Sei sulla pagina 1di 12

REVIEWER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL LAW MIDTERM EXAM

I.

What is the Regalian doctrine?


Ans. Regalian doctrine is anchored on the principle that State owns all lands and waters of the
public domain. The doctrine is the foundation of the principle of land ownership that all lands that
have not been acquired by purchase or grant from the Government belong to the public domain.
Property of public dominion is that devoted to public use such as roads, canals, rivers, torrents,
ports and bridges
constructed by the State, riverbanks, shores, roadsteads and that of a
similar character. Those which belong to the State, not devoted to public use, and are intended for
some public service or for the development of the national wealth, are also classified as property
of public dominion. All other property of the State which is not of public dominion is patrimonial.
Also, property of public dominion, when no longer intended for public use or public service, shall
form part of the patrimonial property of the State.

II.

Who are the natural-born citizens?


Ans. Natural-born citizens:
1. Citizens of the Philippines from birth who do not need to perform any act to acquire or perfect
their Philippine citizenship.
2. Those who elect Philippine citizenship under Art. IV, Sec. 1(3) of 1987 Constitution.

III.

Naturalization
Naturalizationthe legal act of adopting an alien and clothing him with the privilege of a
native/natural born citizen.
Effects of naturalization:
1. The legitimate minor children of the naturalized father become Filipinos as well.
2. The wife also becomes a Filipino citizen, provided that she does not have any disqualification
which would bar her from being naturalized.
Note:
Naturalization is also allowed in our jurisdiction. It may be direct or derivative. Direct
naturalization is effected: (1) by individual proceedings, usually judicial, under general
naturalization laws; (2) by special act of the legislature, often in favor of distinguished foreigners
who have rendered some notable service to the local state; (3) by collective change of nationality
(naturalization en masse) as a result of cession or subjugation; and (4) in some cases, by adoption of
orphan minors as nationals of the State where they are bon. i

IV.

What is the doctrine of constitutional supremacy?


Ans. Under the doctrine of constitutional supremacy, 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

Constitutional I Reviewer (Midterm) by AJMM


PS: Suggested answers are based on the authors perspective culled from different sources cited below.

Page 1

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.
V.

What are the elements of the state?


Ans. The elements of the state are the following: (PTSG)
1.
2.
3.
4.

A community of persons, more or less numerous (PEOPLE)


Permanently occupying a definite portion of territory (TERRITORY)
Independent of external control (SOVEREIGNTY)
Possessing an organized government to which the great body of inhabitants render
habitual obedience (GOVERNMENT)

Notes:
Definition of People CODE: CNCH
A Community of persons;
Sufficient in Number;
Capable of maintaining the continued existence of the community; and
Held together by a common bond of law.
Definition of Sovereignty
LEGAL sovereignty
The supreme power to make law.
It is lodged in the people.
POLITICAL sovereignty
The sum total of all the influences in a state, Legal and non-legal,
Which determine the course of law.
According to the Principle of AUTO-LIMITATION:
Sovereignty is the property of the state-force due to which it has the exclusive
capacity of legal self-determination and self-restriction.
Definition of Government
That institution or aggregate of institutions
by which an independent society
makes and carries out those rules of action
which are necessary to enable men to live in a social state
or which are imposed upon the people forming that society by those who possess
the power or authority of prescribing them.
Classification of governments
De jure one established by the authority of the legitimate sovereign
De facto one established in defiance of the legitimate sovereign
Classification of de facto governments
a. De facto proper
That government that gets possession and control of
or usurps by force or by the voice of majority
Constitutional I Reviewer (Midterm) by AJMM
PS: Suggested answers are based on the authors perspective culled from different sources cited below.

Page 2

the rightful legal government


and maintains itself against the will of the latter.

b. Government of paramount force


That which is established and maintained by military forces
who invade and occupy a territory of the enemy
in the course of war.
That established as an independent government by the inhabitants of a
country who rise in insurrection against the parent state.
Definition of Republican State
It is one wherein all government authority emanates from the people and is
exercised by representatives chosen by the people.
Definition of Democratic State
This merely emphasizes that the Philippines has some aspects of direct
democracy such as initiative and referendum.
VI.

How citizenship may be lost?


