1. When the USA acquires a territory, what is the rule?- Postliminium: When a sovereign state acquires a territory through cessation, invasion, treaties, and what not, they may also maintain such an acquisition in accordance with its own public laws. This rule is observed by the United States whenever it acquires a territory.

It is important to note private laws established prior to the arrival of the new sovereign are not automatically abrogated.

2. State v. Government v. Administration- State: The state is an absolute idea. By virtue of it being an absolute idea, it is therefore infallible. It has 4 essential elements: (a.) people/population; (b.) territory; (c.) sovereignty; and (d.) government.

- Government: An instrument/agency through which the state expresses its will.

- Administration A group of people who manage and lead the government for a specific period of time.

Government is only an element of a State. Administration is only an aspect of Government insofar as the administration is defined as a group that leads the government for a given period of time. Both the administration and the government are, therefore, mere components of the state.

3. Can you amend the Constitution while drafting it (Piece Meal Amendment)?- No. In the case of Tolentino v COMELEC, petitioner assails the proposal of the 1972 ConCon to lower the voting age from 21 to 18. This will be done by amending the 1935 Constitution prior to the submission for ratification of the new constitution. Petitioner Tolentino contents that Article 15 of the 1935 Constitution provides for an election when amendments are submitted for ratification by the people (Doctrine of Submission).

4. What is the case of Planas v COMELEC?- In the case of Planas v COMELEC, petitioner assails President Marcos for calling out a plebiscite for the ratification of the proposed Constitution and the appropriating funds for the said purpose. Planas avers that the ability to call for a plebiscite and appropriate the funds for the purpose is a power vested in the Legislature by the Constitution. President Marcos, therefore, gravely abused his discretion amounting to lack of or in excess of jurisdiction. The case was rendered moot when President Marcos called off the plebiscite.

5. In the case of Javella v Executive Secretary was the constitution pronounced valid or invalid? How did the Supreme Court vote in said case?- The validity of the ratification process was questioned in the case of Javellana v Executive Secretary, 50 SCRA 30 (1973) but the failure of the SC to come up with the necessary votes to declare the act as unconstitutional forced it into the conclusion that "there are no further obstacles to considering the constitution in force and effect." The Court also held that the question of the validity of the 1973 Constitution is a political question that should be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity; that the ratification of the 1973 Constitution through the people has shown that the same has acquiescence.NECESSARY VOTED=MAJORITY OF ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE COURT (8) (6) voted to deny due course to the petition

6. Can there be an election despite the fact that there was no vacancy (PBA v COMELEC)?- No, the Constitution provides that there can only be an election when there is a vacancy. However, during the Marcos era, such an election occurred when President Marcos instructed the COMELEC to hold a snap election. He said that he would relinquish his post once (a.) an election is held; (b.) a winner is announced; and (c.) the winner/s assume or ascend to office.

7. The power of Judicial Review lies with the Supreme Court. Is the power also conferred with the lower courts?- Yes. Article VIII Sec 5 Par 2 implies that the power also lies with the lower/inferior courts. The provision provides for the Supreme Courts authority to review decisions regarding constitutionality of statutes, laws, treaties, and whatnot.

8. Is there a difference between EDSA 1 and EDSA 2?- Yes. EDSA 1 was a change in government brought by the peaceful February Revolution. This effected a forceful ejection of President Marcos as president of the Republic. Cory Aquino replaced him in his stead. The change in government was extra constitutional.

The revolutionary government of Cory Aquino gave the chief executive wide powers including the power to legislate and appoint (In Re: Letter to Justice Puno)

EDSA 2, however, the change in government was intra constitutional. As opposed to EDSA 1, EDSA 2 was an exercise of the peoples right to freedom of speech and assembly; however, the event successfully pushed the then President Ejercito Estrada to resign from his post (Estrada v Desierto).

