Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1987 Constitution Q&A 2003
1987 Constitution Q&A 2003
Bar Question
Q: A law was passed dividing the Philippines into
3 regions (Luzon, Visayas, Mindanao), each
constituting an independent state except on
matters of foreign relations, national defense and
national taxation, which are vested in the Central
government.
Is the law valid? Explain.
A: The law dividing the Philippines into 3 regions,
each constituting an independent state and vesting in
a central government matters of foreign relations,
national defense and national taxation, is
unconstitutional.
First, it violates Art. I, which
guarantees the integrity of the national territory of the
Philippines because it divided the Philippines into 3
states. Second, it violates Sec. 1, Art. II of the
Constitution, which provides for the establishment of
democratic and republic States by replacing it with 3
States organized as a confederation. Third, it violates
Sec. 22, Art. II of the Constitution, which, while
recognizing and promoting the rights of indigenous
cultural communities, provides for autonomous
regions in Muslim Mindanao and in the Cordilleras
within the framework of national sovereignty as well
as territorial integrity of the Republic of the
Philippines. Fifth, it violates the sovereignty of the
Republic of the Philippines.
Bar Question
Q: Does the 1987 Constitution provide for a policy of
transparency in matters of public interest? Explain.
A: Yes, the 1987 Constitution provides for a policy of
transparency in matters of public interest. Section 28, Article II
of the 1987 Constitution provides:
Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law,
the sate adopts and implements a policy of full disclosure of all
its transactions involving public interest.
Section 7, Article III of the 1987 Constitution states:
GOVERNMENT
Bar Question
Q:
Are government-owned or controlled
corporations within the scope and meaning of the
Government of the Philippines?
A: Sec. 2 of the Introductory Provision of the
Administrative Code of 1987 defines the government
of the Philippines as the corporate governmental
entity through which the functions of government are
exercised throughout the Philippines, including, same
as the contrary appears from the context, the various
arms through which political authority is made
effective in the Philippines, whether pertaining to the
autonomous regions, the provincial, city, municipal or
barangay subdivisions or other forms of local
government.
Government-owned or controlled corporations are
within the scope and meaning of the Government of
the Philippines if they are performing governmental or
political functions.
DECLARATION
POLICIES
OF
PRINCIPLES
AND
STATE
Bar Question
Q:
(a) Discuss the concept of social justice
under the 1987 Constitution.
(b) How does it compare with the old
concept of social justice under the 1973
Constitution?
Under
the
1935
Constitution?
A:
(a) Section 10, Article II of the 1987 Constitution
provides, The State shall promote social
justice
in
all
phases
of
national
development. As stated in Marquez vs.
Secretary of Labor, 171 SCRA 337, social
Q:
During a period of national emergency,
Congress may grant emergency powers to the
President. State the conditions under which such
vesture is allowed.
LEGISLATIVE POWER
Bar Question
Q: Are the following bills filed in Congress
constitutional?
(a) A bill originating from the Senate,
which provides for the creation of the
Public Utility Commission to regulate
public service
companies
and
appropriating the initial funds needed
to establish the same. Explain.
(b) A bill creating a joint legislativeexecutive commission to give, on
behalf of the Senate, its advice,
consent and concurrence to treaties
entered into by the President. The
bill contains the guidelines to be
followed by the commission in the
discharge of its functions. Explain.
A:
(a) A bill providing for the creation of the
Public Utility Commission to regulate
public
service
companies
and
appropriating funds needed to establish
it may originate from the Senate. It is
not an appropriation bill, because the
appropriation of public funds is not the
principal purpose of the bill.
In
Association of Small Landowner of the
Philippines, Inc.
vs.
Secretary of
Agrarian Reform, 175 SCRA 343, it was
held that a law is not an appropriation
measure if the appropriation of public
funds is not its principal purpose and the
appropriation is only incidental to some
other objective.
(b) A bill creating a joint legislativeexecutive commission to give, on behalf
of the Senate, its advice, consent and
concurrence to treaties entered into by
the President is unconstitutional. The
Senate cannot delegate this function to
such a commission, because under
Section 21, Article VII of the
Constitution, the concurrence of at least
two-thirds of Senate itself is required for
the ratification of treaties.
