Salvanera, Jerwin S.

Midterm Exam - Constitutional Law 1

20-00155

1. Justiciable questions are questions that implies a given right, legally demandable and
enforceable, an act or omission violative of such right, and a remedy granted and sanctioned by
law, for said breach or right.
On the other hand, In the case of Tañada v. Cuenco, the Supreme Court defined political
question as questions which, under the Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their
sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the
legislative or executive branch. It is concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not
legality, of a particular measure. However, Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution has
expanded the scope of judicial power by including the duty of the courts to settle actual
controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine
whether or not there has bees a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part pf any branch or instrumentality of the Government. The Supreme court
may decide political questions if there was grave abuse of discretion on the part of the official
whose action is being questioned.

2. If the law is declared unconstitutional, the construction of the facilities will not be
nullified. Under the donctrine of operative fact, acts done pursuant to a law which was
subsequently declared unconstitutional remain valid. The doctrine of operative fact only applies
as a matter of equity and fair play. In this case, the different projects was made in good faith and
the government relied on the validity of the policy. Thus the projects shall not be nullified.

3. a. No. Congressman B is incorrect. The Congress is not bound by C.A. 473. Under the
law, Filipino citizenship may be acquired or reacquired through the direct act of Congress.
b. There are 3 distinct modes of acquiring citizenship, jus soli, jus sanguinis and
naturalization. Jus sanguinis is the acquisition of of citizenship on the basis of blood relationship.
Jus soli is the acquisition of citizenship on the basis on place of birth. The Philippine law follows
the rule of jus sanguinis.
c. There is dual citizenship when a child acquires Filipino citizenship through jus
sanguinis and simultaneously acquires a foreign citizenship by reason of being a child of a
Filipino parent and a foreign parent wherein the country of the said foreign parent also follows
jus sanguinis or when a Filipino child was born in a foreign country that follows jus soli.
Dual allegiance refers to the “unsettled kind of allegiance” of persons who are already
Filipinos but who, by their acts, may be said to be bound by a second allegiance. Under the
Constitution, dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with
by law. Thus, dual allegiance is prohibited but dual citizenship is allowed.

4. a. Under the Constitution, the State may not be sued without its consent. One of the
reasons according to the Supreme Court is to prevent the loss of governmental efficiency as a
result of the time and energy it would require to defend itself against lawsuits.
b. Yes. Under the Constitution, the State may not be sued without its consent. The
issuance of the order is necessary for the performance of the governmental function. Thus,
Executive Secretary Chua can raise state immunity from suit.
c. Suability depends on the consent of the State to be sued while Liability depends on the
applicable law and the established facts. The circumstance that a State is suable does not
necessarily mean that it it liable. The State can never be held liable if it is not suable.
d. The general rule is that doctrine of state immunity also applies to public officers but
there are instances that they may be sued without the State’s consent. He may be sued:
-to compel him do an act required by law;
-to restrain him from enforcing an act claimed to be unconstitutional;
-to compel payment of damages from an already appropriated assurance fund or to refund
tax over-payments from fund already available for the purpose;

 -to secure judgment that the officer impleaded may satisfy the judgment by himself
without the State having to do a positive act to assist him; or
-where the government itself violated its own laws bacause the doctrine of State
immunity cannot be used to perpetrate injustice.

5. No. The law is unconstitutional. Under Section 1, Article XVI of the Constitution, the
flag of the Philippines shall be red, white, and blue with a sun and three stars, as consecrated and
honored by the people, and recognized by law. In this case, the law passed is against the
Constitution and since the Constitution is supreme law of the land, laws against it cannot be
passed and shall be considered invalid.

6. No, the petition is not meritorious. Under traditional international law, States acquire
territory through occupation, accretion, cession and prescription, not by executing multilateral
treaties. Territorial claims to land features are governed by the rules on general international law.
In Magallona v. Ermita, it was ruled that the Kalayaan Islands and the Scarborough
Shoals are located at an appreciable distance from the nearest shoreline of the Philippine
Archipelago. And whether the bodies of water lying landward of the baselines of the Philippines
are internal waters or archipelagic waters, the Philippines retains jurisdiction over them.

7. a. Verba legis- Wherever possible, the words used in the Constitution must be given their
ordinary meaning except where technical terms are employed.
Ratio legis est anima- Where there is ambiguity, the words of the Constitution should
be interpreted in accordance with the intent of the framers.
Ut magis valeat quampereat- The Constitution is to be interpreted as a whole.
b. No. The general rule is that the Courts will not decide moot and academic issues. In
David v. Arroyo, the Court listed the exceptions to the general rule. These are:
-when there is grave violation of the Constitution;
-when there is an exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public is
involved;
-when the constitutional issues taised require formulation of controlling principles to
guide the bench, the bar and the public; and
-the case is capable of reputition yet evasive review.
In this case, the proclamation of Martial Law falls under the exceptions listed above.
Thus, the Supreme Court can still decide in the petition filed.
c. No. Under the Constitution, in order that the Supreme Court can exercise its judicial
power, there should be a case filed. The Courts are passive in nature and cannot take proactive
stand. In this case, the Supreme Court cannot give advisory opinion because it is outside its
judicial power.

8. No, he has no legal standing. In Macalintal v. PET, a person with legal standing was
defined as one who has sustained or is in imminent danger of sustaining an injury. In the case of
Mang Pandoy, whether he belongs or not to the marginalized families, there are no substantive
proof that he will sustain injury from the Poverty Allevation and Assistance Act that will help the
marginalized families through financial support.

9. Yes. Under the 1987 Constitution, those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the
Philippines acquires Filipino citizenship. It is stated also in the Constitution that citizens of the
Philippines who marry aliens shall retain their citizenship, unless by their act or omission, they
are deemed, under the law, to have renounced it. At the time Miguel was born, his mother retains
her Filipino citizenship, thus making Miguel a natural born Filipino citizen.

10. No. Under Article IV of the Constitution, those who was born to a Filipino parent is a
Filipino Citizen. In this case, Jessie was born to a Filipina mother considering him as a Filipino
citizen. Thus, he doesn’t need to file for a declaration that he is a Filipino citizen.

 11. It depends. In the case of Kabataan Partylist v. COMELEC, the court held that
COMELEC did not abuse its discretion in denying the request of the petitioners for an extension
of the deadline of voter registration for the May elections. The petitioner filed petition with the
Court within the prohibitive 120-day period under RA 8189, thus the Court found no legal
impediment to the extension prayed for.
In the present case given, if the requested additional days by the petitioner will fall in
during the 120 day prohibitive period under RA 8189, then the COMELEC does not commit
grave abuse of discretion in denying the request for extension.

Right to suffrage is not absolute right. It is a natural right but a given right by
Constitution. It was given and it can also be taken away by reasons provided by law.

12. No. In a decided case, the Supreme Court ruled that a constitutional question is ripe for
adjudication when the governmental act being challenged has had a direct adverse effect on the
individual challenging it. In this case, since the bill is still not a law, the constitutional question is
still premature. Thus, the Supreme Court cannot declare the pending law as unconstitutional.