Question 1.

Nature of the Constitution: Constitutional Supremacy (2004) (10-a)

BNN Republic has a defense treaty with EVA Federation. According to the Republic's Secretary of Defense, the treaty allows temporary basing of
friendly foreign troops in case of training exercises for the war on terrorism. The Majority Leader of the Senate contends that whether temporary or not, the
basing of foreign troops however friendly is prohibited by the Constitution of BNN which provides that, "No foreign military bases shall be allowed in BNN
territory." In case there is indeed an irreconcilable conflict between a provision of the treaty and a provision of the Constitution, in a jurisdiction and legal system
like ours, which should prevail: the provision of the treaty or of the Constitution? Why? Explain with reasons, briefly. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

In case of conflict between a provision of a treaty and a provision of the Constitution, the provision of the Constitution should prevail. Section 5(2)(a), Article
VIII of the 1987 Constitution authorizes the nullification of a treaty when it conflicts with the Constitution. (Gonzales v. Hechanova, 9 SCRA 230 [1963]).

Question 1.1 Constitutionality v Unconstitutionality 2014

In Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc., 582 SCRA 254 (2009), the Supreme Court declared as violative of the Equal Protection Clause the 5th paragraph of
§10 R.A. No. 8042 (Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995) for discriminating against illegally dismissed OFWs who still had mo re than a year to
their contract compared to those who only had less than a year remaining. The next year, Congress enacted R.A. No 10222, an amendment to the Migrant
Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act, which practically reinstated the provision struck down in Serrano. Seamacho, an overseas seafarer who still had two years
remaining on his contract when he was illegally terminated, and who would only be entitled to a maximum of six-month’s pay under the reinstated provision,
engages you as his counsel. How are you to argue that the new law is invalid insofar as it brings back to the statute books a provision that has already been struck
down by the Court? (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER

I will argue that since Section 10 of RA No. 8042 has already been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, its nullity cannot be cured by reincorporation
or reenactment of the same or a similar law or provision. Once a law has been declared unconstitutional, it remains unconstitutional unless circumstances have so
changed as to warrant a reverse conclusion (Sameer Overseas Placement Agency vs Cabiles, GR No. 170139, August 5, 2014)

Question 2. Government Presidential Form vs. Parlimentary Form (Q6-2006)

1. a) What is the principal identifying feature of a presidential form of government? Explain. (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The principal identifying feature of a presidential form of government is embodied in the separation of powers doctrine. Each department of government
exercises powers granted to it by the Constitution and may not control, interfere with or encroach upon the acts done within the constitutional competence of the
others. However, the Constitution also gives each department certain powers by which it may definitely restrain the others from improvident action,
thereby maintaining a system of checks and balances among them, thus, preserving the will of the sovereign expressed in the Constitution.

1.b) What are the essential characteristics of a parliamentary form of government? (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The essential characteristics of a parliamentary form of government are: the fusion of the legislative and executive branches in parliament; the prime
minister, who is the head of government, and the members of the cabinet, are chosen from among the members of parliament and as such are accountable to the
latter; and the prime minister may be removed from office by a vote of loss of confidence of parliament. There may be a head of state who may or may not be
elected.

ARTICLE I National Territory

Question 3. Archipelagic Doctrine (1989) No. 20:

What do you understand by the archipelagic doctrine? Is this reflected in the 1987 Constitution?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The ARCHIPELAGIC DOCTRINE emphasizes the unity of land and waters by defining an archipelago either as a group of islands surrounded by waters or a
body of waters studded with islands. For this purpose, it requires that baselines be drawn by connecting the appropriate points of the "outermost islands to encircle
the islands within the archipelago. The waters on the landward side of the baselines regardless of breadth or dimensions are merely internal waters. Yes, the
archipelagic doctrine is reflected in the 1987 Constitution. Article I, Section 1 provides that the national territory of the Philippines includes the Philippine
archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced therein; and the waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their
breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines.

Question 4. Contiguous Zone vs. Exclusive Economic Zone (2a-2)

Distinguish: The contiguous zone and the exclusive economic zone.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

CONTIGUOUS ZONE is a zone contiguous to the territorial sea and extends up to 12 nautical miles from the territorial sea and over which the coastal state may
exercise control necessary to prevent infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations within its territory or territorial sea. (Article
33 of the Convention on the Law of the Sea.) The EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE is a zone extending up to 200 nautical miles from the baselines of a state
over which the coastal state has sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the natural resources, whether
living or nonliving, of the waters superjacent to the seabed and of the seabed and subsoil, and with regard to other activities for the economic exploitation and
exploration of the zone. (Articles 56 and 57 of the Convention on the Law of the Sea.)

