FINALS- Constitution 1 FINAL EXAM: Constitutional Law 1 (Jan.

2023)

1. The tenor of the text in Section 13(3), Article XI of the Constitution merely indicates a
“recommendatory” function of the Ombudsman. However, in Ombudsman vs. Quimbo and CA,
(GR No. 173277, Feb 25, 2015), it was held that the Ombudsman has the power to directly impose
administrative penalties against public officials or employees. What is the basis of this power?
Explain.

CHATGPT ANSWER: The basis for the power of the Ombudsman to directly impose
administrative penalties against public officials or employees is derived from its constitutional mandate
and the expanded powers granted by statutes.

In the Philippine context, the Constitution, under Section 13(3), Article XI, provides that the
Ombudsman has the power to "direct the officer concerned to take appropriate action against a
public official or employee at fault." The term "appropriate action" is broad and encompasses a range
of disciplinary measures, including the imposition of administrative penalties.

However, the actual extent and nature of the Ombudsman's disciplinary powers were clarified and
expanded through jurisprudence and specific laws. The case of Ombudsman vs. Quimbo and CA
(GR No. 173277, Feb 25, 2015) played a significant role in interpreting the Ombudsman's authority.

In this case, the Supreme Court affirmed that the Ombudsman has the power to directly impose
administrative penalties. The rationale behind this authority lies in the Ombudsman's role as the
"protector of the people" and the "watchdog of the government." To ensure the effective and
efficient delivery of public service and maintain the integrity of public office, the Ombudsman is
granted the authority to directly penalize erring officials without necessarily relying on a separate
recommending body.

This expanded power is in line with the constitutional intent of empowering the Ombudsman to act
promptly and decisively against public officials or employees found to be at fault. It also serves to
address concerns related to delays in the administrative disciplinary process that may arise when
decisions are subject to further approval or review by other entities.

In summary, the basis for the Ombudsman's power to directly impose administrative penalties is rooted
in its constitutional mandate, with further clarification and expansion provided by jurisprudence and
specific statutes. This authority is crucial for the Ombudsman to fulfill its role as an independent and
effective institution in promoting accountability and integrity within the government.

Answer:
Under the 1987 Constitution specifically Sec 13 paragraph 3 of Art XI, it indicates to direct the agency
concern to file appropriate action. However, under a new law which is RA 6770 which amends the
function of the Ombudsman to directly investigate erring officials and it was question what its basis in
paragraph 8 Sec 13 Art XI of the 1987 Constitution was.

2. Republic Act No. 6770, otherwise known as The Ombudsman Act of 1989, provided for the
additional powers of the Ombudsman, apart from that found in the Constitution. What is the
constitutional basis of Congress to enact RA 6770 (Ombudsman Act)?

Answer: The constitutional basis of the Ombudsman Act (RA 6770) is Article 11, section 13 (8). In the
case of Camanag v. Guerrero, promulgate its rules of procedure and exercise such other powers or
perform such functions or duties as may be provided by law.

The constitutional basis for Congress to enact RA 6770, The Ombudsman Act of 1989, is
derived from the authority granted to Congress in Article XI, Section 13(8) of the 1987
Philippine Constitution. This constitutional provision allows Congress to legislate and define
the specifics of the Ombudsman's role, ensuring the effective implementation of the
constitutional mandate for accountability, transparency, and integrity in government service.

3.
a. What is the prerequisite for the creation of an autonomous region?

Answer: The prerequisite for the creation of an autonomous region is Act 10 Section 15, stated
therein that the geographical areas sharing common and distinctive historical and cultural heritage,
economic and social structures, and other relevant characteristics within the framework of this
constitution and the national sovereignty as well as territorial integrity of the Republic of the
Philippines.

b. What is the constitutional basis of your answer.

Answer: Its constitutional basis is Art. 10 sec. 15 of the constitution.

4. What is Dominium?

Answer:
It pertains to the capacity of the state to own and acquire property.

b. What is Imperium?
Answer:
It is the government authority possessed by the state, which is appropriately embraced in the
concept of sovereignty.

c. What is Jura Regalia or the Regalian Doctrine principle.