9. When can the Supreme Court rule on questions considered political?- When the President exercises emergency powers under Art VII Sec 18 Par 3, the Supreme Court is empowered to review the factual circumstances or wisdom behind the imposition of Martial upon the filing of a complaint by any citizen.

10. What is the difference between the Doctrine of Transcendental Importance v the Doctrine of Personal Injury?

The Doctrine of Personal Injury refers to the standing of a person. The key question is whether said person will suffer or benefit from the judgment of a suit (Minoza v Lopez). The Doctrine of Transcendental Importance can be called upon if any of the following 3 is satisfied: (a.) clear and grave disregard for the Constitution; (b.) nature of public funds involved; and (c.) lack of a party with more direct interest.

11. What is the general rule in the power of augmentation?- In the case of Araullo v Aquino III, petitioners invoke Art VI Sec 25 Par 5 as an argument against respondents approach to augmentation. Augmentation refers to additional funding for a specific item already appropriated by law. Said item should have deficient funding. The additional funding will come from savings created from other projects within their respective department. The power to augment lies with the President, Senate President, House Speaker, Chief Justice, and other heads of constitutional bodies provided that they only augment within their respective departments.

12. Is the DAP constitutional?- Yes. The DAP is not unconstitutional, however, certain parts of the DAP were declared unconstitutional such: (a.) the withdrawal of unobligated allotments from the implementing agencies, and the declaration of the withdrawn unobligated allotments and unreleased appropriations as savings prior to the end of the fiscal year and without complying with the statutory definition of savings contained in the General Appropriations Acts (GAA); (b.) the cross-border transfers of the savings of the Executive to augment the appropriations of other offices outside the Executive; and (c.) he funding of projects, activities, and programs that were not covered by any appropriation in the GAA. The provisions that the DAP violated is Art VI Sec 25 Par 5 and Art VI Sec 29 Par 1.

13. In the Philippines do we observe Jus Soli or Jus Sanguini?- Jus Soli is citizenship based on the territory where one is born. Jus Sanguini is where citizenship depends on the nationality of ones parents.The Philippines used the principle Jus Soli for individuals born in its territory before and/or on April 11 1899 (Sec 4, Treaty of Paris). However, for individuals born after said cut off date, the principle of Jus Sanguini is observed. The Supreme Court made the principle official in the case of Tio Tiam v Republic decided in 1957.

14. When does the government waive its immunity from suit?- The general rule under Art XVI Sec 3 of the 1987 Constitution is that the state is immune from suit. Jurisprudence also provides for the immunity of the state; i.e. Positivist Theory: There can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the laws on which the right depends; and Sociological Theory: If the state is amenable to suits, all its time would be spent defending itself from suits and this would prevent it from performing its other functions.

The state can waive its immunity when it gives its consent. Its consent is given in 2-ways: (a.) expressed; and (b.) implied.

Express consent is given through duly enacted statute. Other examples: Money claims arising from contracts (Sayson v Singson) However you may not issue writ of execution or garnishment on public funds (Republic v Villasor); except when the suit had to be instituted in order to get benefit already appropriated by law (Begosa v PVA) When the charter of a GOCC allows it to be sued if incorporated. Quasi-Dilect (Tort) committed by special agents pursuant to Art 2180 of the Civil Code (Merrit v Government of the Philippine Islands)The immunity impliedly waived in the following circumstances: Incorporated GOCCs under the corporation code When a government organ performs a proprietary function not incidental to its sovereign function (US v Ruiz) Enters into a contract It would inequitable for the state to invoke its immunity (expropriation without due process) Counter-claim

15. When can the president declare Martial Law?- Pursuant to Article VII Sec 18 the president can declare martial law in the following scenarios: (a.) rebellion/insurrection; (b.) invasion; or (c.) when public safety requires it.

He can only put the country or any other part thereof under martial law and suspend the privilege of habeas corpus for a period not exceeding 60 days.

