1. Constitutional Supremacy is demonstrated by which principle ? (a) The Supreme Court exercising its power to check other department’s acts (b) No act is valid if it conflicts with the constitution (c) right or wrong the constitution must be upheld (d) the people in their sovereign will can disregard the constitution.
2. Which of the following is not descriptive of the state? (a) a community of persons (b) inhabitants render habitual obedience (c) territory is fixed (d) must be composed of males and females.
3. Which of the following describes our territory?(a) archipelago (b) internal waters (c) terrestrial domain (d0 maritime and fluvial domain
4. The government is the agency through which (a) the essence of the state is expressed (b) the works of the state is performed (c) the will of the state is realized (d) the people is protected.
5. Which of the following is not a characteristic of a state? (a) ideal person (b) exist only in contemplation of law (c) tangible (d) invisible.
6. What is the mandate of the government from the state? (a) general welfare (b) territorial integrity (c) promote the welfare of the people (d) any injury is imputed to the state.
7. Which of the following is not a compulsory function of the state? (a) fixing of legal relations between husband and wife (b) keeping of order (c) punishment of crime (d) holding of fiesta.
8. Which of the following means “guardian of the rights “ of the people? (a) pater familia (b) par en parem non habet imperium (c) parens patriae (d) salus populi est suprema lex
9. Which of the following describes a de facto government? (a) one with a rightful title but no control (b) one that actually exercises control but without legal title (c) one that exercises both control and has title (d) one which has no control and no title.
10. IT is defined as the supreme and uncontrollable power inherent in a state –(a) government control(b) people power (c) sovereignty (d) military power
11. When the Japanese forces invaded the Philippines, what is the effect? (a) the non-political laws are suspended (b) the law on treason is also suspended (c) sovereignty is changed (d) civil laws remain in effect.
12. As a general rule (a) the state cannot be sued (b) the state can be sued (c) the state can be sued if it enters into a contract (d) the state may waive immunity.
13. An American navy official is assigned in the Philippines. He committed rape. Which of the following is true? (a)he can be prosecuted in our country pursuant to the treaty (b) he cannot be prosecuted because he is immune from suit and he is exercising military functions (c) he cannot be prosecuted because it will offend diplomatic relations with the U.S. (d) he can be prosecuted because he is within Philippine territory.
14. A Filipino working in a restaurant owned by the U.S. embassy operating in the Philippines which caters exclusively only for U.S. ambassadors and their employees, was dismissed from work without a valid reason. Which of the following statements is true? (a) the Filipino can sue the U.S. embassy for illegal dismissal (b) the Filipino cannot sue since the restaurant is immune from suit (c) the Filipino cannot sue since operating a restaurant in the case at bar is a sovereign function (d) The Filipino cannot sue since the U.S. government cannot be sued and it did not give its consent to be sued.
15. The Philippines government expanded its highway. The private land of Mr. X was taken. Which of the following is true? (a) Mr. X can file a suit for the recovery of his private land (b) Mr. X can file a suit for just compensation only (c) The Philippine government cannot be sued (d) The Philippine government to be sued needs to waive its immunity.
16. The City of Dipolog held its fiesta and sponsored a drama-musicale night. Due to a tight budget, the stage where the musicale was held collapsed resulting to the death of B. Which of the following is correct? (a) Mr. B cannot file a suit since Dipolog is immune from suit (b) Dipolog can be sued as it is not a state but it cannot be made liable (c) Only the Sangunian can be sued since it is the one who passed the tight budget (d) Dipolog can be sued and can even be made liable since the holding of a fiesta is not a governmental function.
17. The Bureau of Customs is operating an arrastre services. In one transaction the goods were lost in transit. The owner of the goods ----(a)can sue the Bureau for damages since it is engaged in a commercial contract of freightage (b) cannot sue the Bureau since it is immune from suit as it is performing a governmental function of tax collection (c) can sue the Bureau because it is negligent (d)cannot sue the Bureau because its immunity from suit is based on its charter that created it.
