CONSTITUTIONAL LAW EXAMS

MIDTERMS I. Mr. X owns a parcel of land located near the construction site of a bridge being built by the government. His land was used by the government as storage of heavy equipment and construction materials urgently needed to finish the bridge project. Mr. X objected to the use of his land. Meantime, the project was finished and the government abandoned the land of Mr. X. Is Mr. X entitled to just compensation under the power of eminent domain? !plain. II. Mr. " is one of the owners of private memorial par#s in Iloilo $ity. %n &anuary '(, )**+, the $ity ,overnment of Iloilo in the e!ercise of police power passed an ordinance requiring all private cemeteries to reserve at least '** square meters of their cemeteries or par#s for the burial of poor persons. a. Is the ordinance a valid e!ercise of police power? !plain b. Is Mr. " entitled to just compensation? !plain. III. a. -hat are the essential characteristics of .olice .ower? b. -hat are the similarities and differences of the / fundamental powers of the state? I0. 1he $ity ,overnment of Iloilo passed an ordinance regulating the entry of provincial utility vehicles within city territorial limits in order to solve the traffic problems. Mr. 2, a brilliant law student filed a casein court through his lawyer questioning the constitutionality of the ordinance. -ill the case prosper? !plain. 0. !plain the procedure and mode of amending the constitution. '. ).

FINALS -hat are the tests to determine the validity of a police measure? !plain. 1he $ity ,overnment of Iloilo entered into a contract of 3ease with Mr. 2 for the use of his land as garbage dumpsite in '444 for a period of five years yearly rental of .hp '**.** per square meter. 5pon the e!piration of the lease, Mr. X refused to renew the contract of lease but the $ity ,overnment needed the property as permanent garbage dumpsite, so the latter decided to e!propriate the land invo#ing its power of eminent domain, in the year )**6. the fair mar#et value of the land in '444 was .hp '**.** per square meter while it increased to .hp 7** per square meter in )**6. -hat should be the just compensation for the land per square meter of Mr. X? !plain. -hat is double ta!ation? Is it prohibited by the $onstitution? -hat are the limitations on the power of ta!ation? $ommissioner X was an 8ssociate $ommissioner of the $%M 3 $. 5pon the appointment of the $hairman of $%M 3 $ to another position, he was designated as 8cting $hairman until a new chairman is appointed by the .resident. Is the appointment proper? 9iscuss your answer. -hat are the positions in the civil service which do not require competitive e!aminations as requirement for appointment? 9efine each of them. 1he .resident issued an !ecutive %rder reorgani;ing the <ureau of $ustoms and reclassified the position titles and qualification requirements in the same agency. 9espite this reorgani;ation the number of plantilla positions remained the same. -hat are the powers and functions of the $ommission on lections? -hat is the concept of =security of tenure>? 9iscuss.

/. 6. 7.

(.

:.

0I. -hat are the essential parts of a written constitution? 0II. +. 4.

CONSTITUTIONAL

as a statute is an operative fact that should be recogni;ed in order to protect vested rights. 1his means that certain rights and LAW ANSWERS obligations created while the statute was still valid should be protected and respected.

'. 2 ?. 8rticle I of the '4+: $onstitution provides among others that the national territory of the .hilippines comprises the .hilippine archipelago and that the waters between, around and connecting the islands form part of the internal waters. 1his is an e!press manifestation that we are adopting the archipelagic doctrine which considers the whole group of islands as one integrated unit. In the case at bar, the foreign vessel was caught between the islands of <ohol and ?iquijor Islands which are part of the archipelago. 1he waters between the islands are considered internal waters. 1herefore, the sei;ure of the foreign vessel is in accord with the $onstitution. ). @%.

In the case at bar, while more than '* years elapsed since the loan of X matured C'466 to '474D, the period when the 9ebt Moratorium 3aw was still in effect C'467 to '47/D should be e!cluded from the computation of the prescriptive period. -hile it is true that the law was subsequently declared unconstitutional in '47/, the creditor, .@<, cannot be e!pected to file the case because the 9ebt Moratorium 3aw prohibited the ban# from doing so. 1herefore, the case should prosper.