Within 48, hours the president is required to submit in person or in writing a report to the Congress. The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its members in a regular or special session may revoke such proclamation or suspension. The Congress may also extend such proclamation. The Supreme Court may also revoke the imposition of Martial Law provided that a citizen files a case against it.

16. Who is the Commander-in-Chief and what are his powers?- Pursuant to Art VII Sec 18, the Commander-in-Chief is the president he has the supreme authority over all military personnel. His powers include: (a.) the power to call the armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence; and (b.) the power to impose martial law and suspend the writ of habeas corpus in the instance of rebellion, invasion, or when public safety requires it.

17. In terms of Citizenship, who can own educational institutions?- Pursuant to Art XIV Sec 4 Par 2, educational institutions must be owned by at least 60% Filipino unless Congress decides to increase percentage split. Schools established by Religious groups and mission boards are the exemption to the rule. The management and control of educational institutions shall be vested solely to the citizens of the republic.

No educational institutions will compromise more than one-third of the enrollment in any school, except for those established for foreign diplomats and their dependents.

18. What are the limitations on appointments by the President?Pursuant to Art VII Sec 13 Par 2, the spouse and relatives by consaguini or affinity within the fourth civil degree of the President shall not, during his tenure, be appointed as Members of the Constitutional Commissions, or the Office of the Ombudsman, or as Secretaries, Undersecretaries, chairmen or heads of bureaus or offices, including government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries.

Therefore, Kris Aquino may be appointed to positions not listed above e.g. member of board of the MTRCB.

19. Can an official have concurrent positions?- No. General rule provided by is that officials may not hold more than one position. Art VII, Sec 13 Par 1, provides that the Executive Family The President, Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants, shall not, unless otherwise provided in this Constitution, hold any other office or employment during their tenure.

The Constitution provides certain exceptions such - The Vice-President can be an ex-officio member of the Cabinet; The Secretary of Justice is an ex-officio member of the Judicial Bar Council; and The President as Commander-in-Chief and chair of NEDA or any other Government Agency.

The Vice-President does not need confirmation from COA when appointed as member of the Cabinet. (CLU v Executive Secretary)

Art IX B Sec 7 also restricts elected official from having concurrent positions. The aforementioned provision provides that no elective official shall be eligible for appointment or designation in any capacity to any public office or position during his tenure.

Paragraph 2 of Art IX B Sec 7 provides that appointed officials not members of the Executive Family may hold concurrent positions if it provided by law.

20. Can Government Workers form unions?- Pursuant to Art III Sec 8, Art IX B Sec 2 Par 1, Art IX B Sec 2 Par 5 Government workers may form unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law.

21. What is the case of Imbong v Ochoa? Is the RH Law Constitutional?- The RH Law was found to be not unconstitutional with a few reservations i.e. certain provisions were stricken down. These are the following:- Provides access to minors to RH programs and other safe and legal medical procedures without the consent of parents- Provides spouses access to RH programs and other safe and legal medical procedures without the consent of the other spouse- Insofar as it compels RH providers and other medical institutions, regardless of their religious orientations, to direct patients in a non life-threatening situation to another RH provider- Insofar as it compels RH providers to publicize RH Law programs and punishes those who fail or refuse to do so- Insofar as it compels public officials to support RH Law programs- The 40-hour mandatory probono work by medical workers as a prerequisite for PhilHealth accreditation for RH Providership- The definition of abortifacients as primarily inducing abortionThe main parts of the bill sex education, free access to family planning programs in indigent areas, nationwide multi-media campaign, and inclusion of non-abortifacient contraceptives in the FDA.

22. Cases where a plebiscite is needed?- The instances where plebiscites are needed are as follows: (a.) ratifying the Constitution; (b.) approving any amendment thereto; (c.) with respect to local matters, approving any changes in boundaries, mergers, divisions, and even abolition of local offices; (d.) creating metropolitan authorizes; and (e.) creating autonomous regions.

