Sample Exam with Suggested Answers CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – I ( PRELIM EXAM) WITH SUGGESTED ANSWERS 1. a) When ma y the State in voke its immu nity from su it? What is the Restrictive Th eory ofState Immunity? Answer: a) The State may invoke its sovereign immunity from suit in the followinginstances: i.When the Republic is sued by name; ii.When the suit is against an unincorporated government agency as the same is so called because it has n o separate juridical personality but is merged in the general machinery of the government; oriii. When the suit is on its face against a government officer but ultimate liability will be on the government as it will require the latter to perform an affirmative act like appropriating public funds for the satisfaction of the judgment. The Restrictive Theory of State Immunity means that a State may be said to have descended to the level of an individual and can thus be deemed to have tacitly given its consent to be suedonly when it enters into business contracts . However, the restrict ive application of State immunity is proper only when the proceedings arise out of commercial transactions of the foreign sovereign, its commercial act ivities or economic affair s. It does not apply where the contractrelates to the exercise of its sovereign functi ons. (United States vs. Rui z) b) What is the effect of the expanded jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under section 1 of Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution on the political question doctrine? Ans.The so-called expanded jurisdiction of the Supreme Court particularly under the second clause of the second paragraph of section 1 of Article VIII of the 1987Constitution actually limits the political question doctrine which, heretofore, was forbidden territory for the courts. Under this expanded jurisdicti on, a political question is no longeran insurmountable obstacle to the exercise of judicial power. However, this expanded jurisdiction does not do away with the politicalquestion doctrine. It was inserted in the Constit ution to prevent courts from making use of the doctrine to evade what otherwi se are justiciable controversies. The intendment is to stop weak courts and judges from seeking refuge behind the political question doctrine when afraid to displease the powerful. 2. The President proposes amendments to the Constitution advocating a shift from the Presidential system of government to a Parliament ary one a nd calls for a plebiscite, appropriating public funds therefor, in which to submit said proposal to the people forratification. Mr. Walang Packy, a citizen and a taxpayer, challeng es the Presidential acts aforesaid. In turn t he Solicito r General con tends: i) that Mr . Packy has no locus standito bring the action ; ii) that the issue is not justiciabl e; and iii) that there is no law or constitutional provision that prohibits the President from proposing amendments to the Constitution. Decide. Ans.Mr. Packy has locus standi to bring the acti on. This involves a valid taxpayer’ s suit. The settled rule is that a taxpay er like Mr. Packy has substantial int erest in inquiringinto the legality of official acts that involve expenditure of public funds.
