San Sebastian College Recoletos

College of Law
Surigao City Extension

MIDTERM EXAMINATIONS: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1

INSTRUCTIONS:

Read each question very carefully. Answer the essay

questions clearly and concisely. Your answers should demonstrate
your ability to analyse the given facts and apply the pertinent
laws and jurisprudence (cite your legal bases) and arrive at sound
and logical conclusions.

Answers must fully explain even if the questions do not

expressly require explanations. A mere “YES” or “NO” answers
sans explanation or discussion will not be given credit.

I.

1. Discuss the meaning of the “Constitution” emphasizing

on the essential parts of a good written constitution.

A constitution is a body of basic laws and principles that describes the general organization and
operation of the state. A constitution most often contains fundamental principles and norms that
underlie and guide all government action. As a supreme or higher law, its provisions provide a
framework under which all regulations, legislation, institutions, and procedures operate.

This categorization refers to how easily a constitution can be amended and how easily the constitutional
landscape and framework can change. A constitution is said to be rigid when it is difficult to amend or
change. It is said to be flexible when it is more easily amended. The advantages of a rigid constitution
include the establishment of a stable and reliable legal landscape, the heightened protection of
constitutional rights and values, and perhaps increasingly consistent enforceability of constitutional
structures and provisions. Flexible constitutions, in contrast, allow the constitution and the government
to act and react more easily as times change. They prevent future generations from being bound by past
commitments when it no longer serves the common good. They provide less protection, however,
against actors or parties in power who wish to change the constitution or diminish constitutional
protections in order to serve their self-interests.

A third distinction is sometimes drawn: whether a constitution is written or unwritten. This distinction
focuses on the nature of a constitution, whether entirely written down and specified in a constitutional
document, or whether it is a more nebulous body of laws contained in precedent, tradition, customary
laws and practice. Except for the United Kingdom, which is the most often cited example of a polity with
an unwritten constitution, many contemporary constitutions are actually written. Nonetheless, while the
distinction between written and unwritten constitutions is an interesting lens through which to compare
and contemplate constitutions, in most countries established constitutional law has origins in and
consists of both a written constitutional document and unwritten norms, customs, and practices.

2. Enumerate and discuss thoroughly, the rules to be

employed in the interpretation and construction of the
law.
In Francisco v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, November 10, 2003, the Supreme Court
made reference to the use of well- settled principles of constitutional construction, namely: First, verba
leais. i. e., whenever possible, the words used in the Constitution must be given their ordinary meaning
except where technical terms are employed.
Second, where there is ambiguity, ratio leqis et anima. The words of the Constitution should be
interpreted in accordance with the intent of the framers. Thus, in Civil Liberties Union v. Executive
Secretary, 194 SCRA 317, it was held that the Court in construing a Constitution should bear in mind the
object sought to be accomplished and the evils sought to be prevented or remedied. A doubtful
provision shall be examined in light of the history of the times and the conditions and circumstances
under which the Constitution was framed. Third, ut maais valeat auam pereat. i.e., the Constitution has
to be interpreted as a whole. In Civil Liberties Union, it was declared that sections bearing on a particular
subject should be considered and interpreted together as to effectuate the whole purpose of the
Constitution and one section is not to be allowed to defeat another, if by any reasonable construction,
the two can be made to stand together.

II.

1. Discuss and explain thoroughly the steps in the

amendatory process of the 1987 Constitution.
The process of amending the Constitution is laid down in Article XVII, Section 1 to 4 and in the many
cases decided by the Supreme Court.

There are two steps in amending or revising the constitution, the first is proposal and the second is
ratification.

Proposal is generally made either directly by the Congress or by a constitutional convention. Where
what is intended is a mere amendment, the proposal is better made by direct legislative action. In this
case, the vote of at least ¾ of all the members of the Congress is needed.

But if what is envisioned is the overhaul of the entire Constitution, it will be advisable to call for a
constitutional convention. The call for constitutional convention may be made by a vote of two-thirds of
all the members of the Congress.