POWER OF APPROPRIATION
Bar Question
Q: Suppose the President submits a budget
which does not contain provisions for CDF
(Countrywide Development Funds), popularly
Bar Question
Q: Upon request of a group of overseas contract
workers in Brunei, Rev. Father Juan de la Cruz, a
Roman Catholic priest, was sent to that country
by the President of the Philippines to minister to
their spiritual needs. The travel expenses, per
diems, clothing allowance and monthly stipend of
P5, 000.00 were ordered charged against the
Presidents discretionary fund. Upon post audit
of the vouchers therefor, the Commission on
Audit refused approval thereof claiming that the
expenditures were in violation of the Constitution.
Was the Commission on Audit correct in
disallowing the vouchers in question?
A: Yes, the Commission on Audit was correct in
disallowing the expenditures, Section 29(2), Article VI
of the Constitution prohibits the expenditure of public
funds for the use, benefit or support of any priest.
The only exception is when the priest is assigned to
the armed forces, or to any penal institution, or
government orphanage or leprosarium. The sending
of a priest to minister to the spiritual needs of
overseas contract workers does not fall within the
scope of any of the exceptions.
APPOINTING POWER OF THE PRESIDENT
Bar Question
Q:
(a) What are the six categories of
officials who are subject to the
appointing power of the President?
(b) Name the category or categories of
officials whose appointments need
confirmation by the Commission on
Appointments?
(c) What are the restrictions prescribed
by the Constitution on the power of
the President to contract or
guarantee foreign loans on behalf of
the Republic of the Philippines?
Explain.
(d) What are the limitation/restriction
provided by the Constitution on the
power of Congress to authorize the
President to fix tariff rates, import
and export quotas, tonnage and
wharfage dues. Explain.
A:
(a) Under Section 16, Article VII of the
Constitution, the six categories of
officials who are subject to the
appointing power of the President are
the following:
(a.1)
Head
of
executive
departments;
(a.2) Ambassadors, other public
ministers and consuls;
(a.3) Officers of the armed forces
from the rank of colonel or naval
captain;
(a.3)
Other
officers
whose
appointments are vested in him by
the Constitution;
LEGAL STANDING
Bar Question
Q: When the Marcos administration was toppled by the
revolutionary government, the Marcoses left behind
several Old Masters paintings and antique silverware said
to have been acquired by them as personal gifts.
Negotiations were then made with Ellen Layne of London
for their disposition and sale at public auction. Later, the
government entered in a Consignment Agreement
allowing Ellen Layne of London to auction off the subject
art pieces. Upon learning of the intended sale, well-known
artists, patrons and guardians of the arts of the
Philippines filed a petition in court to enjoin the sale and
disposition of the valued items asserting that their cultural
significance must be preserved for the benefit of the
Filipino people.
(a) Can the court take cognizance of the case?
(b) What are the requisites for a taxpayers suit
to prosper?
A:
(a) No, the court cannot take cognizance of the
case.
As held in Joya vs. Presidential
Commission on Good Government, 225 SCRA
569, since the petitioners were not the legal
owners of paintings and antique silverware, they
had no standing to question their disposition.
Besides, the paintings and the antique silverware
did not constitute important cultural properties or
national cultural treasures, as they had no
exceptional historical and cultural significance to
the Philippines.
(b) According to Joya vs. Presidential Commission
on Good government, 225 SCRA 568, for a
taxpayers suit to prosper, four requisites must be
considered: (1) the question must be raised by
the proper party: (2) there must be an actual
controversy; (3) the question must be raised at
the earliest possible opportunity: and (4) the
decision on the constitutional or legal question
must be necessary to the determination of the
case.
In order that a taxpayer may have
standing to challenge the legality of an official act
of the government, the act being questioned
must involve a disbursement of public funds upon
the theory that the expenditure of public funds for
an
unconstitutional
act
is
a
misapplication of such funds, which may
be enjoined at the instance of a
taxpayer.