Question 5. Exclusive Economic Zone; Rights of the Coastal State (1994) No. 11:

In the desire to improve the fishing methods of the fishermen, the Bureau of Fisheries, with the approval of the President, entered into a memorandum of
agreement to allow Thai fishermen to fish within 200 miles from the Philippine sea coasts on the condition that Filipino fishermen be allowed to use Thai fishing
equipment and vessels, and to learn modern technology in fishing and canning.

1) Is the agreement valid?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

1) No. the President cannot authorize the Bureau of Fisheries to enter into a memorandum of agreement allowing Thai fishermen to fish within the
exclusive economic zone of the Philippines, because the Constitution reserves to Filipino citizens the use and enjoyment of the exclusive economic zone
of the Philippines. Section 2. Article XII of the Constitution provides: “The State shall protect the nation's marine part in its archipelagic waters, territorial sea,
and exclusive economic zone, and reserve its use and enjoyment to Filipino citizens." Section 7, Article XIII of the Constitution provides: "The State shall protect
the rights of subsistence fishermen, especially of local communities, to the preferential use of the communal marine and fishing resources, both inland and
offshore. It shall provide support to such fishermen through appropriate technology and research, adequate financial, production, and marketing assistance, and
other services. The State shall also protect, develop, and conserve such resources. The protection shall extend to offshore fishing grounds of subsistence
fishermen against foreign intrusion. Fishworkers shall receive a just share from their labor in the utilization of marine and fishing resources.

Question 6. Exclusive Economic Zone; Rights of the Coastal State (Q1-2005)

(c) Enumerate the rights of the coastal state

in the exclusive economic zone. (3%)

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

In the EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE, the coastal State has sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the natural
resources, whether living or non-living, of the waters superjacent to the seabed and of the seabed and its subsoil, and with regard to other activities for the
economic exploitation and exploration of the zone, such as the production of energy from the water, currents and winds in an area not extending more than 200
nautical miles beyond the baseline from which the territorial sea is measured. Other rights include the production of energy from the water, currents and winds,
the establishment and use of artificial islands, installations and structures, marine scientific research and the protection and preservation of the marine
environment. (Art. 56, U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea)

Question 7. Flag State vs. Flag of Convenience (2004) (2-a-3)

Distinguish: The flag state and the flag of convenience.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

FLAG STATE means a ship has the nationality of the flag of the state it flies, but there must be a genuine link between the state and the ship. (Article 91 of the
Convention on the Law of the Sea.)
FLAG OF CONVENIENCE refers to a state with which a vessel is registered for various reasons such as low or non-existent taxation or low operating costs
although the ship has no genuine link with that state. (Harris, Cases and Materials on International Law, 5th ed., 1998, p. 425.)

Question 8.Territory & Government (1996)No. 8:

A law was passed dividing the Philippines into three regions (Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao), each constituting an independent state except on matters of
foreign relations, national defense and national taxation, which are vested in the Central government. Is the law valid? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The law dividing the Philippines into three regions, each constituting an independent state and vesting in a central government matters of foreign relations,
national defense, and national taxation, is unconstitutional. First, it violates Article I, which guarantees the integrity of the national territory of the Philippines
because it divided the Philippines into three states. Second, it violates Section 1, Article II of the Constitution, which provides for the establishment of
democratic and republic States by replacing it with three States organized as a confederation. Third, it violates Section 22, Article II of the Constitution, which,
while recognizing and promoting the rights of indigenous cultural communities, provides for national unity and development. Fourth, it violates Section 15,
Article X of the Constitution, which, provides for autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and in the Cordilleras within the framework of national sovereignty
as well as territorial integrity of the Republic of the Philippines. Fifth, it violates the sovereignty of the Republic of the Philippines.