Ans. A Filipino citizen may lose his citizenship in any of the following ways and/or
events:
1. By naturalization in a foreign country;
2. By express renunciation of citizenship;
3. By subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the constitution or laws of a foreign
country upon attaining twenty-one years of age or more: Provided, however, That a
Filipino may not divest himself of Philippine citizenship in any manner while the
Republic of the Philippines is at war with any country.
4. By rendering services to, or accepting commission in, the armed forces of a foreign
country, and the taking of an oath of allegiance incident thereto, with the consent of
the Republic of the Philippines, shall not divest a Filipino of his Philippine citizenship if
either of the following circumstances is present:
a.
b.

The Republic of the Philippines has a defensive and/or offensive pact of


alliance with the said foreign country; or
The said foreign country maintains armed forces on Philippine territory
with the consent of the Republic of the Philippines: Provided, That the
Filipino citizen concerned, at the time of rendering said service, or
acceptance of said commission, and taking the oath of allegiance
incident thereto states that he does so only in connection with his
service to said foreign country: And, Provided, finally, That any Filipino
citizen who is rendering service to, or is commissioned in, the armed
forces of a foreign country under any of the circumstances mentioned in
paragraph (a) or (b). shall not be permitted to participate nor vote in
any election of the Republic of the Philippines during the period of his
service suspended to, or commission in, the armed forces of said foreign

Constitutional I Reviewer (Midterm) by AJMM


PS: Suggested answers are based on the authors perspective culled from different sources cited below.

Page 3

country. Upon his discharge from the service of the said foreign country,
he shall be automatically entitled to the full enjoyment of his civil and
political rights as a Filipino citizen; (As amended by R. A. 106, R. A.
2639 and R. A. 3834).
5. By cancellation of the certificates of naturalization;
6. By having been declared by competent authority, a deserter of the Philippine armed
forces in time of war, unless subsequently, a plenary pardon or amnesty has been
granted; and
7. In the case of a woman, upon her marriage to a foreigner if, by virtue of the laws in
force in her husband's country, she acquires his nationality.
VII.

What is the difference between citizenship and allegiance?


Ans. Citizenship is personal and more or less permanent membership in a political community. It
denotes possession within that particular political community of full civil and political rights
subject to special disqualifications such as minority. It imposes the duty of allegiance to the
political community.ii Meanwhile------------Notes:
Modes of acquiring citizenship
1. Jus sanguinisbasis of blood relationship, hence, there is no distinction between
legitimate or illegitimate children as long as either of their parents is Filipino; if a child
is born under the 1973 or 1987 Constitution, and either his father or mother is a
Filipino citizen at the time the child is born, the child is a Filipino citizen no matter
where he may be born
2. Jus solibasis of place of birth
3. Through naturalization, or the legal act of adopting an alien and clothing him with the
privilege of a native born citizen.
Prior to the adoption of the 1935 Constitution, the Supreme Court applied the principle of jus
soli to determine the citizenship of persons who were born in the Philippines. Thus, in one case, it was
held that "all inhabitants of the Philippine Islands who were Spanish subjects on the 11th day of
April, 1899, and then resided in said islands and their children born subsequent thereto, shall be
deemed and held to be citizens of the Philippine Islands, except such as shall have elected to preserve
their allegiance to the Crown of Spain in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty of Peace
between the United States and Spain, signed in Paris, December tenth, 1898, and except such others
as have since become citizens of some other country."
The Supreme Court later abandoned this principle15 in favor of the principle of jus sanguinis.
It has been held, however, that the abandonment of the principle of jus soli did not, in certain cases,
divest those who have been conferred Philippine citizenship under the principle of res judicata. At
present, basic Philippine law follows the rule of jus sanguinis based on Section 1 (2) of Article IV of
the 1987 Constitution. The jus soli rule, on the other hand, is the one being used in countries like the
United States and Canada. iii

Constitutional I Reviewer (Midterm) by AJMM


PS: Suggested answers are based on the authors perspective culled from different sources cited below.

Page 4

Citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of the 1973 Constitution
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
VIII.