A:
(a) According to Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987
Constitution, judicial power is vested in one
Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may
be established by law. It includes the duty of the
courts of justice to settle actual controversies
involving rights which are legally demandable
and enforceable, and to determine whether or not
there has been a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the
part of any branch or instrumentality of the
Government.
(b) No, the motion should not be granted. Section
15(4), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution
provides:
JUDICIAL POWER
Bar Question
Q: Judicial power as defined in Section 1, 2 nd par.,
Article VIII, 1987 Constitution, now includes the
duty of the Courts of Justice to settle actual
controversies involving rights which are legally
demandable and enforceable, and to determine
whether or not there has been a grave abuse of
amounting to lack of excess of jurisdiction on the
part of any branch or instrumentality of the
Government. This definition is said to have
expanded the power of the judiciary to include
political
questions
formerly
beyond
its
jurisdiction.
(a) Do you agree with such as
interpretation of the constitutional
definition of judicial power that
would authorize the courts to review
and, if warranted, reverse the
exercise of discretion by the political
departments
(executive
and
legislative) of the government,
including
the
Constitutional
Commissions? Discuss fully.
(b) In your opinion, how should such
definition be construed so as not to
erode considerably or disregard
entirely the existing
political
question doctrine? Discuss fully.
A:
(a) Yes, the second paragraph of Section 1,
Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution has
expanded the power of the judiciary to
include political questions. This was not
found in the 1935 and the 1973
Constitution. Precisely, the framers of
the 1987 constitution intended to widen
the scope of judicial review.
(b) As pointed out in Marcos vs.
Manglapus, 177 SCRA 668, so as not to
disregard entirely the political question
doctrine, the extent of judicial review
when political questions are involved
should be limited to a determination of
whether or not there has been a grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction on the part of the
official whose act is being questioned. If
grave abuse of discretion is not shown,
the courts should not substitute their
judgment for that of the official
concerned and decide a matter which
by its nature or by law is for the latter
alone to decide.
Bar Question
Q:
(a) Where is judicial power vested?
What are included in such power?
(b) Despite the lapse of 4 months from
the time that the trial was terminated
and the case submitted for decision,
the trial court failed to decide the
case. The defense counsel moved to
dismiss the case on the ground that
after the lapse of 90 days, the court
had lost jurisdiction to decide the
case.
Should the motion be
granted?
5.
6.
7.
A professor of law;
A retired Justice of the Supreme Court;
and
A representative of the private sector.
(Section 8(1), Article VIII of the
Constitution)
EN BANC/DIVISION CASES
(d) Under Section 3, Article VIII of the Constitution,
the fiscal autonomy of the Judiciary means that
appropriations for the Judiciary may not be
reduced by the legislature below the amount
appropriated for the previous year and, after
approval, shall be automatically and regularly
released.
Bar Question
Q:
(a) Enumerate the cases required by the
Constitution to be heard en banc by
the Supreme Court?
(b) What does it mean when a Supreme
Court Justice concurs in a decision
pro hac vice?
(c) What is the composition of the
Judicial and Bar Council and the
term of office of its regular
members?
(d) What do you understand by the
mandate of the Constitution that the
judiciary shall enjoy fiscal autonomy
cite the constitutional provisions
calculated to bring about the
realization of the said constitutional
mandate.
A:
(a) The following are the cases required by
the Constitution to be heard en banc by
the Supreme Court:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Cases
involving
the
constitutionality of a treaty,
international
or
executive
agreement, or law;
Cases which under the Rules
of Court are required to be
heard en banc.
Cases
involving
the
constitutionality, application, or
operation
of
presidential
decrees,
proclamations,
orders,
instructions,
ordinances,
and
other
regulations;
Cases heard by a division
when the required majority is
not obtained;
Cases where a doctrine or
principle of law previously laid
down will be modified or
reversed;
Administrative cases against
judges when the penalty is
dismissal; and
Election contests for President
or Vice-President.
.
DOCTRINE OF STATE IMMUNITY
Bar Question
Q:
(a) What do you understand by state immunity
from suit? Explain.