Question 9. Territorial Sea vs. Internal Waters (2004)( 2-a-1)

Distinguish: The territorial sea and the internal waters of the Philippines.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

TERRITORIAL SEA is an adjacent belt of sea with a breadth of 12 nautical miles measured from the baselines of a state and over which the state has sovereignty.
(Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention on the Law of the Sea.) Ship of all states enjoy the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea. (Article 14 of the
Convention on the Law of the Sea.) Under Section 1, Article I of the 1987 Constitution, the INTERNAL WATERS of the Philippines consist of the waters around,
between and connecting the islands of the Philippine Archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, including the waters in bays, rivers and lakes. No
right of innocent passage for foreign vessels exists in the case of internal waters. (Harris, Cases and Materials on International Law, 5th ed., 1998, p. 407.)
Internal waters are the waters on the landward side of baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is calculated. (Brownlie, Principles of Public
International Law, 4th ed., 1990, p. 120.)

Question 9.1 Archipelagic Doctrine (2013)

No.VI. Congress passed Republic Act No. 7711 to comply with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. In a petition filed with the Supreme Court,
Anak Ti Ilocos, an association of Ilocano professionals, argued that Republic Act No. 7711discarded the definition of the Philippine territory under the
Treaty of Paris and in related treaties; excluded the Kalayaan Islands and the Scarborough Shoals from the Philippine Archipelagic baselines; and converted
internal waters into archipelagic waters. Is the petition meritorious? (6%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, the petition is not meritorious. UNCLOS has nothing to do with the acquisition (or loss) of territory. It merely regulates sea-use rights over maritime zones,
contiguous zones, exclusive economic zones, and continental shelves which it delimits. The Kalayaan Islands and the Scarborough Shoals are
located at an appreciable distance from the nearest shoreline of the Philippine archipelago. A straight baseline loped around them from the nearest baseline will
violate Article 47(3) and Article 47(2) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea III. Whether the bodies of water lying landward of the baselines of
the Philippines are internal waters or archipelagic waters, the Philippines retains jurisdiction over them (Magallona vs. Ermita, 655 SCRA 476).

Question 9.2 Archipelagic Doctrine (2009) No.I. b.

Under the archipelago doctrine, the waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago form part of the territorial sea of the archipelagic state.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

FALSE. Under Article I of the Constitution, The waters around, between and connecting the islands of the archipelago form part of the
INTERNAL WATERS. Under Article 49 (1) of the U.N. Convention on the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, these waters do not form part of the
territorial sea but are described as archipelagic waters.

ARTICLE XVII Amendments or Revisions

Question 10. People’s Initiative (2004)(4-b)

An amendment to or a revision of the present Constitution may be proposed by a Constitutional Convention or by the Congress upon a vote of three-fourths of all
its members. Is there a third way of proposing revisions of or amendments to the Constitution? If so, how? (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

There is no third way of proposing revisions to the Constitution; however, the people through initiative upon petition of at least twelve per cent of the total
number of registered, voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per cent of the registered voters in it, may directly
propose amendments to the Constitution. This right is not operative without an implementing law. (Section 2, Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution.)

Question 11. Amendments and Revisions; Modes (1997)No. 20:

State the various modes of, and steps in, revising or amending the Philippine Constitution.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

There are three modes of amending the Constitution.

1. Under Section 1, Article XVIII of the Constitution. Congress may by three-fourths vote of all its Members propose any amendment to or revision of
the Constitution.

2. Under the same provision, a constitutional convention may propose any amendment to or revision of the Constitution. According to Section 3, Article XVII of
the Constitution. Congress may by a two-thirds vote of all its Members call a constitutional convention or by a majority vote of all its Members submit the
question of calling such a convention to the electorate.

3. Under Section 2. Article XVII of the Constitution, the people may directly propose amendments to the Constitution through initiative upon a petition of
at least twelve per cent of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per cent of the
registered voters therein. According to Section 4, Article XVII of the Constitution, to be valid any amendment to or revision of the Constitution must be ratified
by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite.