Answer:
It means that all lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral
oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forest or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other
natural resources are owned by the state.

d. What if any is the constitutional basis for this doctrine?

Answer:
The constitutional basis of this doctrine is Art. 12, Sec 2 of the Philippine constitution.

5. How do you reconcile the Regalian Doctrine with the decision of the Court in Cruz v. Secretary,
GR 135385, December 6, 2000, where the constitutionality of the IPRA law was assailed.

Answer: The Regalian Doctrine, rooted in the concept that all lands and natural resources belong to the
state, may conflict with the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA). In Cruz v. Secretary (GR 135385,
December 6, 2000), the court upheld the constitutionality of the IPRA, recognizing indigenous
peoples' rights to their ancestral domains. The reconciliation often involves balancing state
ownership with the recognition and protection of indigenous rights, emphasizing harmony between
national interests and the well-being of indigenous communities.

6. In the bidding for the purchase of the GSIS shares in Manila Hotel, a foreign corporation gave a
higher bid. In Manila Prince Hotel vs GSIS, GR 122156, February 3, 1997, how did the Supreme Court
justify its award of the sale to a Filipino corporation.

Answer: The Court said that a constitutional provision may be self-executing in one part and non-self-
executing in another. The Court said that the second paragraph was a mandatory, positive command
which is complete in itself and which needs no further guidelines or implementing laws or rules for its
enforcement. From its very words, the provision does not require any legislation to put it in operation.
It is per se judicially enforceable.
 - the Supreme Court justified its award of the sale of GSIS shares in Manila Hotel to a
Filipino corporation based on the constitutional provision that reserves certain areas
of investments exclusively for Filipino citizens or corporations.

- The relevant constitutional provision is found in Section 10, Article XII of the 1987
Philippine Constitution, which provides that:
- "The Congress shall, upon recommendation of the economic and planning agency, when the
national interest dictates, reserve to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or
associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens, or such
higher percentage as Congress may prescribe, certain areas of investments.
- The decision was based on the Court's interpretation of the constitutional mandate to protect
and preserve the national patrimony.
-

7. Inordinate delay can acquit a defendant who invokes his or her right to a speedy trial. In a recent
Supreme Court ruling, how is inordinate delay counted? When may the counting period to
determine if a case has dragged on for far too long start? Explain your answer.

Answer:
The concept of Inordinate delay was introduced to People versus Sandiganbayan for the Supreme
Court, was constrained to apply the vertical relief of dismissing the criminal complaint against the
accused due to delay in the termination of the preliminary investigation. In People vs Sandiganbayan
fifth division, the ruling that fact finding investigations are included in the period for determination of
inorganic delay is abandoned.

8. Pursuant to Section 6, Article X of the 1987 Constitution, local government units shall have a just
share in the national taxes. Such just share is based on the internal revenue taxes collected by the
national government or what is called IRA. Is this correct? Explain.

Answer:
No, the just share of local government units shall be sourced from all national taxes and not only
national internal revenue taxes.

9. How may the 1987 Constitution be amended or revised? Cite your basis.

Answer:

The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines provides for two methods to amend or revise its provisions:
through a Constituent Assembly (Con-Ass) or a Constitutional Convention (Con-Con). The specific
provisions can be found in Article XVII (Amendments or Revisions) of the Constitution.

1. Constituent Assembly (Con-Ass):

- Under Section 1, Article XVII, the Constitution allows amendments or revisions to be proposed by
a Constituent Assembly composed of all the Members of the Congress (both the Senate and the House
of Representatives) sitting together.

- A three-fourths (3/4) vote of all its members is required to propose amendments or revisions.

- The proposed amendments or revisions are then subject to ratification by the people in a plebiscite.

2. Constitutional Convention (Con-Con):

- Section 3, Article XVII provides for another method, which is through a Constitutional Convention.

- Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds (2/3) of all its members, call for a Constitutional Convention.

- The convention, once called, shall draft the proposed amendments or revisions.
 - The proposed amendments or revisions are then submitted to the people for ratification in a
plebiscite.