18. Which of the following is true regarding the Preamble? (a) it is a source of substantive right such as the right of the people to be told the truth (b) it cannot be a source of rights since it is just plain rhetoric (c) it useful as an aid of interpreting the constitution (d) it cannot be used to interpret the constitution since it merely introduces the authors of the constitution.
19. The prime duty of the government is (a) to defend the state (b) to see to it that laws are obeyed (c) to serve and protect the people (d) to make people render military and civic services.
20. Mr. Lagman is a member of the religious sect which does not allow its members to become soldiers. Which of the following is correct? (a) he can be compelled to render military service during the war (b) he cannot be compelled to render military service since religion is a valid excuse (c) he cannot be compelled to render military service since it would be tantamount to a prohibited compulsion (d) he can be compelled since the government can call the people to defend the state as may be provided by law and principle of posse commitatus.
21. The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy. Which statement is correct?(a) the Philippines can declare war against China if it encroaches upon our territory (b) the Philippines may involve in war if attacked by China (c) definitely the Philippines cannot go to war as it is prohibited in the Constitution (d) The Philippines can go to war provided the Congress votes for it pursuant to the procedure laid in the Constitution.
22. The Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land. What is the doctrine enunciated here? (a) doctrine of transformation which states that before a law can take effect there must be an enabling legislation to be passed by congress (b) the doctrine of cooperation which states that we must have comity with all nations (c) the doctrine of incorporation which states that we are bound to obey international law even without legislation (d) the doctrine of amity with all nations which means that we adopt the general international law principles as part of our own system of law.
23. The Phil congress passed a law which prohibited the importation of rice in order to protect our rice industry. The President however entered into a commercial treaty with Vietnam which allows it to supply us with cheap rice for one year. Which of the following is true? (a) the treaty is unconstitutional since it conflicts with our own law (b) the treaty is valid since we adopt treaties as part of the law of the land (c) the treaty even if invalid has to be complied with since we cannot afford to lose face in international setting (d) the President can be sued personally for such an unconstitutional act.
24. Which is NOT true concerning our nuclear weapons policy? (a) it is a self-executing provision and can be invoked directly as a source of right(b) it is not a self-executing provision s it merely serves as guideline both to the executive and legislative department(c) it must be consistent with our national interest (d) it is pursued in line with our policy of freedom from nuclear weapons in our territory.
25. What power of the state is used in passing the agrarian reform law? (a) eminent domain only since private land is taken for public use(b) police power combined with eminent domain (c) police power only since the purpose is to solve an agrarian unrest (d) the constitutional provision which provides that the state shall promote a comprehensive rural development and agrarian reform.
26. The separation of church and state is inviolable. Which of the following does NOT demonstrate this principle? (a) churches cannot be taxed with their income from its activities such as baptism, deaths etc.(b) the state cannot interfere in the annulment of marriages granted by the canon law of the church (c) the students in public schools cannot be compelled to recite prayers before classes start (d) the church cannot dismiss its priests without following the labor code of the Philippines.
27. In what way can the president of the Philippines check the Supreme Court? (a) it can initiate the impeachment of a chief justice (b) it can grant amnesty to a convicted rapist (c) it can change the jurisdiction of courts (d) it decides whom to appoint in the Supreme Court.
28. In what way is separation of powers demonstrated? (a) the supreme court cannot decide political questions (b) the president can fix tariff rates (c) the President can influence the Congress what law must be passed (d) the Congress can decrease the salaries of the justices of the supreme court.
29. That there is also a blending of the powers of the three departments is demonstrated in (a) the enactment of the general appropriation law where the President prepares the budget (b) grant of pardon which requires the concurrence of congress (c) the Comelec cannot deputize law enforcement agencies (d) the Supreme Court taking heed of an amnesty granted by the President.
30. Congressman X attacked the president in his privilege speech which was already slanderous by calling the President as a corrupt politician. Disappointed over said attack, the president with the support of his partidos in Congress cited X as persona non grata and with the vote prescribed in the Constitution suspended him (X). Which of the following is correct? (a) X can file a suit in the Supreme Court to question his suspension (b) X cannot file said case because the President is immune from suit (c) the Supreme court can take jurisdiction over said matter using its extraordinary jurisdiction (d) it is within the right of congress to suspend its member and the supreme court cannot interfere without violating the doctrine of separation of powers.