Question 12. REFERENDUM vs. INITIATIVE (Q1-2005)

(a) The present Constitution introduced the concepts and processes of Initiative and Referendum. Compare and differentiate one from the other. (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

INITIATIVE is the power of the people to propose amendments to the Constitution or to propose and enact legislations through an election called for the purpose.
Under the 1987 Constitution, the people through initiative can propose amendments to the Constitution upon a petition of at least twelve per centum of the total
number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum of the registered voters therein. REFERENDUM
is the power of the electorate to approve or reject a legislation through an election called for the purpose. (Sec. 3, R.A. No. 6735 [1989]). On the other hand, the
Local Government Code (R.A. No. 7160) defines LOCAL INITIATIVE as the legal process whereby the registered voters of a local government unit may
directly propose, enact, or amend any ordinance (Sec. 120) and LOCAL REFERENDUM as the legal process whereby the registered voters of the local
government units may approve, amend or reject any ordinance enacted by the Sanggunian. (Sec. 126)

Question 12.1 People’s Initiative 2014

Several citizens, unhappy with the proliferation of families dominating the political landscape, decided to take matters into their own hands. They proposed to
come up with a people’s initiative defining political dynasties. They started a signature campaign for the purpose of coming up with a petition for that purpose.
Some others expressed misgivings about a people’s initiative for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution, however. They cited the Court’s
decision in Santiago v. Commission on Elections, 270 SCRA 106 (1997), as authority for their position that there is yet no enabling law for such purpose. On the
other hand, there are also those who claim that the individual votes of the justices in Lambino v. Commission on Elections, 505 SCRA 160 (2006), mean that
Santiago’s pronouncement has effectively been abandoned. If you were consulted by those behind the new attempt at a people’s initiative, how would you advise
them? (4%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER

I shall advise those starting a people’s initiative that initiative to pass a law defining political dynasties may proceed as their proposal is to enact a law only and
not to amend the Constitution. The decision in Santiago vs COMELEC, 270 SCRA 106 (1997), which has not been reversed, upheld the adequacy of the
provisions in R.A. 6735 on initiative to enact a law.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER

I shall advise those starting a people’s initiative that the ruling in Santiago vs COMELEC that there is as yet no enabling law for an initiative has not been
reversed. According to Section 4 (3), Article VIII of the Constitution, a doctrine of law laid down in a decision rendered by the Supreme Court en banc may not
be reversed except by it acting en banc. The majority opinion in Lambino vs COMELEC (505 SCRA 160 (2006), refused to re-examine the ruling in Santiago vs
COMELEC (270 SCRA 106 (1997)), because it was not necessary for deciding the case. The Justices who voted to reverse the ruling constituted the minority.

Question 13. State Immunity from Suit (2013)No.X.

The Ambassador of the Republic of Kafiristan referred to you for handling, the case of the Embassy's Maintenance Agreement with CBM, a private
domestic company engaged in maintenance work. The Agreement binds CBM, for a defined fee, to maintain the Embassy's elevators, air-conditioning units
and electrical facilities. Section 10 of the Agreement provides that the Agreement shall be governed by Philippine laws and that any legal action shall be
brought before the proper court of Makati. Kafiristan terminated the Agreement because CBM allegedly did not comply with their agreed maintenance
standards. CBM contested the termiination and filed a complaint against Kafiristan before the Regional Trial Court of Makati. The Ambassador wants
you to file a motion to dismiss on the ground of state immunity from suit and to oppose the position that under Section 10 of the Agreement, Kafiristan
expressly waives its immunity from suit. Under these facts, can the Embassy successfully invoke immunity from suit? (6%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, the Embassy can invoke immunity from suit. Section 10 of the Maintenance Agreement is not necessarily a waiver of sovereign immunity from suit. It was
meant to apply in case the Republic of Kafiristan elects to sue in the local courts or waives its immunity by a subsequent act. The establishment of a diplomatic
mission is a sovereign function. This encompasses its maintenance and upkeep. The Maintenance Agreement was in pursuit of a sovereign
activity (Republic of the Indonesia vs. Vinzon, 405 SCRA 126)

Question 14. State Immunity from Suit (2013) No.I.

In the last quarter of 2012, about 5,000 container vans of imported goods intended for the Christmas Season were seized by agents of the Bureau of Customs. The
imported goods were released only on January 10,2013. A group of importers got together and filed an action for damages before the Regional Trial Court of
Manila against the Department of Finance and the Bureau of Customs. The Bureau of Customs raised the defense of immunity from suit and, alternatively, that
liability should lie with XYZ Corp. which the Bureau had contracted for the ease of ten (10) high powered van cranes but delivered only five (5) of these cranes,
thus causing the delay in its cargo-handling operations. It appears that the Bureau, despite demand, did not pay XYZ Corp. The Php 1.0 Million deposit and
advance rental required under their contract.

