Student No.

:5160053 Subject: Constitutional Law Review

Year: Law IV- C Professor: Judge Nieva

No, the RTC judge judge is not correct in dismissing the case on the ground that
the state cannot be sued without its consent.

Under the 1987 Constitution, the State cannot be sued without its consent. The
Supreme Court has held that, when the Government expropriates property for public use
without paying just compensation, it is deemed to have waived its immunity from suit.
Therefore, it cannot invoke its immunity from suit. It is provided in the Constitution that
private property shall not be taken for public use without payment of just compensation.

Here the government cannot invoke its immunity from suit since it already waived
its immunity when it expropriates the property for public use without just compensation.

II

If I were the judge, I will grant the dismissal of the complaint on the ground that it
is a suit against the state.

The Supreme Court has held that when the State enters into a business contract,
it can either be a contract entered into by the State in jure imperii, and in jure gestionis.
Where the contract is in pursuit of a sovereign activity, there is no waiver of immunity and
therefore no implied consent may be derived from it.

Here although the US Admiral entered into a business contract, it does not
necessarily mean that it was an implied consent since the contract entered into by them
is in relation to government function.

III

No, he already was one.

Under the Constitution, those who whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines
at the time of the adoption of the Constitution are citizens of the Philippines.

Here he need not elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority
since he is already a Filipino citizen from birth. Also, by jus sanguinis, his acquisition of
his citizenship is by blood relationship.

In the second case, if his mother was already an American citizen he cannot still
elect his Philippine citizenship. Since he was born on 2000 and his mother has lost Filipino
citizenship, he has no right of election. He may acquire it through naturalization.

IV

The contention of Jose is meritorious.

Student No. :5160053 Subject: Constitutional Law Review
Year: Law IV- C Professor: Judge Nieva

The Supreme Court has held that to reacquire domicile he must provide proof of
intent to stay in the Philippines. The absence from the recovered domicile does not have
the effect of removing him from the domicile for as long as he manifests animus manendi
and animus non revertendi. The acquisition of green card in the United States, in effect
loses Philippine domicile.

Here since Jose was repatriated only before 2018 elections, he has failed to
comply with the residency requirement. It can be observed that repatriation in itself does
not entail reacquisition of domicile in the absence of any proof of intent to stay in the
Philippines.

V.

The contention that the cancellation of its timber license constitutes an impairment
of the obligation of its contract is not meritorious.

Under the Constitution, no law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be

passed. However, the Supreme Court has held that timber licenses, permits and license
agreements are only privileges granted by the State to qualified entities and does not vest
a permanent right to the particular entity. They may be rescinded or revoked upon the
interest of the State.

Here the termination of the timber license permit is not deemed a contract between
the State and the licensee. Hence it does not violate the impairment clause within the
purview of the constitutional guaranteed rights.

VI.

No, the judge is not correct.

Under the 1987 Constitution, the right of the accused to counsel presupposes as
a right to have an effective and efficient counsel even during the custodial investigation.

Here while the extrajudicial confession is valid, it does not necessarily mean that
a conviction of the accused must be rendered. It must be corroborated by evidence. It is
clear that there was a failure on the part of the counsel to assist his client with utmost
diligence, from the start of the interrogation until the end.

VII.

First, the delegating law must be complete in itself (Completeness Test), meaning
it must be complete in all essential terms and conditions when it leaves the legislature so
that there will be nothing left for the delegate to do when it reaches him but to enforce or
implement it. A law is therefore complete when it sets forth the policy to be executed,
carried out or implemented by the delegate.

Second, the statute must fix a standard (Sufficiency of Standards Test), meaning
that it must be determinate or at least determinable to which the delegate must conform
in the performance of his functions. It must not only define a fundamental legislative
policy, mark its limits, and specify the public agency to exercise the legislative power.
Student No. :5160053 Subject: Constitutional Law Review
Year: Law IV- C Professor: Judge Nieva

VIII

Contingent Legislation means that a statute may provide in its provision that it
shall only take effect upon the happening of an event or contingency which may be
ascertained by the executive branch.

This legislation is valid so long as it complies with the completeness test and
sufficiency of standard test.

IX

No, the contention of the Provincial Board is not correct.

Under the Constitution, the inherent power of Congress to punish for contempt by
mutatis mutandis, does not apply to local legislative bodies.

Here the power is recognized as inherent power in Congress as a matter of self-

preservation. It is a sui generis and therefore may not be claimed by local legislative
bodies.

The doctrine of inappropriate provision refers to the provision that is constitutionally

inappropriate for an appropriation bill may be singled out for veto even if it is not an
appropriation or revenue item. The President may veto riders in an appropriation bill.

Item veto is the power of an executive to veto separate items of an appropriation,

revenue or tariff bill without violating the entire bill. Hence it is allowed in appropriation
bill.

XI

The contention is correct.

Under the Constitution, the congress may determine the rules of its proceedings,
punish its Members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds (2/3)
of all its members, suspend or expel a member.

Here since there is a need of 2/3 votes to expel a member, two senators were on
leave so they are excluded from the counting. Therefore, the required votes needed to
expel them was not reached.

XII

If I were Mr. X’s lawyer, I shall argue that there was double jeopardy. The
constitutional protection against double jeopardy is available since all the requisites of
double jeopardy are present in the given case. It exists when a) a first jeopardy attached
prior to the second; b) the first jeopardy has been validly terminated; and c) a second
jeopardy is for the same offense as in the first.

Here there is already an arraignment before a competent court for the crime of
attempted homicide and the case was dismissed without his consent, hence, jeopardy
had already attached.
Student No. :5160053 Subject: Constitutional Law Review
Year: Law IV- C Professor: Judge Nieva