The third method of proposal which is people’s initiative is also allowed under Section 2 of Article XVII.
However, this method was struck down by the Supreme Court in Santiago v. COMELEC for lack of the
necessary implementing law. Furthermore, this method is also applicable only for amendments, not to a
revision of the Constitution.

At any rate, whatever the nature of the change contemplated, the choice of the method of proposal is
discretionary upon the legislature as held in Occeña vs. COMELEC.

After proposal, ratification follows. The constitution provides that any amendment or revision shall be
valid when ratified by a majority of votes cast in a plebiscite held not earlier than sixty days nor later
than ninety days after the approval of such change by the Congress or the constitutional convention or
after the certification by the COMELEC of the sufficiency of the petition under Section 2 of Article XVII.

Finally, it is worth noted that ratification of the constitution must adhere to the doctrine of proper
submission as decided in Gonzales v. COMELEC and Tolentino v. COMELEC.

2. Compare and contrast Political Question and Justiceable

Question or controversy.

“The term 'political question’connotes what it means in ordinary parlance, namely a question of policy.
It refers to those 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 of government. It is concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom,
not legality, of a particular measure” [Tanada v. Cuenco, 100 Phil 1101]

A purely justiciable question 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 of right”
[Casibang v. Aquino, 92 SCRA 642].

3. Compare and contrast Judicial Supremacy and

Constitutional Supremacy.
According to our Supreme Court, judicial supremacy is but the
power of judicial review in actual and appropriate cases and
controversies, and is the power and duty to see that no one
branch or agency of the government transcends the
Constitution, which is the source of all authority.

Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution now states in part that:

"Judicial power includes the duty of 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."

In the landmark case of Manila Prince Hotel vs GSIS, the Supreme Court defined the doctrine of
constitutional supremacy. Under this doctrine it states that if a law or contract violates any
norm of the constitution that law or contract whether promulgated by the legislative or by the
executive branch or entered into by private persons for private purposes is null and void and
without any force and effect. Thus, since the Constitution is the fundamental, paramount and
supreme law of the nation, it is deemed written in every statute and contract.

III.

1. Discuss and briefly explain the requisites of Judicial

Review.
Based on the expressed provision of Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution, the following are
the requisites of Judicial Review:
1. Actual case or controversy
2. The constitutional question must be raised by proper party or one must have a legal standing
3. The constitutional question must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity
4. The decision on the constitutional question must be determinative of the case itself.

2. Discuss the meaning of “To doubt is to sustain”, the

doctrine of purposeful hesitation.

Doctrine of Purposeful Hesitation-

This is about the Symbolic function of the court. It means that the
court

would not decide on matters which are considered political questions.

This focus on the necessity of resolvingJudicial Review. Furthermore, in
questions of constitutionality, Supreme Court will not rule right away
becausethe Supreme Court assumes that the Law passed the two
departments already, thus, it went through processof determining its
constitutionalityIn the following case -
G.R. No. 122241 July 30, 1996, BOARD OF OPTOMETRY v. HON.
ANGEL B.COLET
the Supreme Court decided Concluded that: It is also emphasized that
every court, including thisSupreme Court, is charged with the duty of a
purposeful hesitation before declaring a law unconstitutional, onthe
theory that the measure was first carefully studied by the executive
and legislative departments anddetermined by them to be in
accordance with the fundamental law before it was finally
approved.The presumption of constitutionality can be surpassed by the
clear showing that there was an infraction of theConstitution, and only
when such a conclusion is reached by the required majority may the
Court pronounce, inthe discharge of the duty it cannot escape, that the
challenged act be struck down.

3. Discuss the two (2) views with respect to the effects of

the declaration of Unconstitutionality of the law.