(A) Will the action by the group of importers prosper? (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, the action of the group of importers will not prosper. The primary function of the Bureau of Customs is governmental, that of assessing and collecting lawful
revenues from imported articles and all other tariff and customs duties, fees, charges, fines and penalties (Mobil Philippines Exploration, Inc. vs. Customs
Arrastre Service, 18 SCRA 120).

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

No. The action by the group of importers will not prosper because the Supreme Court said that the Bureau of Customs, being an unincorporated agency without a
separate judicial personality, enjoys immunity from suit. It is invested with an inherent power of sovereignty, namely the power of taxation; it
performs governmental functions (Farolan v. Court of Tax Appeals, 217 SCRA 298)

Moreover, the Bureau of Customs is a part of the Department of Finance, with no personality of its own apart from that of the national government. Its primary
function is governmental, that of assessing and collecting lawful revenues from imported articles and all other tariff and customs duties, fees, charges,
fines, and penalties (Sec. 602, RA 1937). This clearly explains the reason why the Department of Finance also enjoys immunity from suit.

(B) Can XYZ Corp. sue the Bureau of Customs to collect rentals for the delivered cranes? (5'%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, XYZ corporation cannot sue the Bureau of Customs to collect rentals for the delivered cranes. The contract was a necessary incident to the performance of its
governmental function. To properly collect the revenues and customs duties, the Bureau of Customs must check to determine if the declaration of the importers
tallies with the landed merchandise. The cranes are needed to haul the landed merchandise to a suitable place for inspection (Mobil
Philippines Exploration, Inc. vs. Customs Arrastre Service, 18 SCRA 120).
Question 15. State Immunity from Suit (2009)No. IV.

The Municipality of Pinatukdao is sued for damages arising from injuries sustained by a pedestrian who was hit by a glass pane that fell from a dilapidated
window frame of the municipal hall. The municipality files a motion to dismiss the complaint, invoking state immunity from suit. Resolve the motion with
reasons. (3%).

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

State immunity as defense will not prosper because under the law, a municipal corporation can be sued and be sued as expressly provided under the local
government code. Furthermore, under the civil code, it can also be held liable for damages for the death of, or injury suffered by, any person by reason of the
defective condition of roads, streets, bridges, public buildings and other public works under their control or supervision (art. 2189). In the present case, the
municipal building is under their control and supervision, thus, no immunity from suit

2015

Question 16. Constitutionality 2015

The Philippines and the Republic of Kroi Sha established diplomatic relations and immediately their respective Presidents signed the following: (1) Executive
Agreement allowing the Republic of Kroi Sha to establish its embassy and consular offices within Metro Manila; and (2) Executive Agreement allowing the
Republic of Kroi Sha to bring to the Philippines its military complement, warships, and armaments from time to time for a period not exceeding one month for the
purpose of training exercises with the Philippine military forces and exempting from Philippine criminal jurisdiction acts committed in the line of duty by foreign
military personnel, and from paying custom duties on all the goods brought by said foreign forces into Philippine territory in connection with the holding of the
activities authorized under the said Executive Agreement. Senator Maagap questioned the constitutionality of the said Executive Agreements and demanded that
the Executive Agreements be submitted to the Senate for ratification pursuant to the Philippine Constitution. Is Senator Maagap correct? Explain. (4%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Senator Maagap is correct in so far as the second Executive Agreement is concerned. The first Executive Agreement is in such a nature that such need not be
concurred in by the Senate. In Bayan Muna v. Romulo, the right of the Executive to enter into binding agreements without the necessity of subsequent
congressional approval has been confirmed by long usage. From the earliest days of our history, we have entered executive agreements covering such subjects as
commercial and consular relations, most favored nation rights, patent rights trademark and copyright protection, postal and navigation arrangements and the
settlement of claims. However, for the second Executive Agreement which is in the nature of an International agreements involving political issues or changes on
national policy and those involving international arrangements of a permanent character, is deemed as a treaty (Commissioner of Customs v. Eastern Sea Trading),
in which case must be concurred in by the Senate (Section 21, Article VI, 1987 Constitution). Hence Senator Maagap is only correct as regards the second
Executive Agreement which must be submitted for the concurrence of the Senate.