23. What are the Organic Laws? What are their Principles?

McKinley's Instructions- Issued on April 7 1900, it created a divided civil and military government- It extended over the Philippine Island a Bill of Rights except the (a.) right to bear arms and (b.) right to jury trial- It created the Philippine Commission on 1 September 1900- It created the Judiciary on 11 June 1901- The islands were under the authority of the US President

Spooner Amendment- Issued on 4 July 1901, abolished the divided military and civil government for a fully civil one- The Philippines is no longer under the management and authority of the US President but, rather, the US Congress

Philippine Bill of 1902- Passed on 1 July 1900 to serve as the Organic Law of the land from 1902 to 1906- Created the upper and lower chambers of the Philippine Congress. The upper chamber is the Philippine Commission; and the lower chamber is the Philippine Assembly. The upper chamber is under the leadership of the Governor-General who retained all executive power, including the power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus.- The Philippine Assembly is composed entirely of Filipinos. Its first speaker was Osmena.- Gave the first definition of the citizens of the Philippines: all inhabitants of the Philippine islands who were subjects of Spain as of 11 April 1899, who continued to reside therein, and all the children born subsequent thereto.

Jones Law- On 29 August 1916, the US Congress passed the Jones Law, otherwise known as the Philippine Autonomy Act.- It established a tripartite government with real separation of powers; this was the prototype of our present set-up. The executive power was in the hands of an American Governor-General, who was independent of the Legislature, and who was given the power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus and impose martial law without the recommendation of the Legislature. The Legislature was now composed of the Senate and the House of Representatives, all composed of Filipinos (The President of the Senate was Manuel L. Quezon). The judiciary continued to be made up of the Supreme Court, the CFIs and Justice of Peace Courts.- The definition of who were citizens of the Philippines first enunciated in the Philippine Bill of 1902, was carried over by the Jones Law.

24. What is the term of the President under the 1987 Constitution? Is Estrada eligible to run for President?Under Art VII Sec 4 of the 1987 Constitution, the president shall have a term of six years. The President shall not be eligible for re-election under the same office.

No Vice President shall serve for more than two successive terms.

No. Estrada is not eligible to run for President once more. Pursuant to Art VII Sec 4 of voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of the service for the full term for which he was elected. Estrada relinquished his role as president in EDSA II (Estrada v Desierto)

25. Terms of Office under the 1935 Constitution and the 1973 Constitution?- When the 1935 Constitution came into force, the President had a term of 6 years. However, during the 1940 amendment to the 1935 Constitution the term was changed to 4 years with chance to serve for a maximum of 2 years.

Under the 1973 Constitution, Art VII Sec 3 of which provides that the president shall have a term of six years.

26. What are the amendments to the 1935 and 1937 Constitutions? What are the proposed amendments to the 1987 Constitution?

- The 1935 Constitution had 3 amendments. The first amendment in 1940 had 3 effects: (a.) decreased the term of the president to 4 years with the possibility of reelection; (b.) created a bicameral Congress with a Senate and a House of Representatives; and (c.) the creation of an independent constitutional body known as the Commission on Elections. The second was the parity rights amendments in 1947 (Mabanag v Lopez Vito). Finally, the third was the 1967 amendment that created the 1973 Constitution.

The 1973 Constitution was amended four times: the first was the granting of legislative powers to the president (Sandidad v COMELEC); the second was the increase in retirement age of Justices and Judges of the Supreme Court from 65 to 70; the third was the change in form of Government from a Parliamentary to Presidential; and lastly, the fourth, was the creation of the post of Vice-President to succeed the President in the instance of death.

26. What are the proposed amendments to the 1987 Constitution?- The following are the proposed amendments to the 1987 Constitution: (a.) increase of term of president (Santiago v COMELEC); (b.) shift from a presidential form to a parliamentary (Lambino v COMELEC and Lozano v Nograles)

27. What were the relevant provisions under the Freedom Constitution?- The most relevant provision under the 1986 Freedom Constitution was Article 5. The said article mandated the creation of a constitutional assembly all members appointed by the president to draft in an expeditious manner a new Constitution.