Effects of Declaration of Unconstitutionality. Two views:

- a) Orthodox view: An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no
rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no
office; it is inoperative, as if it had not been passed at all. See Art. 7,
Civil Code of the Philippines.

b) Modern view: Courts simply refuse to recognize the law and

determine the rights of the parties as if the statute had no existence.
See: Manila Motors v. Flores, 99 Phil. 738; Serrano de Agbayani v.
PNB, 35 SCRA 429; Republic v. Henda, 119 SCRA 411. Certain legal
effects of the statute prior to its declaration of unconstitutionality may
be recognized. See: Pelaez v. Auditor General, 15 SCRA 569. Thus, a
public officer who implemented an unconstitutional law prior to the
declaration of unconstitutionality cannot be held liable [Ynot v. IAC,
supra]

4. Discuss the meaning of “Operative Fact Doctrine”.

Under the operative fact doctrine, the law is recognized as

unconstitutional but the effects of theunconstitutional law, prior to
its declaration of nullity, may be left undisturbed as a matter of
equity and fair play.In fact, the invocation of the operative fact
doctrine is an admission that the law is unconstitutional.
[1]
TheSupreme Court stated in
Planters Products, Inc. vs. Fertiphil Corporation
,
[2]
that:The general rule is that an unconstitutional law is void. It
produces no rights, imposes no duties and affords noprotection. It
has no legal effect. It is, in legal contemplation, inoperative as if it
has not been passed. Beingvoid, Fertiphil is not required to pay the
levy. All levies paid should be refunded in accordance with the
generalcivil code principle against unjust enrichment. The general
rule is supported by Article 7 of the Civil Code,which provides: ART.
7. Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones, and their violation
or non-observance shall not beexcused by disuse or custom or
practice to the contrary.When the courts declare a law to be
inconsistent with the Constitution, the former shall be void and the
lattershall govern.The doctrine of operative fact, as an exception to
the general rule, only applies as a matter of equity and fairplay. It
nullifies the effects of an unconstitutional law by recognizing that
the existence of a statute prior to adetermination of
unconstitutionality is an operative fact and may have consequences
which cannot always beignored. The past cannot always be erased
by a new judicial declaration.The doctrine is applicable when a
declaration of unconstitutionality will impose an undue burden on
those whohave relied on the invalid law. Thus, it was applied to a
criminal case when a declaration of unconstitutionalitywould put the
accused in double jeopardy or would put in limbo the acts done by a
 municipality in relianceupon a law creating it.The "operative fact"
doctrine realizes that in declaring a law or rule null and void, undue
harshness andresulting unfairness must be avoided.

In a labor case involving the computation of holiday pay, the court

held

that it is "now almost the end of 1991 . . and [t]o require various
companies to reach back to 1975 now andnullify acts done in good
faith is unduly harsh.

The doctrine does not validate an unconstitutional law

IV.

1. Define State.

Definition of a State. A community of persons, more or less

numerous permanently occupying a definite portion of territory,
independent of external control, and possessing a government to
which a great body of inhabitants render habitual obedience. See:
Collector of Internal Revenue v. Campos Rueda, 42
SCRA

2. Enumerate and discuss the essential elements of the

State.
1. People.
a) Different meanings as used in the Constitution: (i) Inhabitants
[Sec.
2, Art. Ill; Sec. 1, Art. XIII]; (ii) Citizens [Preamble; Secs. 1 & 4,
Art. II; Sec. 7, Art.
Ill]; (iii) Electors [Sec. 4, Art. VII].
b) As requisite for Statehood: Adequate number for self-
sufficiency and
defense; of both sexes for perpetuity.
2. Territory [Art. I; R.A. 3046; R.A. 5446].
a) The National Territory: “The national territory comprises the
Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced
therein, and all
other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or
jurisdiction,
consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial and aerial domains, including
its territorial sea,
the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine
areas” [Sec. 1,
Art. !].
3. Government a) Defined. The agency or instrumentality through which the will of the State is
formulated, expressed and realized. See U.S. v. Dorr, 2 Phil 332. i) i) Government of the Philippines is
“the corporate governmental entity through which the functions of government are exercised
throughout the Philippines, including, save 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" [Sec. 2 (1), Administrative Code of 1987].