1he ?upreme $ourt in the case of 9umlao v. 6. @o. $%M 3 $ enumerated the following requisites before the courts can e!ercise 1he .resident e!ercises control over all judicial inquiryA departments, bureaus and offices in the a. 1here must be an actual case of e!ecutive department. In view of this power controversyB of control the heads of the departments, b. 1he case must be filed by the proper bureaus and offices are merely his alter partyB egos and any decision or act of these heads c. $onstitutional question must be raised are considered the acts of the .resident at the earliest opportunityB unless he alters, modifies or sets them d. $onstitutional question must be aside. 1his is also #nown as the qualified necessary in the determination of the political agency doctrine. case itself. In the case at bar, the act of the ?ecretary of In the case at bar, there was no actual case 8griculture is considered the act of the filed against Mr. X to justify the .resident. 1he !ecutive ?ecretary had no constitutional challenge. He is not yet the business modifying the ?ecretaryEs decision proper party because he has not applied as unless directed by the .resident himself. a candidate. It follows that the case for 1herefore, the appeal to the office of the prohibition is premature. .resident was not proper. 1he proper 1herefore, the case filed by Mr. X should be remedy is to notify the .resident of the dismissed for failure to comply with the ?ecretaryEs decision and itEs up to him requisites of judicial inquiry. whether to reverse, alter or modify the same. /. 1he motion for dismissal filed by Mr. X should be dismissed. 7. 1he contention of Mr. 8 is not correct. 1he ?upreme $ourt in several cases ruled that when a statute is declared unconstitutional, its e!istence and operation 1he ?upreme $ourt in the case 9ivision of $ity ?chools v. ?an 9iego, ruled that a person who invo#es the right to quality

education must prove that he is adequately prepared and has the potential or promise to pursue his chosen profession. 1he right of the state and educational institutions to regulate and set standards before a person can qualify to pursue a certain profession is a valid e!ercise of police power and academic freedom of the institution. In the case at bar, Mr. 8 failed to prove that he is adequately prepared and has the potential to pursue the medical course because he failed to qualify in the @M81 not only once but three times.

still be committed by members of the armed forces. In the case at bar, $ol. $. was a member of the armed forces. He collaborated with the occupation forces voluntarily, a patent case of treason. 1herefore, the motion to dismiss filed by $ol. $ should be denied and the case filed against him should prosper.

1herefore, the case filed by Mr. 8 to allow him to ta#e the @M81 again should be dismissed. +. 1he act of the mayor is not proper. (. 1he contention of 8F. is correct. 8s a general rule, the state impliedly grants its consent to be sued when it enters into contract. However, the ?upreme $ourt in the case of 5?8 v. Hon. Gui;, ruled that this implied grant of consent only applies if the contract is commercial or business in nature. In other words, not all contracts entered into by the state give rise to implied consent to be sued In the case at bar, the 8F. is an agency of the government which enjoys sate immunity. 1he contest entered into was part of governmental function to repair its facilities and not proprietary in nature. 1he facility subject matter of the contract was not commercial in nature. %ne of the characteristics of a republican government is that we are government of laws and not of men. 1he acts of those in government from the highest to the lowest official, no matter how lofty the intentions are, should always be pursuant to the authority granted by the constitution, statute or ordinance. 1he act of the mayor in the case at bar was not authori;ed by law or ordinance. It is of no moment if his intention was to promote public morals and public health. 1hese lofty ideals must be translated into an enabling statute or ordinance before he can act in accordance with the limits set by the appropriate statute. 1herefore, the act of the mayor should be declared ultra vires or unconstitutional.

1herefore the case filed by Mr. < should be dismissed for failure to prove that the state 4. 1he contention of Mr. is not correct. gave its consent to be sued. 1he corollary doctrine of potestas delegata non delegare potest may only be violated if :. 1he contention of $ol. $ is not correct. the delegation of power allows one 8s a general rule, political laws or statutes department of government to e!ercise which are political in character are deemed powers which are lodged by the constitution abrogated or suspended when there is a to another department. 1hus, legislative, change or suspension if sovereignty. powers may not be delegated to the However, this rule does not apply to .resident, unless allowed by the enemies in arms or members of the armed constitution, nor e!ecutive powers be forces and only applies to civilian delegated to the legislative department. inhabitants. Members of the armed forces Gather may judicial powers be delegated or continue to be governed by the @ational e!ercised by the legislative or e!ecutive 9efense 8ct and other laws relating to departments. armed forces even during enemy In the case at bar, the questioned !ecutive occupation. In view of this, the crime of %rder delegates certain powers of the treason, although political in character can .resident to lower officials within the

e!ecutive department. 8s such, the concept of undue delegation cannot apply because the delegation of authority is within the department. 1herefore, the case challenging the validity of the delegation should be dismissed and set aside.