28. When did the 1987 Constitution Take Effect?- Pursuant to Art XVIII Sec 27 The 1987 Constitution took effect at the day it was submitted to the people for ratification 2 February 1987 (De Leon v Esguerra). The 1987 Constitution, however, was proclaimed in 11 February 1987.

29. Was the Corazon Aquino administration acting as a revolutionary government?- Yes. The Corzaon Aquino administration was a revolutionary government insofar as the revolution it led EDSA I successfully overthrew an oppressive regime. EDSA I was an extra constitutional act of the state and by virtue of such the resulting government is classified as revolutionary. At the time, Corazon Aquino had wide powers as head of the government conferred upon her was both the executive and legislative power (In Re Letter to Justice Puno).

30. What is the case of Santiago v COMELEC?Art XVII Sec 2 is not self-executing. RA 6735 does not provide for a method or procedure on constitutional amendments only on national and local concerns such as national statutes and local legislation.

31. What is the case of Marbury v Madison?Marbury comes to the Supreme Court for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus invoking Act of Congress 1789 which grants said court original jurisdiction on Mandamus. However, article III of the US Constitution provides that the SC will only have original jurisdiction on ambassadors, ministers, and consuls. Marbury does not fall in any of these.

32. When is an issue considered Moot and Academic?- A case is considered Moot and Academic when for some reason or another the issue becomes stale. In the cases of Pomedor v Estrada, Quino v COMELEC, and Quizon v COMELEC, the cases became moot because the issues that caused the controversy disappeared because of supervening events. There will be no benefits to either party of the case should the Court decide to rule upon it.

However, the Court, in the exercise of sound discretion, may choose to hear cases otherwise moot if: (a.) there is a grave violation of the constitution; (b.) exceptional character and the paramount public interest involved; (c.) need to formulate a guiding principle for the bench, bar, and the people; and (d.) if the issue is capable of repetition but evading review.

33. Is there a right to revolution enshrined in the Constitution?- No. It would be self-destructive for a Constitution to enshrine and recognize a right of the people to revolution. The nature of a Constitution is to set-up a government and provide for an orderly way effect change to the government. A revolution contradicts this nature.

34. What is the case of In Re Saturnina v Bermuda?Petitioner for declaratory relief, the Supreme Court does not hear cases for such petition. Petitioner seek to clarify who the president in Art VII Sec 18 in the transitory provision is being referred to. This suit amounts to a suit to a president who cannot be sued (Art XVII Sec 3). The legitimacy of an administration or president is not a justiciable controversy.35. Uy v Sandiganbayan

36. Which provisions of the Constitution are self-executing? Which are not?- The case of Manila Prince Hotel v GSIS provides that all statutes under the 1987 Constitution should be considered self-executing with the exemption of Article II. However, in the case of Oposa v Factoran, the Court made an exemption to the exemption from the general rule, i.e. sections 15 and 16 of Art II are considered to be self-executing.

37. What is the case of Province of North Cotabato v Government of the Republic of the Philippines?

38. Discuss Citizenship in the Philippines.

Pursuant to Article IV Sec 1 of the 1987 Constitution, the following are citizens of the Philippines: (a.) those who are citizens at the time of adoption of the constitution; (b.) those whose mothers or fathers are citizens of the Philippines; (c.) those who born before January 11 1973 and elect citizenship upon reaching the age of majority; and (d.) those naturalized according to law.

By virtue of Art IV Sec 2, the first 3 on the above-cited list are considered natural born Filipinos. Item number 3 was a correcting provision to fix the anomaly caused by the articles on citizenship under the 1973 Constitution those who are born of a Filipino mother but alien father under the regime of the 1935 Constitution and elect citizenship before January 11 1973 are considered natural born under the regime of the 1973 Constitution by virtue of Art IV sec 1 of the 1973 Constitution; however, those who are born of a Filipino mother and alien father under the regime of the 1935 Constitution but elect citizenship after 11 January 1973 are considered naturalized Filipinos by virtue of Art IV sec 2 of the 1973 Constitution. This makes for 2 types of citizenship under the same group of people; thus, the 1987 Constitution sought to correct this with Art 4 Sec 2 of the 1987 Constitution.

