had the occasion to rule that the mooting of the case does not preclude the exercise of judicial review. Even if a case were moot and academic, a statement of the governing principles is appropriate for the guidance not only of the parties but others similarly situated. This is referred to as the symbolic symbolic function of judicial review. It is the act of conveying to the members of the bench as well as the bar the controlling doctrinal laws or  jurisprudential pronouncements of the Supreme Suprem e Court to serve as guide in deciding decidin g cases with  parallel circumstances. (Eastern Broadcasting Corp. vs. Dans, Jr.)   It must be noted, however, that the exercise of the Supreme Court of this symbolic function depends entirely upon its discretion. An examination of the cases where it used this function shows that the Supreme Court exercises this prerogative only when the case it involves  protection and preservation of basic constitutional constit utional rights and guarantees or when the case involves what is styled in American jurisprudence as ―capable of repetition, yet evading review.‖   Jane’s petition, aside from being moot and academic and patently unmeritorious, it does not involve the protection or preservation of basic constitutional rights that would justify the court to exercise the symbolic symbolic function of judicial review. The Constitution, far from providing the right to abort, it expressly commands the State to equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception.  10. Ms. Obra Maestra, in her capacity as a public school teacher, filed a petition assailing the constitutionality of Commonwealth Act No. 007, prohibiting the teaching of the theory of evolution in public schools. Her school adopted a biology textbook containing a chapter on Darwin. The State, represented in this instance by the Solicitor General, surprisingly posed no objections to the petition. In the course of the proceedings, it was proven that the said law had been enacted during the Japanese occupation of the Philippines and that there was no indication it had ever been enforced, and that the pallid, unenthusiastic, even apologetic defense of the law presented by the State indicates that the State would make no attempt to enforce the said law. a) Is Ms. Maestra’s petition petition a proper subject for judicial review? review? b) May the State question the constitutionality of C.A. No. 007?   Ans.  a)  The  The petition is not a proper subject of judicial review for want of an actual case or controversy. The exercise of the courts of the power of judicial review is predicated upon the existence of a genuinely justiciable case or controversy as judicial review may not be exercised in vacuo. (Epperson vs. Arkansas)   An ―actual case or controversy‖ is one that involves a conflict a  conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims susceptible of judicial resolution. There must be a contrariety of legal rights that can be interpreted and enforced on the basis of existing law and  jurisprudence. The controversy must be definite and a nd concrete, touching the legal relations relat ions of  parties having adverse legal interests.   Furthermore, Ms. Maestra does not have the requisite standing to assail the validity of the questioned law. There is no showing that she has suffered some threatened or actual injury resulting from the enforcement of the putatively putatively invalid law. This is buttressed by the fact that it

 

was proven that the law had never been enforced and that there are indications that the State would make no attempt to enforce enforce said law. (Warth vs. Seldin)  b )    The State may properly question the constitutionality of C.A. No.  The No. 007. Unchallenged is the rule that the person who impugns the validity of a statute 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. It goes without saying that if C.A. No. 007 really violates the Constitution, the People of the Philippines has a substantial interest in having it set aside. Of greater import than

the caused publicstatute. funds is Hence, the mortal inflicted the damage fundamental law by by the the illegalexpenditure enforcement of anofinvalid the wound well-settled ruleupon that the state can challenge the validity of its own laws. (People vs. Vera)