4. a) No.

The defendants assertion that the department heads may commence their
students/petitioners are do not have locus
standi is wrong.
The constitution indeed provides that the
inhabitants of the state has the right to life,
health and balanced ecology but along with
this right comes the intergenerational
responsibility as what has decided in the
case of Oposa vs Factoran states. In this
intergenerational responsibility, each
generation is bound to protect the nature for
the next generations benefit.
In the case given, being a part of the present
generation, the petitioners have the legal
standing to raise such issue because they
are bound by the responsibility of preserving
the ecology for the next generations use
and enjoyment.
Therefore, the student petitioners are
qualified to file a suit to order the
respondents to the cleanup, rehabilitation
and protection of Manila Bay.
b) No. The contention that the court violates
the doctrine of separation of powers due to
its continuing intervention after finality of the
decision of the case is not correct.
With the constitutional provision on the
expanded jurisdiction of the supreme court,
it allows the Court to rule upon even on the
wisdom of the decision of the Executive and
Legislature and to declare their acts as
invalid for lack or excess of jurisdiction
because it is tainted with grave abuse of
discretion.
In the case, even though the decision has
final, it is still within the powers of the
supreme court to monitor and oversee the
activities of other agencies so as to ensure
their compliance with the courts directives.
Therefore, the court has still control over the
said activities of the corresponding agencies
and this does not violate the separation of
powers of the branched of the government.
13.a) The appointment made by the
president was an interim one because he
appointed the said officers to their respective
offices while Congress was not in session.
This is also a permanent appointment and is
effective immediately and can no longer be
withdrawn by the president. However, it is
subject to the Commissions adherence or
rejection to the said appointments upon the
resume of the session of the Congress.
b) No. The claims of VAMP is not correct.
Even though still without the approval of the
Commission on Appointments, the appointed
functions because ad interim appointments
are effective immediately and shall be
deemed invalid if the commission
disapproves it or until the next adjournment
of Congress.
In the case given, the department heads
were assigned ad interim. Thus, even without
the approval of the commission, they may
exercise their functions. However, it shall be
invalid upon the disapproval of the
commission when session starts or when
Congress adjourns, in case there is no
confirmation made.
Therefore, the issues contested by VAMP is
not tenable and the appointed officers may
continue to commence their functions.
14.
a. Only Onofres minor children benefited
from his re-acquisition of Filipino Citizenship.
The concept of Derivative Citizenship
provides that only minor unmarried children
will benefit from the re-acquisition of Filipino
citizenship of their parents.
In the case given, only Robert, 16 and Marie,
14, will also acquire Filipino Citizenship.
Regarding his wife Salavcion, she cannot
benefit from the reacquisition of Filipino
citizenship even though they got married
before they acquired American Citizenship.
As decided on the case of Djumantan vs
Domingo, marriage of an alien woman to a
Filipino husband does not ipso facto make
her a Filipino citizen.
Therefore, only Onofre and his two minor
children will be granted the Filipino
Citizenship.
15.Although the said fund was for the benefit
of all religions where all will be open and not
be prohibited to practice their respective
beliefs, it indeed violates section 5 the Bill of
Rights and another Constitutional provision
particularly section 6 of Art 2 which states
that the separation of the church and the
state shall be inviolable. Thus, the said bill
cannot be passed for it being
unconstitutional.
17. a. Archipelagic doctrine as stated in the
1987 Philippine Constitution is the waters
around, between and connecting the islands
of the archipelago, regardless of their
breadth and dimension, form part of the
internal water of the Philippines.
b. No. Professor Agatons contention that the
Philippines lost its sovereignty and
jurisdiction over the islands is not correct.
As decided in the case of Magallona vs the baselines of the main archipelago, the
Ermita, the classification of the KIG (or the demarcation should follow the contour of the
Spratlys), as well as the Scarborough Shoal, main island.
as a regime of islands did not diminish our
We still exercise sovereignty and jurisdiction
maritime area. Under UNCLOS and under the
over the said islands because it is still part of
baselines law, since they are regimes of
our territory.
islands, they generate their own maritime
zones. They are not to be enclosed within