31, Which of the following is a permissible delegation of legislative power? (a) delegation of diplomatic powers to the president (b) delegation of ordinance making to the LGU sanggunians and barangay councils (c) subordinate legislation or residual powers to the Office of the President (d) delegation of emergency powers to the Secretary of National Defense.
32.Which of the following is NOT a condition for the vesture of emergency powers to the president? (a) there must be war in the first place (b) There need not be war provided there is a national emergency (c) the delegation of said emergency powers is not subject to restrictions by Congress since Congress cannot function in times of emergency (d) it can be exercised for an unlimited time since emergency cannot be limited as it would depend on the circumstances at hand.
33.Which of the following cannot be considered as a national emergency? (a) rebellion (b) epidemic (c) flood (d) constant brown-out
34.Which of the following is NOT considered as a sufficient standard? (a) justice and equity (b) economic equality (c) public welfare (d) simplicity
35.Which case demonstrated an insufficient standard? (a) Ynot v. IAC (b) Llamas v. Alba (c) People v. Viera (d) Pelaez v. Governor General
36. Which principle is our present policy on state immunity? (a) a state is only immune from suit with respect to its sovereignty functions (b) a state is immune with respect to its proprietary functions (c) a state’s immunity is restricted by international law principles (d) a state is always immune from suit from all its activities.
37.Which principle states that a state cannot have dominion over another state as they are equals under international law? (a) par en parem non habet (b) par en habet imperium (c) par en parem non habetatum (d) par en parem non habet imperium
38. The royal prerogative on dishonesty means that (a) the king can do no wrong (b) that the state is immune from suit absolutely (c) that the state is only immune under some circumstances (d) the immunity of state is rooted in that English principle.
39.What is the latin basis for state immunity? (a) salus populi est supreme lex (b) par en parem non habet imperium (c) restrictive application of state immunity (d) not based on any formal conception or obsolete theory.
40. Which case demonstrates the principle that the doctrine of governmental immunity from suit cannot serve as an instrument for perpetrating an injustice on a citizen? (a) Amigable v. Cuenca (b) Ynot v. IAC (c) Santiago v. Republic (d) Ministerio v. City of Cebu.
PART II. ESSAY TYPE(5% each). Answer the questions below the given case. Always provide an explanation for your answer. A mere yes or no answer earns no points.(The problems are taken from the cases posted in the blog).
1.An Ex-president who was ousted from power filed a petition in Court to compel the present government to issue him travel documents for his return to the country. The present government refused to issue and hence barred his return to the country.
Questions: (a) What possible power under the constitution can be used by the government to decide on said matter? The government thru the President uses its residual power. “The power involved is the President's residual power to protect the general welfare of the people. It is founded on the duty of the President, as steward of the people. To paraphrase Theodore Roosevelt, it is not only the power of the President but also his duty to do anything not forbidden by the Constitution or the laws that the needs of the nation demand [See Corwin, supra, at 153]. It is a power borne by the President's duty to preserve and defend the Constitution. It also may be viewed as a power implicit in the President's duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed [see Hyman, The American President, where the author advances the view that an allowance of discretionary power is unavoidable in any government and is best lodged in the President].
More particularly, this case calls for the exercise of the President's powers as protector of the peace. Rossiter The American Presidency].The power of the President to keep the peace is not limited merely to exercising the commander-in-chief powers in times of emergency or to leading the State against external and internal threats to its existence. The President is not only clothed with extraordinary powers in times of emergency, but is also tasked with attending to the day-to-day problems of maintaining peace and order and ensuring domestic tranquility in times when no foreign foe appears on the horizon. Wide discretion, within the bounds of law, in fulfilling presidential duties in times of peace is not in any way diminished by the relative want of an emergency specified in the commander-in-chief provision. For in making the President commander-in-chief the enumeration of powers that follow cannot be said to exclude the President's exercising as Commander-in- Chief powers short of the calling of the armed forces, or suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or declaring martial law, in order to keep the peace, and maintain public order and security.