4. Sovereignty a) Defined: The supreme and uncontrollable power inherent in a State by which that
State is governed.
b) Kinds: i) Legal, which is the power to issue final commands; or Political, which is the sum total of all
the influences which lie behind the law. ii) Internal, or the supreme power over everything within its
territory; or External, also known as independence, which is freedom from external control. c)
Characteristics: permanence, exclusiveness, comprehensiveness, absoluteness, indivisibility,
inalienability, imprescriptibility. See Laurel v. Misa, 77 Phil. 856. d) Effects of change in sovereignty:
Political laws are abrogated [People v. Perfecto, 43 Phil. 887; Macariola v. Asuncion, 114 SCRA 77];
municipal laws remain in force [Vilas v. City of Manila, 229 US 345]. e) Effects of belligerent occupation:
No change in sovereignty. See: Peralta v. Director of Prisons, 75 Phil. 285; Alcantara v. Director of
Prisons, 75 Phil. 749;Ruffyv. Chief of Staff, 75 Phil. 875. i) However, political laws, except the law on
treason, are suspended [Laurel v. Misa, 77 Phil. 856]; municipal laws remain in force unless repealed by
the belligerent occupant. At the end of the belligerent occupation, when the occupant is ousted from
the territory, the political laws which had been suspended during the occupation shall automatically
become effective again, under the doctrine of jus postliminium.

3. Discuss the meaning of the doctrine of Parens Patriae.

c) Doctrine of Parens Patriae. Literally, parent of the people. As such, the Government may act as
guardian of the rights of people who may be disadvantaged or suffering from some disability or
misfortune. See Government of the Philippine Islands v. Monte de Piedad, 35 SCRA 738; Cabanas v.
Pilapil, 58 SCRA 94.

It is Latin for “father of his country.” It is simply understood as the “State as the guardian of the people.”

As what was enunciated by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of Government of the Philippine
Islands vs. El Monte de Piedad Y Caja De Ahorras De Manila (G.R. No. L-9959, Dec. 13, 1916), “the
government being the protector of the rights of the people has the inherent supreme power to enforce
such laws that will promote the public interest.”

In law, parens patriae refers to the public policy power of the State to intervene against an abusive or
negligent parent, legal guardian, or informal custodian, and to act as the parent of any child or individual
who is in need of protection.

4. Define and discuss the importance of the natural born

citizen of the Philippines.

Filipinos who have re-acquired their Filipino citizenship under this

Act may once again enjoy full
civil and political rights under existing laws of the Philippines.
These include:
 right to vote in Philippine national elections
 right to own land and property in the Philippines
 right to engage in business or commerce as a Filipino
 right to travel bearing a Filipino passport
 other rights and privileges enjoyed by Filipino citizens

5. Under the 1987 Constitution, enumerate and briefly

discuss the modes of acquiring Filipino citizenship.

There are two ways of acquiring citizenship: (1) by birth, and (2)
by naturalization. These ways of acquiring citizenship correspond
to the two kinds of citizens: the natural-born citizen, and the
naturalized citizen. A person who at the time of his birth is a
citizen of a particular country, is a natural-born citizen thereof.

As defined in the x x x Constitution, natural-born citizens “are

those citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to
perform any act to acquire or perfect his Philippine citizenship.”

On the other hand, naturalized citizens are those who have

become Filipino citizens through naturalization, generally under
Commonwealth Act No. 473, otherwise known as the Revised
Naturalization Law, which repealed the former Naturalization Law
(Act No. 2927), and by Republic Act No. 530. (Antonio Bengson
III v. HRET, G.R. No. 142840, May 7, 2001, En Banc [Kapunan])

V.

1. Discuss the doctrine of “Implied election”.

In re: Florencio Mallari, 59 SCRA 45

2. Discuss the doctrine of “Indelible allegiance”.

Doctrine of indelible allegiance. An individual may be compelled to retain his original nationality even if
he has already renounced or forfeited it under the laws of the second State whose nationality he has
acquired.
“No one can cast off his country.
Nemo potest exuere patriam

3. Discuss the “reasonable period” of election of Philippine

citizenship citing the case of Vicente Ching.
In the opinions of the Secretary of Justice on cases involving the validity of election of
Philippine citizenship, this dilemma was resolved by basing the time period on the
decisions of this Court prior to the effectivity of the 1935 Constitution. In these
decisions, the proper period for electing Philippine citizenship was, in turn, based on the
pronouncements of the Department of State of the United States Government to the
effect that the election should be made within a “reasonable time” after attaining the
age of majority. The phrase “reasonable time” has been interpreted to mean that the
election should be made within three (3) years from reaching the age of majority.
(Re: Application for Admission to the Philippine Bar, Vicente D. Ching, Bar
Matter No. 914, Oct. 1, 1999, En Banc [Kapunan])

5. Is Filipino dual citizenship proscribed? Why not.

 6. Who are deemed Filipino Citizens?
Under the 1987 Philippine Constitution, Article IV, Section 1, it
states that:

Section 1The following are citizens of the Philippines:

Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption
of this Constitution;

Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines;

Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect
Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority; and

Those who are naturalized in accordance of law

VI.

1. The President issued Letter of Instruction (LOI) ordering

the deployment of members of the Philippine Marines in
the metropolis to conduct joint visibility patrols with
members of the Philippine National Police in various
shopping malls. Will this not violate the civilian
supremacy clause under Section 3, Article II of the
Constitution? Does this not amount to an "insidious
incursion" of the military in the task of law enforcement in
violation of Section 5(4), Article XVI of the Constitution?

IBP v. ZAMORA
The calling of the Marines, in this case, constitutes permissible use of military assets for
civilian enforcement and that it does not contravene Section 3, Article II of the
Constitution. The limited participation of the Marines is evident in the LOI itself which
sufficiently provides the metes and bounds of the Marines’ authority. The deployment
of the Marines to assist the PNP does not unmake the civilian character of the police
force. The real authority in these operations is lodged with the head of a civilian
institution and not with the military. What is in here is mutual support and cooperation
between the military and the civilian authorities, not a derogation of civilian supremacy.
Wherefore, the petition is hereby dismissed

VII.

1. Under the doctrine of immunity from suit, the State cannot be

sued without its consent. How may the consent be given by the
State? Explain your answer.

The consent to be sued is given by the State either expressly or impliedly. There is express consent when
there is a law enacted by the Congress expressly granting to sue the State or any of its agencies. There is
implied consent when the State enters into a private contract, unless the contract is merely incidental to
the performance of a governmental function; when the State enters into an operation that is essentially
a business operation, unless the business operation is merely incidental to the performance of a
governmental function; or when the State sues a private party, unless the suit is entered into only to
resist a claim.
 2. The doctrine of immunity from suit in favor of the State extends to
public officials in the performance of their official duties. May such
officials be sued nonetheless to prevent or to undo their
oppressive or illegal acts, or to compel them to act? Explain your
answer.

Yes. Although the immunity from suit of the State can be extended to public officials in the performance
of their official functions and duties, the rule is not absolute at all. The suit against the government
officer must be in a case in which the ultimate liability will belong to the officer, not to the government.
Public officials cannot hid under the veil of state immunity for the acts performed in connection with
official duties where they have acted ultra vires or where there is a showing of bad faith or grave and
patent negligence. In this case, the public official may be prevented or ordered to undo the oppressive
or illegal act or compelled to perform an act which is legal. It is not the public official per se but his
performance in line with his duty which is being compelled or prevented thru petition for mandamus or
prohibition

3. Do government-owned or -controlled corporations also enjoy the

immunity of the State from suit? Explain your answer.