(b) How may consent of the state to be sued be
given? Explain.
(c) The employees of the Philippine Tobacco
Administration (PTA) sued to recover
overtime pay. In resisting such claim, the
PTA
theorized that it is
performing governmental functions. Decide
and explain.
(d) The Province of X required the National
Development Company to pay real estate
taxes on the land being occupied by NDC and
the latter argued that since it is a
government-owned
corporation,
its
properties are exempt from real estate taxes.
If you were the Judge, how would you decide
the case? Reason out.
A:
(a) State immunity from suit means that the State
cannot be sued without its consent. A corollary of
such principle is that properties used by the State
in the performance of its governmental functions
cannot be subject to judicial execution.
(b) Consent of the State to be sued may be made
expressly as in the case of a specific, express
provision of law as waiver of State immunity from
suit is not inferred lightly or impliedly as when the
State engages in proprietary functions or when it
files a suit in which case the adverse party may
file a counter-claim or when the doctrine would in
effect be used to perpetuate an injustice.
(c) As held in Philippine Virginia Tobacco
Administration vs. Court of Industrial Relations,
65 SCRA 416, the Philippine Tobacco
Administration is not liable for overtime pay, since
it is performing governmental functions. Among
its purposes are to promote the effective
2)
(a)
Bar Question
Q: A Commission on Elections (COMELEC) resolution
provides that political parties supporting a common set of
candidates shall be allowed to purchase jointly air time
and the aggregate amount of advertising space purchased
for campaign purposes shall not exceed that allotted to
other political parties or groups that nominated only one
set of candidates. The resolution is challenged as a
violation of the freedom of speech and of the press. Is the
resolution constitutionally defensible? Explain.
Answer:
Bar Question
Q: A, while an incumbent Governor of his
province, was invited by the Government of
2.
3.
The
rule
prohibiting
members
of
the
Constitutional Commissions, during their tenure,
to be financially interested in any contract with or
any franchise or privilege granted by the
government. (2%)
4.
corporations,
does
not
distinguish
between
government corporations, does not distinguish
between government corporations with original
charters and their subsidiaries, because the provision
applies to both.
5. Section 5, Article IX-B of the Constitution which
provides for the standardization of the compensation
of government officials and employees, distinguishes
between government corporations and their
subsidiaries, for the provision
applies only to
government corporations with original charters.
Bar Question
Q:
A. What is the meaning and guarantee of security
of tenure? (2%)
B. What characteristic the career service and what
are included service? (2%)
C. Luzviminda Marfel, joined by eleven other
retrenched employees, filed a complaint with the
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) for
unpaid
retrenchment
or
separation
pay,
underpayment of wages and non payment of
emergency cost of living allowance. The
complaint was filled against Food Terminal Inc.
moved of dismiss on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction, theorizing that it is a government
owned and controlled corporation and its
employees are governed by the Civil Service Law
and not by the Labor Code. Marfel opposed the
motion to dismiss, contending that although Food
Terminal, Inc. is a corporation owned and
controlled by the government earlier created and
organized under the general corporation law as
The Greater Manila Food Terminal, Inc. it has
still the marks of a private corporation: it directly
hires its employees without seeking approval
from the Civil Service Commission and its
personnel are covered by the Social Security
System and not the Government Service
Insurance System. The question posed in the
petition for certiorari at bar is whether or not a
labor law claim against a government- owned or
controlled corporation like the Food Terminal, Inc.
falls within the jurisdiction of the Department of
Labor and Employment or the Civil Service
Commission? Decide and ratiocinate. (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. According to Palmera v. Civil Service Commission,
235 SCRA 87, security of tenure means that no officer
or employee in the Civil Service shall be suspended
or dismiss except for cause or provided by law and
after due process.
B. According to Section 7, Chapter 2, Title 1, Book V
of the administrative Code of 1987, the career service
is characterized by (1) entrance based on merit and
fitness to be determined as far as practicable by
competitive examination or based on highly technical
qualification; (2) opportunity for advancement to
higher career position; and (3) security of tenure.