That the President has the power under the Constitution to bar the Marcose's from returning has been recognized by memembers of the Legislature, and is manifested by the Resolution proposed in the House of Representatives and signed by 103 of its members urging the President to allow Mr. Marcos to return to the Philippines "as a genuine unselfish gesture for true national reconciliation and as irrevocable proof of our collective adherence to uncompromising respect for human rights under the Constitution and our laws." [House Resolution No. 1342, Rollo, p. 321.1 The Resolution does not question the President's power to bar the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines, rather, it appeals to the President's sense of compassion to allow a man to come home to die in his country.
What we are saying in effect is that the request or demand of the Marcoses to be allowed to return to the Philippines cannot be considered in the light solely of the constitutional provisions guaranteeing liberty of abode and the right to travel, subject to certain exceptions, or of case law which clearly never contemplated situations even remotely similar to the present one. It must be treated as a matter that is appropriately addressed to those residual unstated powers of the President which are implicit in and correlative to the paramount duty residing in that office to safeguard and protect general welfare. In that context, such request or demand should submit to the exercise of a broader discretion on the part of the President to determine whether it must be granted or denied.”
(b) Is the power to ban the return of the president a political or justiciable question ? As it concerns itself on the issue of whether the president has abused its power, the issue becomes a justiciable one. “Do petitioners Ferdinand E. Marcos and family have the right to return to the Philippines and reestablish their residence here? This is clearly a justiciable question which this Honorable Court can decide.
Do petitioners Ferdinand E. Marcos and family have their right to return to the Philippines and reestablish their residence here even if their return and residence here will endanger national security and public safety? this is still a justiciable question which this Honorable Court can decide.
Is there danger to national security and public safety if petitioners Ferdinand E. Marcos and family shall return to the Philippines and establish their residence here? This is now a political question which this Honorable Court can not decide for it falls within the exclusive authority and competence of the President of the Philippines. [Memorandum for Respondents, pp. 9-11; Rollo, pp. 297-299.]”
(c)Is the right to return to one’s country specifically guaranteed under the Bill of Rights? The Right to return is not guaranteed under the Bill of Rights, because it speaks only of the right to travel and abode. “The right to return to one's country is not among the rights specifically guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, which treats only of the liberty of abode and the right to travel, but it is our well-considered view that the right to return may be considered, as a generally accepted principle of international law and, under our Constitution, is part of the law of the land [Art. II, Sec. 2 of the Constitution.] However, it is distinct and separate from the right to travel and enjoys a different protection under the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, i.e., against being "arbitrarily deprived" thereof [Art. 12 (4).]”
(d) Does the President have the power to bar the return of a former president and his family to his own country? Yes, the President in taking general welfare and national security as the basis of its action, has the power to bar the return of the ex-president to our country.
2,The Philippine government through the President and with the support of Congress signed and ratified the country’s membership and support of the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement. To the minds of some Oppositors this is bad for the country since global competition to a small country like ours would be very detrimental to the health of our struggling economy. The Govt. cited some provisions of the State Principles which mandates “a trade policy that serves the general welfare and utilizes all forms and arrangements of exchange on the basis of equality ad reciprocity"; and speaks of industries "which are competitive in both domestic and foreign markets" as well as of the protection of "Filipino enterprises against unfair foreign competition and trade practices."
On the other hand, the Oppositors cited that the Constitution ordains the ideals of economic nationalism (1) by expressing preference in favor of qualified Filipinos "in the grant of rights, privileges and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony" 27 and in the use of "Filipino labor, domestic materials and locally-produced goods"; (2) by mandating the State to "adopt measures that help make them competitive; 28 and (3) by requiring the State to "develop a self-reliant and independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos."
Questions: (a) On the basis of economic nationalism is the president’s act of joining the WTO a justiciable question or a political one?