Those who are citizens of the Philippine islands at the time of the adoption of the
1935 Constitution
Those born in the Philippine Islands of foreign parents who, before the adoption of
this Constitution, had been elected to public office in the Philippine islands
Those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines
Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines and, upon reaching the age of
majority, elect the Philippine citizenshipgoverns those who are born before the
effectivity of the 1973 Constitution
Those who are naturalized in accordance with the law

Why does the state allows dual citizenship but not dual allegiance?
Section 5, Article IV of the 1987 Constitution provides, "Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to
national interest and shall be dealt with by law."
Dual Allegiance refers to the situation in which a person simultaneously owes, by some
positive act, loyalty to two or more states. It says that while dual citizenship is involuntary, dual
allegiance is the result of an individual's volition.iv
Notes:
Philippine citizenship is a gift that must be deserved to be retained. The Philippines, for
all her modest resources compared to those of other states, is a jealous and possessive mother
demanding total love and loyalty from her children."

IX.

Why is the state immune from suit?

Ans. The immunity of the State from suit, known also as the doctrine of sovereign immunity or
non-suability of the State, is expressly provided in Article XVI of the 1987 Constitution.
Section 3. The State may not be sued without its consent.
The immunity from suit is based on the political truism that the State, as a sovereign, can
do no wrong.
Notes:
Moreover, as the eminent Justice Holmes said in Kawananakoa v. Polyblank that, A
sovereign is exempt from suit, not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory, but
on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal right as against the authority
that makes the law on which the right depends.
Practical considerations dictate the establishment of an immunity from suit in favor of the
State. Otherwise, and the State is suable at the instance of every other individual, government
service may be severely obstructed and public safety endangered because of the number of suits
that the State has to defend against.[8] Several justifications have been offered to support the
adoption of the doctrine in the Philippines, but that offered in Providence Washington Insurance
Co. v. Republic of the Philippines[9] is the most acceptable explanation, according to Father
Bernas, a recognized commentator on Constitutional Law,[10] to wit:
Constitutional I Reviewer (Midterm) by AJMM
PS: Suggested answers are based on the authors perspective culled from different sources cited below.

Page 5

[A] continued adherence to the doctrine of non-suability is not to be deplored for as


against the inconvenience that may be caused private parties, the loss of governmental efficiency
and the obstacle to the performance of its multifarious functions are far greater if such a
fundamental principle were abandoned and the availability of judicial remedy were not thus
restricted. With the well-known propensity on the part of our people to go to court, at the least
provocation, the loss of time and energy required to defend against law suits, in the absence of
such a basic principle that constitutes such an effective obstacle, could very well be imagined.
An unincorporated government agency without any separate juridical personality of its
own enjoys immunity from suit because it is invested with an inherent power of sovereignty.
Accordingly, a claim for damages against the agency cannot prosper; otherwise, the doctrine of
sovereign immunity is violated.[11] However, the need to distinguish between an unincorporated
government agency performing governmental function and one performing proprietary functions
has arisen. The immunity has been upheld in favor of the former because its function is
governmental or incidental to such function;[12] it has not been upheld in favor of the latter
whose function was not in pursuit of a necessary function of government but was essentially a
business.v
X.

How the state can be sued?


Ans. The States' consent may be given either expressly or impliedly. Express consent may be
made through a general law or a special law. In this jurisdiction, the general law waiving the
immunity of the state from suit is found in Act. No. 3083, where the Philippine government
'consents and submits to be sued upon any money claim involving liability arising from contract,
express or implied, which could serve as a basis of civil actions between private parties.' Implied
consent, on the other, is conceded when the State itself commences limitation, thus opening itself
to a counter-claim, or when it enters into a contract."

XI.

What is the difference between liability and suability?


Ans. Suability does not necessarily mean liability on the part of the particular instrumentality or
agency of the government; hence
"When the State gives its consent to be sued, it does not thereby necessarily consent to an
unrestrained execution against it. Tersely put, when the State waives its immunity, all it does, in
effect, is to give the other party an opportunity to prove, if it can, that the State has a liability. In
Republic vs. Villasor this Court, in nullifying the issuance of an alias writ of execution directed
against the funds of the Armed Forces of the Philippines to satisfy a final and executory judgment,
has explained, thus - "
The universal rule that where the State gives its consent to be sued by private parties
either by general law or special law, it may limit claimant's action 'only up to the completion of
proceedings anterior to the stage of execution' and that the power of the Court ends when the
judgment is rendered, since government funds and properties may not be seized under writs of
execution or garnishment to satisfy such judgments, is based on obvious considerations of public
policy.
Disbursements of public funds must be covered by the corresponding appropriation as
required by law. The functions and public services rendered by the State cannot be allowed to be

Constitutional I Reviewer (Midterm) by AJMM


PS: Suggested answers are based on the authors perspective culled from different sources cited below.