When aliens are naturalized under our laws, there are corresponding effects on the minor children of the adults naturalized; such: (a.) if a child is born in the Philippines succeeding the naturalization of his parents, then said child is automatically a citizen; (b.) at the time of naturalization of a parent, the dependent child shall also acquire citizenship; (c.) if at the time of naturalization a minor child is not residing in the Philippines, then he is only a citizen until he reaches the age majority, unless he takes permanent resident in the Philippines before reaching the age of majority.

One may lost his citizenship according to the following: (a.) cancellation of naturalization certificate; (b.) served armed forces of enemy state; (c.) naturalization in a foreign country; (d.) deserter of the Philippine armed forces; (e.) took oath of allegiance in another sovereign; and (f.) renunciation of citizenship

It maybe reacquired through the following: (a.) direct act of Congress; (b.) Naturalization; and (c.) Repatriation.

39. Is the PDAF unconstitutional?- Yes. The PDAF and similar other discretionary lump sum funds were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. The 5 primary issues regarding the case are as follows: (a.) violation of separation of powers; (b.) non-delegability of legislative powers; (c.) accountability; (d.) check and balances; (e.) LGU autonomy; and (f.) political dynasties.(a.) With PDAF the legislative is granted the task of selecting the implementing agency for each project a task reserved for the executive department. Further, the Congress still take an active role in the identification of projects where funds are to be allocated even after the passage of the GAA(b.) The power to appropriate rests in the Congress alone, no individual member of the Congress may appropriate funds for a project that they identify(c.) Congress has an oversight over acts of the Executive; however, in the PDAF system, Congress plays an active role in the execution of appropriations. It is, thus, not possible for Congress to take a disinterested role in its oversight function over the executive.(d.) Congress also deprives the president of his Veto power(e.) It should be the LGU who is identifying projects to be executed in their own local domains or jurisdiction, not Congress(f.) Court did not hear this part

40. What is the difference between the Citizen Retention Reacquisition Act and the Citizen Repatriation Act?

ReacquisitionCA 63 How citizenship can be reacquired?a.By naturalizationb.Repatriation (of deserters of the Army, Navy or Air Corp: Provided, That a woman who lost her citizenship by reason of her marriage to an alien may be repatriated in accordance with the provisions of this Act after the termination of the marital status-only need oath of allegiance and registration in the proper civil registry)c.Direct act of Congress

RA 9925 (2003)

An Act Making the Citizenship of Philippine Citizens Who Acquire Foreign Citizenship Permanento Retention of PHL Citizenship- take oath o Derivative Citizenship- unmarried child below 18 y/o o Civil and Political Rights and Liabilities- suffrage, election (Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003) Aug. 29, 2003 signed into law by Pres. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo Also known as the Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003In the case of AASJS vs Datumanong, the Court says that RA 9225 does is recognize dual citizenship and on its face, it does not recognize dual allegiance.

Repatriation RA 8171

An Act Providing for the Repatriation of Filipino Woman Who Have Lost their PHL Citizenship by Marriage to Aliens and of Natural Born Filipinos

Sec. 1. Filipino women who have lost their PHL Citizenship by marriage to aliens & natural- born Filipinos who have lost their PHL citizenship including their minor children, on account of political and economic necessity may reacquire PHL citizenship through repatriation in the manner provided in Sec. 4 of CA No. 63

Provided that applicant is not a:1.Person opposed to organized government 2.Person defending or teaching propriety of violence, personal assault 3.Person convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude 4.Person suffering mental alienation or incurable contagious diseaseSec 2. Oath of allegiance