Question 17. UNCLOS 2015

(1) A bill was introduced in the House of Representatives in order to implement faithfully the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS) to which the Philippines is a signatory. Congressman Pat Rio Tek questioned the constitutionality of the bill on the ground that the provisions of
UNCLOS are violative of the provisions of the Constitution defining the

Philippine internal waters and territorial sea. Do you agree or not with the said objection? Explain. (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, the objection is not tenable. UNCLOS has nothing to do with the redefinition of our territory. It merely regulates sea-use rights
over maritime zones, contiguous zones, exclusive economic zones, and continental shelves which it delimits. Whether the bodies of water lying landward of the
baselines of the Philippines are internal waters or archipelagic waters, the Philippines retains jurisdiction over them (Magallona v. Ermita, GR No. 187167, July
16, 2011, 655 SCRA 476).

(2) Describe the following maritime regimes under UNCLOS (4%)

(a) Territorial sea

(b) Contiguous zone

(c) Exclusive economic zone

(d) Continental shelf

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(a) Territorial sea – is the belt of waters adjacent to the coasts of the State, excluding internal waters in bays and gulfs, over which the state claims sovereignty and
jurisdiction and which is 12 nautical miles from the baseline.

(b)Contiguous zone – is that belt of waters measured 24 nautical miles from the same baseline used to measure the breadth of the territorial sea. In this zone, the
coastal state may exercise the control necessary to
i) Prevent infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations within its territory or territorial sea.

ii) Punish infringement of the above laws and regulations committed within its territory or territorial sea (Article 53, UNCLOS)

(c) Exclusive Economic Zone is an area beyond and adjacent to the territorial sea, over which a state has special rights over the exploration and utilization of
marine resources. It shall not extend beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured. In case of
archipelagic states, its breadth shall be measured from the archipelagic baseline (Article 57, 58, 48, UNCLOS)

(d)Continental shelf - The continental shelf of a coastal State comprises the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas that extend beyond its territorial sea
throughout the natural prolongation of its land territory to the outer edge of the continental margin, or to a distance of 200 nautical miles from the baselines from
which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured where the outer edge of the continental margin does not extend up to that distance (Article 76, UNCLOS).

2016

Question 18. Ecological Provision of Article II 2016

Several concerned residents of the areas fronting Manila Bay, among them a group of students who are minors, filed a suit against the Metro Manila
Development · Authority (MMDA), the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), the Department of Health (DOH), the Department of
Agriculture (DA), the Department of Education (DepEd), the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG), and a number of other executive agencies,
asking the court to order them to perform their duties relating to the cleanup, rehabilitation and protection of Manila Bay. The complaint alleges that the continued
neglect by defendants and their failure to prevent and abate pollution in Manila Bay constitute a violation of the petitioners' constitutional right to life, health and
a balanced ecology.

[a] If the defendants assert that the students/petitioners who are minors do not

have locus standi to file the action, is the assertion correct? Explain your answer. (2.5%)

[b] In its decision which attained finality, the Court ordered the defendants to clean up, rehabilitate and sanitize Manila Bay within eighteen (18) months, and to
submit to the Court periodic reports of their accomplishment, so that the Court can monitor and oversee the activities undertaken by the agencies in compliance
with the Court's directives. Subsequently, a resolution was issued extending the time periods within which the agencies should comply with the directives covered
by the final decision. A view was raised that the Court's continued intervention after the case has been decided violates the doctrine of separation of powers
considering that the government agencies all belong to the Executive Department and are under the control of the President. Is this contention correct? Why or
why not? (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

[A] The assertion that the students/ petitioners who are minors have no locus standi is errorneous. Pursuant to the obligation of the State under Section 16, Article
II if the Constitution to protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature, minor
have standing to sue based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility (Oposa v. Factoran, 224 SCRA 792 [1993]).

[B] The order of the Supreme Court to the defendants to clean up, rehabilitate and sanitize Manila Bay is an exercise of judicial power, because the execution of
its decision is an integral part of its adjudicative function. Since the submission of periodic reports is needed to fully implement the decision, the Supreme Court
can issue writ of mandamus to the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority until full compliance with its order is shown. (Metropolitan Manila Development
Authority v. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay, 643 SCRA 90 [2011])

Question 19. Archipelagic Doctrine and Regimes of Islands

[a] Define the archipelagic doctrine of national territory, state its rationale; and explain how it is implemented through the straight baseline method. (2.5%)

[b] Section 2 of RA 9522 declared the Kalayaan Island Group (KIG) and Scarborough Shoal as "Regimes of Islands." Professor Agaton contends that since the
law did not enclose said islands, then the Philippines lost its sovereignty and jurisdiction over them. Is his contention correct? Explain. (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