Answer:
1) On the assumption that Jose Reyes
possesses the minimum qualification requirements
prescribed by law for the position, the appointment
extended to him is valid. Consequently, he has a
better right than Vicente Estrada.
Answer:
1) A is senior to B. In accordance with the ruling in
Summers v. Ozaeta, 81 Phil. 754, the ad interim appointment
extended to A is permanent and is effective upon his
acceptance although it is subject to confirmation by the
Commission on Appointments.
2) If Congress adjourned without the appointments of
A and B having been confirmed by the Commission on
Appointments, A cannot return to his old position. As held in
Summers v. Ozaeta, 81 Phil. 754, by accepting an ad interim
appointment to a new position, A waived his right to hold his
old position. On the other hand since B did not assume the
new position, he retained his old position.
Bar Question
Q: A City Mayor in Metro Manila was designated as
Member of the Local Amnesty Board (LAB) as allowed
under the Rules and Regulations Implementing Amnesty
Proclamation Nos. 347 and 348, as amended by
Proclamation No. 377. The LAB is entrusted with the
functions of receiving and processing applications for
amnesty and recommending to the National Amnesty
Commission approval or denial of the applications. The
term of the Commission and, necessarily, the Local
Amnesty Boards under it expires upon the completion of
its assigned tasks as may be determined by the President.
May the City Mayor accept his designation
without forfeiting his elective position in the light of the
provision of Sec. 7, 1st par., Art. IX-B of the 1987
Constitution which pertinently states that :[N]o elective
official shall be eligible for appointment or designation in
any capacity to any public office or position during his
tenure?
Discuss fully.
Answer:
Alternative Answer:
Neither Jose Reyes nor Vicente Estrada has
a better right to be appointed City engineer. As held in
Barrozo v. CSC, 198 SCRA 487, the appointing
authority is not required to appoint the one next-inrank to fill a vacancy. He is allowed to fill it also by the
transfer of an employee who possesses civil service
eligibility.
According to the ruling in Medalla v. Sto.
Tomas , 208 SCRA 351, the Civil Service Commission
cannot dictate to the appointing power whom to
appoint. Its function is limited to determining whether
or not the appointee meets the minimum qualification
requirements prescribed for the position. Otherwise, it
would be encroaching upon the discretion of the
appointing power.
Q: In December 1988, while Congress was in
recess, A was extended an ad interim appointment
as Brigadier General of the Philippine Army. In
February 1989, when Congress was in session, B
was nominated as Brigadier General of the
Philippine Army. Bs nomination was confirmed
on August 5, 1989 while As appointment was
confirmed on September 5, 1989.
1) Who is deemed more senior of the two,
A or B?
2) Suppose Congress adjourned without
the Commission on Appointments acting on both
appointments, can A and B retain their original
ranks of colonel?
Bar Question
Q:
1) When is an appointment in the civil service
permanent?
2)Distinguish between an appointment in an
acting capacity extended by a Department Secretary from
an ad ad interim appointment extended by the President.
3) Distinguish between a provisional and a
temporary appointment.
Answer:
AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS
Bar Question
Q: State the various modes of, and steps in, revising or
amending the Philippine Constitution.
A: There are three modes of amending the Constitution.
(a) Under Section 1, Article XVIII of the constitution,
Congress may by three-fourths vote of all its
Members propose any amendment to or revision
of the Constitution.
(b) Under the same provision, a constitutional
convention may propose any amendment to or
revision of the Constitution. According to Section
3, Article XVII of the Constitution, Congress may
by a two-thirds vote of all its Members call a
constitutional convention or by a majority vote of
all its Members submit the question of calling
such a convention to the electorate.
(c) Under Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution,
the people may directly propose amendments to
the Constitution through initiative upon a petition
of at least twelve per cent of the total number of
registered voters, of which every legislative
district must be represented by at least three
percent of the registered voters therein.
According to Section 4, Article XVII of the
constitution, to be valid any amendment to or
revision of the Constitution must be ratified by a
majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite.