[ID] 2020-0076 [Sched] Monday 5:30 – 9:30 PM

Constitutional Law I
Midterms, First Semester, SY 2020-2021
Prof. Michael Vernon Guerrero Mendiola

Answer within the boxes after the questions, and using the three-paragraph CLA format.
Those marked with asterisks (*) can be answered using one paragraph.

1.* What is the doctrine of self-limitation? (7%)

Doctrine of self-limitation is the principle which allows the State to exercise its sovereignty
within the limits provided by itself. Such as police power is limited to govern property and
property rights to maintain peace and order. Such power of taxation is limited to imposing
equal and progressive tax measurement. And such power of eminent domain is limited in its
exercising the power of expropriation by paying a just compensation when a private property
is taken for public use.

Case: Reagan vs. CIR,

The state limit its exercise of sovereignty by itself.

2. The People's Republic of China, a state party to the UNCLOS similar to the Philippines,
claims that the islands that they have reclaimed in the South China Sea / West Philippine sea,
enjoys a 12-nautical mile territorial sea arround them. Is the PROC correct in its claim? Why
or why not? (8%)

No. PROC is not correct.

Under the United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea, members of the Convention shall
draw their baseline around their territory which should not exceed 12 nautical miles and not
departing from the form of such land territory.

In this case, PROC violates the provision of Section 7 and 8 of UNCLOS III. Therefore,
PROC cannot claim the islands in the South China Sea / West Philippine Sea.

Correct
Doctrine of regime of Islands. – enjoining 12 nautical miles.
They are not Islands per UNCLOS III. Therefore, it will not have 12 nautical miles.
Basis: Distinction of islands, rocks, and reefs as provided in UNCLOS.

3. AAA's family owns a land in Maasin, Southern Leyte. They have lived in the United States
for more than 25 years. AAA's parents died in early 2019, as a result of a car accident, and
AAA, as a single child, immediately travelled to the Philippines to pursue the probate
proceedings relevant to his inheritance as to properties located in the Philippines. When he
went to Maasin, he found that his family's land has become part of the widened highway since
three years prior to his arrival, without the benefit of an expropriation proceeding initiated by
the government. AAA, in mid 2019, filed his claim with the COA but his claims have not been
satisfied, notwithstanding submission of all necessary documents to support his claims, and
after multiple follow ups. With 2020 about to end, AAA filed a case for collection of sum of
money against the DPWH, with him claiming just compensation for the land so appropriated
by the government. The DPWH claims immunity from suit, a such suit was filed without
State's consent. Is the DPWH's claim correct? Why or why not? (8%)

No. The DPWH’s claim is not correct.

Under the Doctrine of State Immunity as provided in the Article XVI, Section 3 of the 1987
Philippine Constitution, a State may not be sued, without its consent. Such consent may be
given expressly or impliedly. In the case of Ministerio V. City of Cebu, the Court held that the
State cannot use its immunity to perpetrate injustice. It is also established that when a State
entered into a contract with a private citizen, it went down to such level. Hence, there is an
implied waiver of immunity. Provided, such transaction connotes constituent or governmental
functions or jure imperii.

In the case at bar, AAA has a right to be indemnified. As provided in Article 32, par. 7 of the
New Civil Code: “The right to a just compensation, when private property is taken for public
use”. In addition to that, DPWH cannot benefit from the Doctrine of State Immunity. This is
not a magical cloak to avoid civil indemnification to AAA by non-payment of a just
compensation, when their private property was used for public use.

Correct.
Note: Avoid using “however”.

4.* What are the three conditions for an associational standing be deemed proper as a legal
standing under judicial review? (7%)

The three conditions for an associational standing are:

1. As Philippine citizen, when of public interest is concerned. A vested right is actually

injured or potentially be prejudiced of the subject matter of an issue or controversy;
2. As Filipino taxpayer, claiming of improper disposal of public funds or grave abuse of
discretion in utilizing governmental disbursement funds;
3. As Philippine citizen, concerned of environment issue.

1. Direct injury of the members (IBP vs Zamora)

2. Association should be registered
3. There must be a board resolution allowing one of the officer to file the case in behalf
of the association.

5. A secessionist group was able to effectively impose its will, through a governing
machinery, in various provinces in the south for a duration of four years, ousting the control of
the central government. The area was completely retaken by the central government,
eliminating the leaders and the significant members of the secessionist group in such territory,
at the end of those four years. In the meantime, the central government refuses to
acknowledge the validity of the acts made by such group within such duration, especially the
obligations they have incurred civilly from local suppliers. Is the central government correct in
its posturing? Why or why not? (8%)

No. The central government is not correct in its posturing.

Under the principle of reinstituting the ceded territory, the act done during the cessation shall
remain in effect. Hence, all related rights and obligations shall be recognized by the
regaining government. This is also under the doctrine of operative fact.

In this case, central government shall recognize the character of the secessionist group by
making a de jure government during its cessation of provinces in the south. Therefore, the
validity of their acts shall still be recognized.

No.

Basis: 3 kinds of government - 2nd kind fall. De Facto government.

Correct.

6. Citizens, during the Covid19 pandemic, were arrested due to alleged violation of Section
9(e) of RA 11332 (Mandatory Reporting of Notifiable Diseases and Health Events of Public
Health Concern Act), which provides therein “Prohibited Acts. -The following shall be
prohibited under this Act: xxx (e) Non-cooperation of the person or entities identified as having
the notifiable disease, or affected by the health event of public concern.” AAA, a lawyer,
baffled by the interpretation of Malacanang regarding the requirement of incarceration of
individuals for their failure to carry with them their quarantine passes and/or the donning of
facemasks, filed a petition with the Supreme Court, asking the Court to decide upon the
proper interpretation of this provision in light of the continuing pandemic, so as to guide the
bench and bar on this matter. Should the Court take cognizance of this case? Why or why
not? (8%)

Yes. The Court should take cognizance of the case.

Judicial review involves validating of the act of the Legislature and the Executive. It is not an
assumption of superiority over the other branches. It is the declaration of the supremacy of
the Constitution. To invalidate a certain act of any branch, it must not contain political
question as to the wisdom of the law. Exception to that is the necessity to provide new
formulation that will guide the Legislature and Executive in carrying their mandate.

Thus, in this case, the Supreme Court shall take cognizance of the issue filed by AAA.

No.
Basis: Justiciable. The Supreme Court does not provide any advisory service. Premature
act. It does not contain constitutional issue.
7.* Distinguish void for vagueness doctrine as against overbreadth doctrine, in dealing with
facial challenge. (7%)

Vagueness doctrine is the benchmark, where a two or more individual, of having common
knowledge cannot comprehend the law or the statute in its face. Whle overbreadth doctrine
provides a prima facie non-applicability of such law in any area.

As to its scope and relevance, vagueness requires simplification, while overbreadth may be
put aside.

8. AAA, of Filipino parents, was born in 1992 in Los Angeles, Califonia, United States of
America. AAA and his family returned to Catarman, Northern Samar, Philippines in 1997. AAA
wanted to run as a mayor in the said city in 2022. Is he required to renounced his US
citizenship in a separate instrument, as mandated by Republic Act 9225? Why or why not?
(8%)

No. Republic Act 9225 does not mandate for an elective person to renounce his foreign
citizenship.

Under the RA 9225 or known as Citizenship Re-acquisition and Retention provides a relief
for Filipinos who lost their citizenship upon naturalization in a foreign country. This is also the
law, where the intent of the framers is to acknowledge derivative citizenship. The same law
does not promote dual citizenship to allow a person to run for a public office, but
strengthening the prohibition against “dual allegiance”. As the latter is detrimental to the
interest of the state. Such renunciation of allegiance to foreign country shall be made in a
positive sworn statement or declaration, which is separate from the Certificate of Candidacy
filed by the elective persons.
In addition, from 1935 Constitution, we have abolished the principle of jus soli, and adheres
to the principle of jus sanguinis. Under this principle, citizenship of the minor follows the
blood of the parents.

In this case, AAA, being born outside the Philippines is still considered a Philippine Citizen.
Using the jus sanguinis law of blood rule. In effect, he is dual citizen. The RA 9225 does not
mandate to renounce such dual citizenship before running a public office. It is the dual
allegiance, which it prohibits. Hence, AAA shall renounce it allegiance in US thru separate
instrument other than the Certificate of Candidacy.

Is AAA covered by RA 9225. What kind of dual citizenship. One by birth or by naturalization.
RA 9225 covers only dual citizenship by naturalization. RA 9225 will not apply to AAA.
Case: Mercado vs Manzano
9. A Chinese (PROC) coast guard ship rammed a Philippine-registered fishing vessel during
a rainy night, resulting in the death of 15 Filipino fishermen, the destruction of the fishing
vessel, and the loss of all the fish stored therein, in the contiguous zone outside of Palawan.
The owner of the vessel and the families of the deceased fishermen sued the captain of the
PROC ship. Will the case prosper? Why or why not? (8%)

No. The case will not prosper.

Under the doctrine of par in parem non habet imperium, the equals have no authority over
the other. It is the principle of public international law that head of states and its agents are
covered by the immunity. Such immunity works only within the framework of authority or task
given to agents of the State. Any abuse of such authority weakens such immunity. In
addition, our criminal court jurisdiction is only until 12 nautical miles from our baseline. Which
is the measurement of our territorial sea.

In the case at bar, PROC is covered by state immunity. The incident happened in the
contiguous zone outside of Palawan. Which is beyond the jurisdiction of our criminal court.
Therefore, the case filed will not proper.

Correct.
Basis:
Case: Arrigo Vs Swift (either malicious or negligence)
Keyword: juri in pare

10. * Provide for the similarities and differences of the qualifications in judicial and
administrative naturalization proceedings. (7%)

Judicial naturalization is covered by CA 473, while administrative naturalization is under the

provision of RA 9139.

The following are their similarities:

1. As to character, petitioners under both proceedings shall possess a good
character.
2. As to social, petitioners under both proceedings shall mingle with the Filipino
people, and have evidenced of sincere desire to embrace the Filipino culture and
tradition.

The following are their differences:

1. As to age, petitioner under judicial naturalization is required to be at least 21 years
old, while petitioner under administrative naturalization is required to be at least 18
years old.
2. As to residency in the Philippines, petitioner under judicial naturalization is
required to have at least 10 years of stay in the country, except in the following
cases where it may be shortened to 5 years.: (a) honorably held a public post for
the government; (b) introduced new industries and inventions; (c) married to a
Filipino woman; (d) teacher in a private or public school recognized by the
government that accept students not limited to certain nationalities. While
 petitioner under administrative naturalization requires that the alien is residing in
the Philippines since birth;
3. As to property ownership, petitioner under judicial naturalization should own a real
estate not lower than PhP 5,000, while under administrative naturalization, there is
no such provision to such;
4. As to trade and occupation, petitioner under judicial naturalization should have
known a lucrative trade and business, and occupation, while under administrative
naturalization, petitioner is only required to have a knowledge of trade, business,
and occupation, which is reasonable to support himself and his family.
5. As to language, petitioner under judicial naturalization should know how to speak
and write Spanish or English, or other pertinent Filipino language, while petitioner
under administrative naturalization is required only to know how to read, write, and
speak English or Filipino, or any local dialect in the Philippines.

11. Sections 7, 23 and 24 of RA 10354 commonly mandate that a hospital or a medical

practitioner to immediately refer a person seeking health care and services under the law to
another accessible healthcare provider. AAA is a physician who is a member of the Opus Dei.
She assails the constitutionality of these provisions as she claims that these, even such
passive act of referral, violates her religious freedom. Should the Court strike off these
provisions from the statute books for being unconstitutional? Why or why not? (8%)

No. The Court should not strike off these provisions from the statute books.

Judicial review involves validating of the act of the Legislature and the Executive. It is not an
assumption of superiority over the other branches. It is the declaration of the supremacy of
the Constitution. To invalidate a certain act of any branch, it must not contain political
question as to the wisdom of the law.

In the foregoing facts, AAA cannot invoke the Court to judicially declare the Sections 7, 23
and 24 of RA 10354 as unconstitutional. Basically, it concerns of a political question, which
the Judiciary cannot take cognizance. Hence, the Court should not strike off these provisions
from the statue books.

Correct.
Basis:
Case: Imbong Vs Ochoa
Specific / Selective class of objector. (concecious objector) – key word: being Opus Dei

12. AAA filed a case for the Supreme Court that a Senator has forfeited his seat in the Senate
for being the Chairman of the Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC). The Supreme Court, to
bolster the ruling that the PNRC is a private corporation (and not an instrumentality or a
GOCC), ruled that provisions of the Republic Act 95, which created the PNRC, was
unconstitutional for being violative of Section 16, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution (formerly
Section 7, Article XIV of the 1935 Constitution). Was the Court correct in invalidating the
provisions of RA 95 in this case? Why or why not? (8%)
No. The Court is not correct in invalidating the provisions of RA 95.

Judicial review involves validating of the act of the Legislature and the Executive. It is not an
assumption of superiority over the other branches. It is the declaration of the supremacy of
the Constitution. Internal affairs of other branches are beyond the jurisdiction of the Court.

In the case at bar, AAA shall bring his case to the electoral tribunal to address the issue of
removing his seat in the Senate. Not the Supreme Court.

Correct.
Basis:
Case: Liban vs Gordon (resolution)
Not the lis mota of the case. Constitutionality of RA 95 is not the lis mota of the case. Hence,
the Court went overboard. It does not cover the judicial review of the Court.

13. AAA (male, born 1862 in Hongkong, colony of the United Kingdom in China) and BBB
(female, born 1865 in Macau, colony of Portugal in China). AAA and BBB met each other on a
ship, when their respective families migrated with them to the Philippine Islands in 1885. AAA
and BBB lived in Binondo, Manila, and subsequently married each other in 1891, and sired
CCC (female, born 1894 in Manila). CCC had a son, EEE, with DDD (male, born 1890 in
Philadelphia, Pennsylavania; a US citizen stationed in the Philippine Islands), out of wedlock,
in 1915 in Makati. EEE subsequently married FFF (female, born 1920 in Stuttgart, Germany;
a German Jew refugee) in 1940 and had a daughter, GGG, in 1941, in Manila. After the war,
in 1946, EEE, FFF, and GGG migrated to the United States. In 1970, GGG and HHH (male,
born 1937 in New York City; a US citizen) married, and a son, III, was born to them in 1974
while in San Francisco, California. III went to the Philippines in 1999, and found the country to
his liking and stayed herein since. III married JJJ (female, born 1984 in London, UK; a
frequent English traveler to Southeast Asia) in 2010, and sired a daughter, KKK, in 2012 in
Cebu City. GGG and HHH, in their old age, wanted to donate somehow, while they are still
alive, for the benefit of their grand-daughter KKK, and thus tasked their son, III, to purchase a
beachfront property in KKK's name. Is KKK eligible, in light of her citizenship, to own such
property in the Philippines, if ever? Why or why not? (8%)

Yes. KKK is eligible to own such property in the Philippines.

Generally, foreigners are not entitled to own real property in the Philippine. Exception to that
is thru inheritance.

Thus, KKK can own thru inheritance a property in the Philippines.

Correct.
Basis: KKK is a Filipino
Good luck.