Page 6

paralyzed or disrupted by the diversion of public funds from their legitimate and specific objects,
as appropriated by law."
XII.
XIII.

What is the rule on money claims in relation to...


What is the doctrine of civilian supremacy?
Ans. Sec 3. Civilian authority is, at all times, supreme over the military. The Armed Forces of the
Philippines is the protector of the people and the State. Its goal is to secure the sovereignty of the
State and the integrity of the national territory.
---------------Civilian authority/supremacy clause (1st sentence)
Civilian authority simply means the supremacy of the law because authority, under our
constitutional system, can only come from law. Under this clause, the soldier renounces political
ambition.

XIV.

What are the requisites for the exercise of the power of judicial review?
Ans. The power of judicial review is subject to limitations, to wit:
1. There must be an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power;
2. The person challenging the act must have the standing to question the validity of the subject
act or issuance; otherwise stated, he must have a personal and substantial interest in the case
such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result of its enforcement;
3. The question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity; andt
4. The issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case. (Lis mota literally means
"the cause of the suit or action.")vi
Notes:
This requisite of lis mota rule of judicial review is simply an offshoot of the presumption of
validity accorded the executive and legislative acts of our co-equal branches of the government.
Ultimately, it is rooted in the principle of separation of powers. Given the presumed validity of an
executive act, the petitioner who claims otherwise has the burden of showing first that the case
cannot be resolved unless the constitutional question he raised is determined by the Court.vii
Advisory Opinion A case becomes an advisory opinion when there is no actual case and
controversy that demands constitutional construction for its resolution. This may take the form of
declaratory relief. It is not wise for the court to engage in an advisory opinion because: a) This only
leads to dialectics, to abstract legal arguments and sterile conclusions [Laurel quoting
Frankfurter]b) The judicial function is impoverished since it thrives on facts that draw out the
meaning of the law.
Mootness A case becomes moot when there are facts, injuries and heated arguments but
for some reason the legal problem has become stale. When a case is moot and academic, it ceases
to be a case and controversy. Any decision reached by the court would not be conclusive on the
parties. Exceptions to mootness: 1) If the question is capable of repetition and evasive of review.

Constitutional I Reviewer (Midterm) by AJMM


PS: Suggested answers are based on the authors perspective culled from different sources cited below.

Page 7

2) If there exists a mere possibility of collateral legal consequences if the court does not act. 3)
Voluntary cessation from the wrongful act by the defendant, if he is free to return to his old ways.
Ripeness A constitutional question may come to the court either too early or
prematurely, so that it is still abstract (advisory opinion), or too late, so that the court's decision
would no longer affect the parties (mootness). The court must resolve constitutional issues only
when they come to it at the right time (ripeness).
No Standing A party has a standing in a case if his interest is such that he stands to be
benefited if the case is resolved in his favor, and he stand to be really injured if it is decided
against him. Standing is established by two nexuses: the party's status and the type of legislative
act being questioned, or his status and the precise nature of the constitutional infringement. The
test of standing is whether the party has alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the
controversy as to assure such concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues
upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions
(Baker v Carr, supra.)A person has standing to challenge the governmental act only if he has a
personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct
injury as a result of its enforcement. (People v. Vera, infra.)
XV.

What is a political question and justiciable question?