[a] By the term “archipelagic doctrine of national territory” is meant that the islands and waters of the Philippine archipelago are unified in sovereignty, together
with “all the territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction. This archipelagic doctrine, so described under Article I of the Constitution,
draws its rationale from the status of the whole archipelago in sovereignty by which under Part IV of the UNCLOS the Philippines is defined as an Achipelagic
State in Article 46, thus: (a) “Archipelagic state” means a state constituted wholly nu one or more archipelagos and may include other islands; (b) “Archipelago”
means group of islands including parts of islands interconnecting waters and other natural features which are so closely interrelated that such islands waters and
other natural features form an intrinsic geographic, economic and political entity, or which historically have been regarded as such. As an archipelagic state, the
national territory is implemented by drawing its “straight archepelagic baselines” pursuant to Article 47 of UNCLOS which prescribes among its main elements,
as follows: 1. By “joining the outermost points of the outermost islands and drying reefs of the archipelago”, including the main islands and an area in which the
ratio of the area of the water to the land including atolls, is between 1 to 1 and 9 to 1. 2. Mainly, the length of such baselines “ shall not exceed 100 nautical
miles…” 3. “The drawing of such baselines shall not depart to any appreciable extent from the general configuration of the archipelago.”

[b] The contention of Prof. Agaton is not correct at all. “Regime of islands” is a concept provided in Article 121 of the UNCLOS. It is a definition of the island as
“a naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water which is above water at high tide.” On the other hand, this provision is differentiated from “rocks” which
cannot sustain human habitation of their own. The importance of the difference between a natural island and rock is that an island is provided with territorial sea,
exclusive economic zone and continental shelf. This is the difference by which RA 9522 introduced into the KIG and separately Panatag or Scarborough Shoal is
an island. “Regime of Islands”, has no relevance to acquisition or loss of sovereignty. RA 9522 has the effect of possibility dividing the area in question into
island and rocks, apparently to make clear for each the maritime zones involved in the definition of island or of rocks.

2017

Question 20. Article XVII: Amendments and Revision

A priority thrust of the Administration is the change of the form of government from unitary to federal. The change can be effected only through constitutional
amendment or revision.

(a) What are the methods of amending the Constitution? Explain briefly each method. (3%)

(b) Cite at least three provisions of the Constitution that need to be amended or revised to effect the change from unitary to federal, and briefly explain why? (3%)

Suggested Answers:

(a) The following are the methods of amending the Constitution:

(i) By Constitutional Convention, where Article XVII, Section 3 of the Constitution states, "The Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of all its Members, call a
constitutional convention, or by a majority vote of all its Members, submit to the electorate the question of calling such a convention." Both houses shall vote
separately, and the members includes all those within the jurisdiction of the Congress.

(ii) By Constitutional Assembly, composed of all members of the bicameral Philippine Congress (Senate and the House of Representatives). It is convened by
Congress to propose amendments to the 1987 constitution.

Under Article XVII of the Constitution of the Philippines, amendments pass upon a vote of three fourths of all members of Congress, but it is not clear if the
Congress should vote as a single body or as separate houses.

(iii) Amendments to the Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum of the total
number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum of the registered votes therein. No amendment
under this section shall be authorized within five years following the ratification of this Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter.

(b) The following Constitutional provisions that should be amended to effect the change from unitary to federal are:

(i) Section 1, Article II which states, "The Philippines is a Democratic and Republican State, sovereignty resides in the people and all government authorities
emanates from them"; This provision should be amended and the phrase “Democratic and Republican state” should be changed into Federal Democratic State.

(ii) Section 1, Article VI which states, "The Legislative Department shall be composed of the House of Senate and the House of Representatives"; The Bicameral
composition of the Legislative department should transformed into a Unicameral system.

(iii) Section 1, Article VII which states that, "Executive powers shall be vested to the President"; There shall be a local government as may provided by law"; In
this provision, the executive powers should reside into a Prime Minister selected from the members of the parliament.

Question 21. Article XVI, Section 3: State Immunity from Suit

A. 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.
(3%)
B. 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. (3%)

C. Do government-owned or -controlled corporations also enjoy the immunity of the State from suit? Explain your answer. (3%)

Suggested answers:

(A) 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.

(B) 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.

(C) 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