The choice between Constituent Assembly and Constitutional Convention is a discretionary power of
Congress. The Constitution does not specify the method by which Congress decides which mode to
use. Both methods ultimately require the approval of the people through a plebiscite.

It's important to note that the process of amending or revising the Constitution is a significant and
deliberate process, and it involves the direct participation of the Filipino people in expressing their will
through the plebiscite. This ensures that any changes to the fundamental law of the land reflect the true
desires and aspirations of the citizens.

10. Unlike under the 1935 and the 1973 Constitution, it is now necessary to distinguish an
amendment from a revision under the 1987 Constitution.

a. Why?

Answer:
The distinction between amendments and revisions becomes important because initiative and
referendum can be used for amendments but not for revision.

The basis for this distinction can be found in Article XVII (Amendments or Revisions) of the 1987
Constitution, particularly in Section 1. This section states that any amendment to, or revision of, the
Constitution may be proposed by:

 A three-fourths (3/4) vote of all the Members of Congress (Constituent Assembly), or (Sec 1)
 A Constitutional Convention (Sec 3)

b. What is an amendment?
Answer: It involves an alteration of one or a few specific and separate provisions. The guiding original
intention of an amendment is to improve specific parts.

c. What is a revision?
Answer: It is the guiding original intention and plan contemplates a re-examination of the entire
document, or for instance the change made by the authority of the charter would be a continuation
of the older charter.

11. A foreign commercial ship was spotted by the Philippine Coast Guard dumping garbage and
toxic waste 20 nautical miles from Nasugbu, Batangas, the nearest coastline of the Philippines. The
officers of the ship were arrested and charged before the RTC for violation of environmental laws of
the Philippines. The officers of the ship filed a motion to dismiss the case on the ground that
Philippine Courts do not have territorial jurisdiction over the case since the vessel was sailing
outside the territorial sea of the Philippines when the arrest was made. Is the ground to dismiss,
correct?

Answer: The ground to dismiss the case is not correct, because the dumping of garbage and toxic
waste within the 20 NM from Nasugbu, Batangas is part of the contagious zone whereat hot pursuit
and arrest can be made. The Philippine has still jurisdiction within the said place of the incident and to
the people involved.

12. After the graft case of Mr. Tigasin prescribed, he filed a motion to dismiss the forfeiture of ill-
gotten wealth case against him contending that since the criminal case has already prescribed, the
forfeiture case has no leg to stand on. Is the contention of Mr Tigasin correct. Explain.
Answer: The contention of Mr. Tigasin is not correct. Under Article XI criminal cases like graft case
that filed on a public official was no prescription and can still be indicted.

13. After Martial Law was declared over Mindanao, police arrested Jose Maria without any warrant
while shopping for groceries. When the arrest was questioned, the police countered that the
declaration of martial law suspended the privileged of the writ of habeas corpus and as a result,
they could affect warrantless arrests. Is the contention of the police officers, correct? Explain.

Answer: While martial law does grant authorities increased powers to make arrests without warrants in
certain situations, it doesn't mean they have unlimited authority to arrest anyone without justification.
The law still requires that arrests must be based on probable cause, even if the writ of habeas corpus is
suspended. while martial law may temporarily suspend certain legal protections, it doesn't grant
authorities unchecked power to arrest individuals without cause. Arrests made under martial law,
including warrantless arrests, should still adhere to legal standards and be based on probable cause.

- No, the contention of the police officers is incorrect.

The declaration of martial law does not automatically suspend the privileged of the writ of
habeas corpus

14. Hon. Amante Apurado, a sophomore member of the House of Representatives, took to the
floor, for himself and other members collectively, to demand that the increase in compensation of
Members of Congress approved by the immediately preceding Congress be implemented
immediately. May the increased compensation be released as demanded? Why? Explain.

Answer: Under Article VII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution the increase may be allowed if all of the
terms of the members of the congress should be finish, that is only the time were the increase of
compensation may be allowed.

CHATGPT ANSWER: In the Philippines, any changes in the compensation of members of Congress
must comply with the provisions of the Constitution, particularly Article VI, Section 10, which states
that "No increase in the compensation and allowances of the Members of the Congress shall take
effect until after the expiration of the term of office of the Members approving such increase."