Yes. Government-Owned or-Controlled Corporations enjoy immunity from suit as they are regarded as
instruments of the State. However, the rule does accept exemptions such as when the law creating the
GOCC provides for its suability or when it enters into a commercial contract, acts on its proprietary
capacity, sues or files a counterclaim , confiscates property in expropriation, acts thru an agent or gives
it consent to be sued.

VIII.

1. Discuss the concept of "jura regalia" and how it evolved in the

Philippines. Does it negate native title to lands held in private
ownership since time immemorial?

: Generally, under the concept of jura regalia, private title to land must be traced to
some grant, express or implied, from the Spanish Crown or its successors, the American
Colonial government, and thereafter, the Philippine Republic. The belief that the
Spanish Crown is the origin of all land titles in the Philippines has persisted because title
to land must emanate from some source for it cannot issue forth from nowhere (Pena,
Registration of Land Titles and Deeds, 1994 rev. ed., p. 15).

In its broad sense, the term "jura regalia" refers to royal grants (1 Bouvier's Law
Dictionary, 3rd revision, p. 1759), or those rights which the King has by virtue of his
prerogatives (Black's Law Dictionary, 6th ed., p. 1282).
In Spanish law, it refers to a right which the sovereign has over anything in which a
subject has a right of property or propriedad (76 Corpus Juris Secundum, citing Hart v.
Burnett, 15 Cal. 530, 566). These were rights enjoyed during feudal times by the king
as the sovereign.

The theory of the feudal system was that title to all lands was originally held by the
King, and while the use of lands was granted out to others who were permitted to hold
them under certain conditions, the King theoretically retained the title (Washburn, p.
44; see also Williams, Principles Of The Law On Real Property, 6 th ed. [1886], p. 2;
Bigelow, p. 2). By fiction of law, the King was regarded as the original proprietor of all
lands, and the true and only source of title, and from him all lands were held (Warvelle,
Abstracts and Examination of Title to Real Property [1907], p. 18). The theory of jura
regalia was therefore nothing more than a natural fruit of conquest (1 Dictionary of
English Law [Jowitt, ed.] p. 797).

The Regalian theory, however, does not negate native title to lands held in private
ownership since time immemorial. In the landmark case of Carino v. Insular
Government (41 Phil. 935, 212 U.S. 449, 53 L. Ed. 594 [1909]), the United States
Supreme Court, reversing the decision of the pre-war Philippine Supreme Court, made
the following pronouncement:

x x x Every presumption is and ought to be taken against the Government in a case

like the present. It might, perhaps, be proper and sufficient to say that when, as far
back as testimony or memory goes, the land has been held by individuals under a claim
of private ownership, it will be presumed to have been held in the same way from
before the Spanish conquest, and never to have been public land. x x x (Carino v.
Insular Government, supra note 75, at 941)

The above ruling institutionalized the recognition of the existence of native title to land,
or ownership of land by Filipinos by virtue of possession under a claim of ownership
since time immemorial and independent of any grant from the Spanish Crown, as an
exception to the theory of jura regalia.

2. Is the right to a balanced and healthful ecology any less important

than any of the civil and political rights enumerated in the Bill of
Rights? Explain.
While the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is to be found under the
Declaration of Principles and State Policies and not under the Bill of Rights, it
does not follow that it is less important than any of the civil and political rights
enumerated in the latter. Such a right belongs to a different category of rights
altogether for it concerns nothing less than self-preservation and self-
perpetuation, the advancement of which may even be said to predate all
governments and constitutions. As a matter of fact, these basic rights need not
even be written in the Constitution for they are assumed to exist from the
inception of humankind. If they are now explicitly mentioned in the fundamental
charter, it is because of the well-founded fear of its framers that unless the
rights to a balanced and healthful ecology and to health are mandated as state
policies by the Constitution itself, thereby highlighting their continuing
importance and imposing upon the state a solemn obligation to preserve the first
and protect and advance the second, the day would not be too far when all else
would be lost not only for the present generation, but also for those to come –
generations which stand to inherit nothing but parched earth incapable of
sustaining life. (Oposa v. Factoran, Jr., 224 SCRA 792 [1993][Davide])