Ans. An issue is a political question when it does not deal with the interpretation of a law and its
application to a case, but with the very wisdom of the law itself. When a judge attempts to resolve
a political question, he is not exercising a judicial function, but is rather supplanting his
conscience to that of the political branch of the government.
Political Question has two (2) aspects, namely:
1. Those questions which, under the Constitution are to be decided by the people in their
sovereign capacity,
2. In regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislature or
executive branches of government viii
Meantime, a justiciable question is one which is a definite and concrete dispute touching
on the legal interest which may be resolved by a court of law through the application of a law.ix
Notes:
As Taada v. Cuenco puts it, political questions refer 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.
Thus, if an issue is clearly identified by the text of the Constitution as matters for discretionary
action by a particular branch of government or to the people themselves then it is held to be a
political question.x
As a general proposition, a controversy is justiciable if it refers to a matter which is
appropriate for court review. It pertains to issues which are inherently susceptible of being
decided on grounds recognized by law. Nevertheless, the Court does not automatically assume
jurisdiction over actual constitutional cases brought before it even in instances that are ripe for

Constitutional I Reviewer (Midterm) by AJMM


PS: Suggested answers are based on the authors perspective culled from different sources cited below.

Page 8

resolution. One class of cases wherein the Court hesitates to rule on are political questions. The
reason is that political questions are concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not the
legality, of a particular act or measure being assailed. Moreover, the political question being a
function of the separation of powers, the courts will not normally interfere with the workings of
another co-equal branch unless the case shows a clear need for the courts to step in to uphold the
law and the Constitution.xi
XVI.

What is the doctrine of operative fact?


Ans. Under the general rule, a void law or an administrative act cannot be the source of legal
rights or duties. However, the doctrine of operative fact is an exception to the general rule. Under
the doctrine, a judicial declaration of invalidity may not necessarily eliminate all the effects and
consequences of a void act prior to such declaration.
Notes:
Prior to the declaration of nullity, such challenged legislative or executive act must have
been in force and had to be complied with as they were presumed to be valid. Only the courts can
declare a law invalid, and without such declaration, taxpayers would have had no other choice but
to follow the existing rules or in this case the practice of filing the judicial claim within the twoyear period.
In the case of Yap v. Thenamaris Ships Management, the Operative Fact Doctrine was
discussed in that:
As a general rule, 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 has not been passed at
all. 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 be excused by disuse or custom or practice to the contrary.
The doctrine of operative fact serves as an exception to the aforementioned general rule.
In Planters Products, Inc. v. Fertiphil Corporation, the Supreme Court held that:
The doctrine of operative fact, as an exception to the general rule, only applies as a matter
of equity and fair play. It nullifies the effects of an unconstitutional law by recognizing that the
existence of a statute prior to a determination of unconstitutionality is an operative fact and may
have consequences which cannot always be ignored. 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 who have relied on the invalid law. Thus, it was applied to a
criminal case when a declaration of unconstitutionality would put the accused in double jeopardy
or would put in limbo the acts done by a municipality in reliance upon a law creating it.

XVII.

What is social justice?


Ans. According to the Constitution, social justice is principally the embodiment of the principle
that those who have less in life should have more in law. The 1987 Constitution also advances
beyond what was in previous Constitutions in that it seeks not only economic social justice but
also political social justice.

Constitutional I Reviewer (Midterm) by AJMM


PS: Suggested answers are based on the authors perspective culled from different sources cited below.

Page 9

Note:
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 ensure economic stability of all the component 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 extraconstitutionally, through the exercise of powers underlying the existence of all governments on the
time-honored principle of salus populi est supremo lex. (This is based on words of Justice Jose P.
Laurel on the landmark case of Calalang vs. Williams, 70 Phil. 726 (1940), which dealt on the
issue of police power for public welfare)
XVIII.

What is intergenerational responsibility doctrine?


Ans. In the case of Oposan v. Factoran, the basic principles stated in the concept of intergenerational responsibility states that:
Essentially, the principle means that we hold the natural resource treasures of the earth in
trust for the benefit, enjoyment and use of the generations of humankind yet to come. It is
therefore a trust endowed upon us as trustee and depository to use and enjoy. While our
generation has the right to use the earth s resources, as a trustee and depository, we are also
duty bound not to misuse or exhaust it, so that those of our species to come in much later years
will still have something to use. This, in simple terms is the meaning of sustainable development,
using natural resources without exhausting them.
This concept was tested in the legal forum in the Philippines. On July 30, 1993, one year
after the Earth Summit that produced Agenda 21, the Philippine Supreme Court had the occasion
to rule on the legal standing of children to sue before a court of law on a question of nationwide
significance of the issue of deforestation.