This means that any increase in compensation approved by the preceding Congress will not take effect
until the start of the term of the new Congress members. In the scenario described, Hon. Amante
Apurado, being a sophomore member of the House of Representatives, cannot demand immediate
implementation of the increased compensation. The implementation of such increases must follow the
constitutional provision mentioned.

Therefore, even if the increase in compensation was approved by the previous Congress, it cannot be
implemented immediately upon demand by the current members of Congress. It must wait until the
expiration of the term of the current members to take effect, in compliance with the constitutional
provision safeguarding against immediate changes in legislators' compensation.

15. In Tolentino vs. Sec. of Finance, 235 SCRA 630 (1994), in relation to Sec 25, Article VI, the
meaning of “origination from the House” was discussed. What is it? Explain.

Answer: The case discussed the scope of the power of the senate to introduce amendments. The
exclusivity of the prerogative of the house means that the House alone may initiate the passage of the
revenue bill, such that if the house does not initiate one, no revenue law will be passed. Once the
House approves a revenue bill, the Senate can completely overhaul it by amendment of parts or
amendment by substitution. They can come up with one completely different from what the house
approved.
CHATGPT ANSWER: The Supreme Court, in its decision on this case, clarified the meaning of
"origination from the House." It emphasized that the Constitution specifically mandates that
revenue bills should originate from the House of Representatives to emphasize the principle of
accountability and to provide a clear delineation of responsibility. The Court ruled that the House
of Representatives must be the starting point of all revenue bills, ensuring that the chamber directly
accountable to the people for the imposition of taxes.

The decision in the Tolentino case reaffirmed the constitutional mandate that revenue bills, including
tax measures, must indeed originate exclusively from the House of Representatives, emphasizing the
importance of this constitutional provision in the legislative process concerning taxation and revenue
generation.

16. In Araullo v. Aquino (2014), “cross border augmentation” in relation to Sec.25 (5), Article VI, was
declared unconstitutional. What is meant by “cross border augmentation”? Explain.

Answer: The cross-border augmentation is the transfer of appropriations or savings from one branch
of government to another. In which the cross-border augmentation is prohibited under sec. 25, para.
5 of Art. 6 of the constitution which states that, no law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of
appropriations; however, the president, the president of the senate, the speaker of the house of
representatives, the chief justice of the supreme court, and the heads of constitutional commissions
may, by law, be authorized to augment any item in the general appropriations law for their respective
offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations.

CHATGPT ANSWER: The term "cross-border augmentation" refers to the transfer or movement
of funds or appropriations from one branch or office of the government to another, particularly between
the executive and legislative branches, or among different branches of the government. This practice
involves augmenting or increasing the budget of one branch or office using savings or funds that are
originally allocated for another branch or office.

In the Araullo v. Aquino case, the Supreme Court declared the concept of "cross-border augmentation"
as unconstitutional. The Court ruled that the transfer or augmentation of funds from one branch of the
government to another, particularly from the executive to the legislative branch, violates the principle
of separation of powers as enshrined in the Constitution. Such a practice undermines the independence
and autonomy of each branch of government by allowing one branch to encroach upon the budgetary
powers of another.

Therefore, the Court's decision in Araullo v. Aquino declared the practice of "cross-border
augmentation" unconstitutional, emphasizing the need to uphold the separation of powers among the
different branches of government, particularly concerning the appropriation and use of public funds.

17. “No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within
a period of one year.” (Sec 3 (5), Art IX). How was the word “initiate” as used in Sec 3 (5) defined in
Merceditas Gutierrez v. House of Representatives, GR No. 193459, March 8, 2011. Answer: 18. After
the Impeachment trial of President A. Busado, the Senate imposed the penalty of removal from
office and disqualification to hold any public office pursuant to Sec 3 (7), Article XI. Thereafter, the
Department of Justice filed against him plunder charges, among others. President A. Busado
contested the charges on grounds of Double Jeopardy. Is President A. Busado correct? Why?
Explain.

Answer:

No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a
period of one year.” (Sec 3 (5), Art IX).