FINAL EXAM: Constitutional Law 1

1. The tenor of the text in Section 13(3), Article XI of the Constitution merely indicates a
“recommendatory” function of the Ombudsman. However, in Ombudsman vs. Quimbo and CA, (GR
No. 173277, Feb 25, 2015), it was held that the Ombudsman has the power to directly impose
administrative penalties against public officials or employees. What is the basis of this power?
Explain. Answer: The basis of the Ombudsman's power to directly impose administrative penalties
against public officials and employees is provided in RA No. 6770, otherwise known as The
Ombudsman's Act. of 1989

• 2. Republic Act No. 6770, otherwise known as The Ombudsman Act of 1989, provided for
the additional powers of the Ombudsman, apart from that found in the Constitution.
What is the constitutional basis of Congress to enact RA 6770 (Ombudsman Act)? Answer: The basis
of the Congress enacting RA6770 is the text in Art. XI, Sec. 13 saying that "and perform other
functions as provided by law"

• 3. a. What is the prerequisite for the creation of an autonomous region?

b. What is the constitutional basis of your answer.

• 4. a. What is Dominium? Answer: Dominium is the authority of the state to own and acquire
property

b. What is Imperium? Answer: Imperium Is the government authority as the state express in
concept of sovereignty

c. What is Jura Regalia or the Regalian Doctrine principle. Answer: The Regalian doctrine holds
that all minerals, coal, petroleum, etc. natural resources found in either public lands or private lands
are owned by the state.

d. What if any is the constitutional basis for this doctrine? Answer :The basis is Sec. 2 of Art. XII
stating that all public lands, waters. minerals, coal, petroleum, timber, fishes, and other natural
resources are owned by the state

• 5. How do you reconcile the Regalian Doctrine with the decision of the Court in Cruz v.
Secretary, GR 135385, December 6, 2000, where the constitutionality of the IPRA law was assailed.

• 6. In the bidding for the purchase of the GSIS shares in Manila Hotel, a foreign corporation
gave a higher bid. In Manila Prince Hotel vs GSIS, GR 122156, February 3, 1997, how did the Supreme
Court justify its award of the sale to a Filipino corporation. Answer: The SC justified its award to a
Filipino corporation over the foreign corporation stating that as the subject matter is a national
patrimony which is the Manila Hotel, a Filipino must be given preference even the foreign
corporation is more qualified, provided that the Filipino is qualified, hence it was awarded to the
Filipino corporation.

• 7. Inordinate delay can acquit a defendant who invokes his or her right to a speedy trial. In a
recent Supreme Court ruling, how is inordinate delay counted? When may the counting period to
determine if a case has dragged on for far too long start? Explain your answer.
• 8. Pursuant to Section 6, Article X of the 1987 Constitution, local government units shall have
a just share in the national taxes. Such just share is based from the internal revenue taxes collected
by the national government or what is called IRA. Is this correct? Explain.

• 9. How may the 1987 Constitution be amended or revised? Cite your basis.

The 1987 Constitution may be amended or revised by

1st step : proposal for amendment or revision

2nd step: review of the proposal of the provisions

• 10. Unlike under the 1935 and the 1973 Constitution, it is now necessary to distinguish an
amendment from a revision under the 1987 Constitution.

a. Why? Answer: because initiative and referendum is only applicable in amendment but
not in revision

b. What is an amendment? Answer: Amendment is a change in one or few concept of the

c. What is a revision? Answer: a change in the entire concept of a constitutional provision.

• 11. A foreign commercial ship was spotted by the Philippine Coast Guard dumping garbage
and toxic waste 20 nautical miles from Nasugbu, Batangas, the nearest coastline of the Philippines.
The officers of the ship were arrested and charged before the RTC for violation of environmental
laws of the Philippines. The officers of the ship filed a motion to dismiss the case on the ground that
Philippine Courts do not have territorial jurisdiction over the case since the vessel was sailing outside
the territorial sea of the Philippines when the arrest was made. Is the ground to dismiss correct?
Answer: No. The area is still within the contiguous zone which is 24 nautical miles from the baseline
so it is still within the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines, hence, the case must not be dismissed
and said officers of the ship must be penalized.

• 12. After the graft case of Mr. Tigasin prescribed, he filed a motion to dismiss the forfeiture
of ill-gotten wealth case against him contending that since the criminal case has already prescribed,
the forfeiture case has no leg to stand on. Is the contention of Mr Tigasin correct. Explain. Answer:
NO. Recovery of ill-gotten wealth is exempt from prescription as provided by law, hence his motion
to dismiss must be denied.

• 13. After Martial Law was declared over Mindanao, police arrested Jose Maria without any
warrant while shopping for groceries. When the arrest was questioned, the police countered that
the declaration of martial law suspended the privileged of the writ of habeas corpus and as a result,
they could effect warrantless arrests. Is the contention of the police officers correct? Explain.

• 14. Hon. Amante Apurado, a sophomore member of the House of Representatives, took to
the floor, for himself and other members collectively, to demand that the increase in compensation
of Members of Congress approved by the immediately preceding Congress be implemented
immediately. May the increased compensation be released as demanded? Why? Explain. Answer:
No, said increase will not be released as demanded. Under the Constitution such increase will only
be effective upon the end of the term of all the Members of Congress approving said increase.
• 15. In Tolentino vs. Sec. of Finance, 235 SCRA 630 (1994), in relation to Sec 25, Article VI, the
meaning of “origination from the House” was discussed. What is it? Explain. Answer: Origination
from the House must mean that "the initiative is from the House of Representatives"

• 16. In Araullo v. Aquino (2014), “cross border augmentation” in relation to Sec.25 (5), Article
VI, was declared unconstitutional. What is meant by “cross border augmentation”? Explain. Answer :
Cross-boarder augmentation means that any savings of a certain body/department of the
government may only be spent within its department hence any Savings from the Executive
Department may not be used in any other department like the Judiciary

• 17. “No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than
once within a period of one year.” (Sec 3 (5), Art IX). How was the word “initiate” as used in Sec 3 (5)
defined in Merceditas Gutierrez v. House of Representatives, GR No. 193459, March 8, 2011.
Answer: Initiate is when in the proceeding, during the first reading in the House of Representatives,
it is referred to the proper committee which is the Department of Justice

• 18. After the Impeachment trial of President A. Busado, the Senate imposed the penalty of
removal from office and disqualification to hold any public office pursuant to Sec 3 (7), Article XI.
Thereafter, the Department of Justice filed against him plunder charges, among others. President A.
Busado contested the charges on grounds of Double Jeopardy. Is President A. Busado correct? Why?
Explain. Answer. The contention of President A. Busado is not correct because the only punishment
imposed after the impeachment are removal from office and disqualification to hold any public
office. He may be prosecuted then for his criminal offenses as he is no longer immune from suit
being a non-sitting President.