XIX.

What is the doctrine of separation of powers?


Ans. The doctrine of separation of powers conveys the idea of grouping the powers of
government into three classes and of their apportionment among three coordinate departments,
separate from and independent of each other (Aristotle in his treatise on Politics).
In essence, the separation of powers means that the making of the laws belongs to
Congress, the execution of the laws is to the executive and the settlement of controversies rests in
the Judiciary. Each is prevented from invading the domain of the others. The purpose of the
separation of powers is to prevent concentration of authority in one department and thereby
avoid tyranny.
The separation of powers however should not be interpreted as complete separation and
absolute exclusion. The doctrine carries that although the three branches are not subject to the
control by either of the others and each is supreme within its own sphere, they are still equal and
coordinate. Equal because they all derive their powers from the same common sovereign through
the constitution. And coordinate because they cannot simply ignore the acts done by other
departments as nugatory and not binding.xii

Constitutional I Reviewer (Midterm) by AJMM


PS: Suggested answers are based on the authors perspective culled from different sources cited below.

Page 10

Notes:
This doctrine is being carried out until this modern day that it is now incorporated in the
constitutions of many states. Among which is the United States of America where in Kilbourne vs.
Thompson, 103 US 168, 190, 25L.ed. 377, the SC ruled that:
The separation of powers operates to maintain the legislative powers to the legislative
department, executive powers to the executive department, and those which are judicial in
character to the judiciary. Through this allocation of powers, the person entrusted shall not be
permitted to encroach upon the power confided to the others, but that each shall, by the law of its
creation, be limited to the exercise of the powers appropriate to its own department and no other.
There must be independence and equity of the several departments.xiii
XX.

What is taxpayer suit?

Ans. A taxpayer suit is a case where the act complained of directly involves the illegal
disbursement of public funds derived from taxation. In a nutshell, a taxpayer is allowed to sue
where there is a claim that public funds are illegally disbursed, or that public money is being
deflected to any improper purpose, or that there is wastage of public funds through
the
enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law.
A person suing as a taxpayer, however, must show that the act complained of directly
involves the illegal disbursement of public funds derived from taxation. For a taxpayer's
suit
to prosper, two requisites must be met. These include:

public funds derived from taxation are disbursed by a political subdivision or


instrumentality and in doing so, a law is violated or some irregularity is committed
the petitioner is directly affected by the alleged actxiv

Notes:
Requisites for a Taxpayers Petition
That money is being extracted and spent in violation of specific constitutional protections
against abuses of legislative power;
That public money is being deflected to any improper purpose;
That the petitioner seeks to restrain respondents from wasting public funds through the
enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional lawxv
Sources:
1. CRUZ, supra note 6, at 376.
J. Bernas, The 1987 Constitution Of The Republic Of The Philippines: A Commentary
iii 1. CRUZ, supra note 6, at 376.
iv http://ustlawreview.com/pdf/vol.XLIX/Articles/Philippine_Citizenship.pdf
v http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/02/18/the-immunity-of-the-state-from-suit-known-also-as-the-doctrineof-sovereign-immunity-or-non-suability-of-the-state-is-expressly-provided-in-article-xvi-of-the-1987-constitution/
vi http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_191560_2011.html
vii https://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/when-questions-of-constitutional-significance-are-raised-thecourt-can-exercise-its-power-of-judicial-review-only-if-the-requisites-are-present/#_ftn32
viii Tanada v. Cuenco,100 Phil 1101
ix (Cataran v. DENR, GR No. 134958, January 3, 2001)
i

ii

Constitutional I Reviewer (Midterm) by AJMM


PS: Suggested answers are based on the authors perspective culled from different sources cited below.

Page 11

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/aug2000/141284.htm
ibid
xii http://politicsandgovernance.blogspot.com/2010/06/doctrine-of-separation-of-powers.html
xiii ibid
xiv http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013aprildecisions.php?id=326
xv http://www.scribd.com/doc/48941920/TAXPAYERS-SUIT
x

xi

Constitutional I Reviewer (Midterm) by AJMM


PS: Suggested answers are based on the authors perspective culled from different sources cited below.

Page 12

Potrebbero piacerti anche