IX

1. Define Social Justice citing the case of Calalang vs. Williams.

 Social justice is “neither communism, nor despotism, nor atomism, nor anarchy,” but the
humanization of laws and the equalization of social and economic forces by the State so
that justice in its rational and objectively secular conception may  at least be
approximated. Social justice means the promotion of the welfare of all the people, the
adoption by the Government of measures calculated to insure economic stability of all the
competent elements of society, through the maintenance of a proper economic and social
equilibrium in the interrelations of the members of the community, constitutionally,
through the adoption of measures legally justifiable, or extra-constitutionally, through the
exercise of powers underlying the existence of all governments on the time-honored
principles of salus populi estsuprema lex.

Social justice must be founded on the recognition of the necessity of interdependence

among divers and diverse units of a society and of the protection that should be equally
and evenly extended to all groups as a combined force in our social and economic life,
consistent with the fundamental and paramount objective of the state of promoting health,
comfort and quiet of all persons, and of bringing about “the greatest good to the greatest
number.”

2. Enumerate and discuss briefly and concisely the manifestations of

“Republicanism”.

Republicanism [Sec. 1. Art. II: “The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty
resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them”]. 1. Essential features:
representation and renovation. 2. Manifestations.

a) Ours is a government of laws and not of men [Villavicencio v. Lukban, 39 Phil 778].

b) Rule of the majority. [Plurality in elections]

c) Accountability of public officials.

d) Bill of Rights.

e) Legislature cannot pass irrepealable laws.

f) Separation of powers.

3. Discuss the importance of the fundamental equality of men and

women.
fSec. 14. Art. II: “The State recognizes the role of women in nation-building, and shall ensure the
fundamental equality before the law of women and men. ”] Read also Sec. 14, Art. XIII. 1. In
Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Co. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No.
118978, May 23, 1997, the Supreme Court held that the petitioner’s policy of not accepting or
considering as disqualified from work any woman worker who contracts marriage, runs afoul of
the test of, and the right against, discrimination, which is guaranteed all women workers under
the Constitution. While a requirement that a woman employee must remain unmarried may be
justified as a “bona fide occupational qualification” where the particular requirements of the job
would demand the same, discrimination against married women cannot be adopted by the
employer as a general principle.

4. Discuss the requirement of public service and full public disclosure.

In Bantay Republic Act No. 7941 (BA-RA) v. Comelec, G.R. No. 177271
The right to information is a public right, where the real parties in interest are the public, or the
citizens, to be precise. The right to information and its companion right of access to official
 records, like all constitutional guarantees, are not absolute. The people’s right to know is limited
to “matters of public concern” and is further subject to such limitation as may be provided by
law. Similarly, the policy of public disclosure in Sec. 28, Art. II, is confined to transactions
involving “public interest” and is subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law. A

X.

1. How did Spain acquire the Philippines? Discuss comprehensively.

The Philippines passed to Spain by virtue of “discovery” and conquest. Consequently,

all lands became the exclusive patrimony and dominion of the Spanish Crown. The
Spanish Government took charge of distributing the lands by issuing royal grants and
concessions to Spaniards, both military and civilian (Antonio H. Noblejas, Land Titles
and Deeds, p. 5 [1986]; These grants were better known as repartimientos and
encomiendas. Repartimientos were handouts to the military as fitting reward for their
services to the Spanish crown. The encomiendas were given to Spaniards to administer
and develop with the right to receive and enjoy for themselves the tributes of the
natives assigned to them. – Ponce, supra, p. 12, citing Benitez, History of the
Philippines, pp. 125-126). Private land titles could only be acquired from the
government either by purchase or by the various modes of land grant from the Crown
(Narciso Pena, Registration of Land Titles and Deeds, p. 2 [1994]). (Separate
Opinion, Puno, J., in Cruz v. Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources,
347 SCRA 128, 166, En Banc [Per Curiam])

Good luck!

Judge Dante R. Corminal