Answer: In seeking to nullify an act of the Philippine Senate on the ground that it contravenes the Constitution, the petition no doubt raises a justiciable controversy. Where an action of the legislative branch is seriously alleged to have infringed the Constitution, it becomes not only the right but in fact the duty of the judiciary to settle the dispute. "The question thus posed is judicial rather than political. The duty (to adjudicate) remains to assure that the supremacy of the Constitution is upheld." 12 Once a "controversy as to the application or interpretation of a constitutional provision is raised before this Court (as in the instant case), it becomes a legal issue which the Court is bound by constitutional mandate to decide." 13
The jurisdiction of this Court to adjudicate the matters 14 raised in the petition is clearly set out in the 1987 Constitution, 15 as follows:
Judicial power 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.
The foregoing text emphasizes the judicial department's duty and power to strike down grave abuse of discretion on the part of any branch or instrumentality of government including Congress. It is an innovation in our political law. 16 As explained by former Chief Justice Roberto Concepcion, 17 "the judiciary is the final arbiter on the question of whether or not a branch of government or any of its officials has acted without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction or so capriciously as to constitute an abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction. This is not only a judicial power but a duty to pass judgment on matters of this nature."
As this Court has repeatedly and firmly emphasized in many cases, 18 it will not shirk, digress from or abandon its sacred duty and authority to uphold the Constitution in matters that involve grave abuse of discretion brought before it in appropriate cases, committed by any officer, agency, instrumentality or department of the government.
As the petition alleges grave abuse of discretion and as there is no other plain, speedy or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, we have no hesitation at all in holding that this petition should be given due course and the vital questions raised therein ruled upon under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Indeed, certiorari, prohibition and mandamus are appropriate remedies to raise constitutional issues and to review and/or prohibit/nullify, when proper, acts of legislative and executive officials. On this, we have no equivocation.
We should stress that, in deciding to take jurisdiction over this petition, this Court will not review the wisdom of the decision of the President and the Senate in enlisting the country into the WTO, or pass upon the merits of trade liberalization as a policy espoused by said international body. Neither will it rule on the propriety of the government's economic policy of reducing/removing tariffs, taxes, subsidies, quantitative restrictions, and other import/trade barriers. Rather, it will only exercise its constitutional duty "to determine whether or not there had been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction" on the part of the Senate in ratifying the WTO Agreement and its three annexes.
(b) Can the “state principles” of economic nationalism under the constitution be invoked as a direct source of a right so as to make the action of the president unconstitutional?
Answer: NO. They cannot be invoked as direct source of rights, as they are merely guiding principles.
(c) Does our constitution adopt an isolationist economic policy? Answer: All told, while the Constitution indeed mandates a bias in favor of Filipino goods, services, labor and enterprises, at the same time, it recognizes the need for business exchange with the rest of the world on the bases of equality and reciprocity and limits protection of Filipino enterprises only against foreign competition and trade practices that are unfair. 32 In other words, the Constitution did not intend to pursue an isolationist policy. It did not shut out foreign investments, goods and services in the development of the Philippine economy. While the Constitution does not encourage the unlimited entry of foreign goods, services and investments into the country, it does not prohibit them either. In fact, it allows an exchange on the basis of equality and reciprocity, frowning only on foreign competition that is unfair.
(d) As a general rule are these ‘STATE PRINCIPLES” self-executing? Is there an exception to this rule? Explain.
Answer: By its very title, Article II of the Constitution is a "declaration of principles and state policies." The counterpart of this article in the 1935 Constitution 21 is called the "basic political creed of the nation" by Dean Vicente Sinco. 22 These principles in Article II are not intended to be self-executing principles ready for enforcement through the courts. 23 They are used by the judiciary as aids or as guides in the exercise of its power of judicial review, and by the legislature in its enactment of laws. As held in the leading case of Kilosbayan, Incorporated vs. Morato, 24 the principles and state policies enumerated in Article II and some sections of Article XII are not "self-executing provisions, the disregard of which can give rise to a cause of action in the courts. They do not embody judicially enforceable constitutional rights but guidelines for legislation."