QUIZ No. 1 | Constitutional Law 2

Share!

This quiz consists of random questions on the Bill of Rights.
Read and understand each question. This is a multiple choice type quiz. Choose the best answer. Register your answer by sliding the button corresponding to your chosen answer.
This quiz is good for sixty (60) minutes. Upon clicking on the “START NOW” button, the timer shall start. The timer is visible on the lower right portion of your screen. Once time is up, your answers will be automatically submitted.
If you you are done with the quiz ahead of the timer, just click the “Finish” button. You may review your answers before clicking the “Finish” button.
Once done, the results will show. You need a score of at least 75% to pass the quiz.
Be honest. Good luck.

START NOW

Results

START NOW

#1. DPWH Sec. Luzviminda, due to the pervasive and wide scope of the apparent corruption involving DPWH District Engineers, ordered the preventive suspension of all District Engineers in Luzon as all of them were subjected to a motu proprio investigation for Grave Misconduct in relation to violations of R.A. No. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Jeffrey, Jay-R, and Michelle, all District Engineers, questioned the preventive suspension imposed on them. They argued that their suspension is a violation of their right to due process; they argued that they are being unduly punished for alleged illegal acts that were not yet proven as their culpability is yet to be proven – in effect, they are being punished before their guilt is proven. Rule on the argument raised by the three engineers. (10%)

Their argument is meritorious. Under the law, no employee may be suspended without due process of law. Their suspension was without the requisite hearing, hence, their suspension is invalid.

The argument raised by the three engineers is without merit. Under the law, preventive suspension is not a penalty. What was imposed on the three engineers was for the facilitation of an impartial proceeding and to prevent the engineers from using their position to change the outcome of the investigation.

The argument of the three engineers is with merit. Under the law, a Secretary has no power to preventively suspend government employees. Only the Civil Service Commission (CSC) may suspend employees. Hence, without a trial being conducted before the CSC, the suspension imposed on the three engineers is invalid.

The argument raised by the three engineers is without merit. Under the law, the President has control power over all employees of the executive. The control power includes the power to suspend. The DPWH Secretary is an alter ego of the President. As an alter ego, her acts are valid until otherwise reversed by the President.

#2. What is police power?

It is the inherent power of the State to regulate or to restrain the use of liberty and property for public welfare.

It is the power of Congress to enact laws empowering the armed forces of the Philippines and the various uniformed personnel to protect the general welfare of the people.

It is the power of the President to call the armed forces of the Philippines to maintain peace and order for the protection of the general welfare of the people.

It is the power of the State to protect itself from internal and external forces for the general welfare of the people.

#3. Mike and Randy are DPWH District Engineers assigned in La Union. They were implicated in the flood control scandal.

An administrative case was filed against them with the Civil Service Commission (CSC). The CSC issued a subpoena to Mike and Randy. Both submitted their respective counter-affidavits. In his counter-affidavit, Mike implicated Randy as the mastermind of certain corrupt activities in La Union involving flood control projects. Likewise, in his counter-affidavit, Randy implicated Mike to be the mastermind of the corruption activities involving flood control projects in La Union. Based on their affidavits, both were dismissed from the service. Both are now questioning their dismissal on the ground that neither were furnished copies of the counter-affidavit of the other; that there was a violation of due process. Is the argument of Randy and Mike correct? Explain (10%)

No. Under prevailing jurisprudence, there is no violation of due process if a respondent was not furnished the counter-affidavits of his or her co-respondents in a preliminary investigation. In this case, it appears that Randy and Mike were undergoing preliminary investigation and the only due process requirement constitutionally accorded them was to be given the opportunity to answer the complaint against them. At this stage, they still do not have the right to confront witnesses or even their co-respondents. Hence, the argument of Randy and Mike is not correct.

No. Under prevailing jurisprudence, administrative cases may be resolved by the disciplining authority either through a full blown trial or by submission of the parties' respective position papers. Mike and Randy are not yet entitled to receive copies of the other's counter-affidavits since there is yet either an order for a full blown trial or the submission of position papers. Only then will they be entitled to be furnished each other's counter-affidavits.

Yes. Under prevailing jurisprudence, respondents in administrative cases have the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them. It will be a violation of Mike and Randy's right to due process if they will not be furnish copies of the counter-affidavit's of the other respondents especially considering that those pleadings affect their respective defenses.

Yes. Under prevailing jurisprudence, administrative cases adjudicate with finality the rights and obligations of parties. As such, the parties have the right to confront all witness statements or testimonies against them. In this case, since the respective counter-affidavits of Randy and Mike were against each other's interest, both should have been furnished each other's counter-affidavit to give them the opportunity to refute each other's claims. Hence, their argument that due process was not observed is valid.

#4. What are the requisites for a valid exercise of police power?

A valid exercise of police power requires that the law of regulation must be duly enacted and duly published in a newspaper of general circulation.

A valid exercise of police power requires that the law or regulation must have a lawful subject and must be done by lawful means.

A valid exercise of police power requires that the law or regulation must be signed by the President and must have a duly published implementing rules and regulations.

A valid exercise of police power requires that the law or regulation must have the concurrence of the lower house and the upper house.

#5. President Denton, by reason of the ghost flood control projects and severely substandard flood control projects in Mindanao ordered the dismissal of all DPWH District Engineers in Mindanao. The President, in dismissing the district engineers, cited the fact that all provinces in Mindanao were heavily flooded during the recent typhoon; this caused severe damage to properties and loss of lives; that the billions of pesos worth of flood control projects were supposed to prevent the flooding; that the unusual flooding is the very evidence (res ipsa loquitur) of Gross Negligence on the part of district engineers; finally, that as President, he has the power of control over all employees of the executive and that he may remove them at pleasure even without any hearing conducted or even without giving them the opportunity to defend themselves. Is the dismissal of the district engineers in Mindanao valid? (10%)

No. Under prevailing jurisprudence, the President only has power of supervision over employees of the executive whom he or she did not appoint. District engineers are not appointed by the President. Hence, the President only has power of supervision over them and not control power. Hence, President Denton has no power to remove the district engineers.

No. Under prevailing jurisprudence, one of the requirements of administrative due process is that the decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected. In this case, the decision to dismiss the district engineers was not based on evidence presented at any hearing as there were no hearings conducted. The power of control of the President does not allow him to violate due process requirements. Hence, the dismissal of the district engineers in Mindanao is not valid.

Yes. Under the Constitution, the President has control over all employees of the executive. All employees in the executive, including DPWH district engineers, serve at the pleasure of the President. Hence, district engineers may be removed at the pleasure of the President.

Yes. Under the control power of the President, the President may act swiftly in order to correct an administrative wrong. To allow the District Engineers to continue serving despite their gross negligence will only further endanger the welfare of the Filipino people. hence, the President may remove grossly ineffective government employees such as the District Engineers of MIndanao.

#6. Mike and Randy are DPWH District Engineers assigned in La Union. They were implicated in the flood control scandal.

A criminal case was filed against them before the Provincial Prosecution Office of La Union (PPO). The PPO subpoenaed both Mike and Randy. Both submitted their respective counter-affidavits. In his counter-affidavit, Mike implicated Randy as the mastermind of certain corrupt activities in La Union involving flood control projects. Likewise, in his counter-affidavit, Randy implicated Mike to be the mastermind of the corruption activities involving flood control projects in La Union. Based on their counter-affidavits, the PPO indicted Mike and Randy and the appropriate Informations were filed against them in court. Both are now questioning the Resolution which found probable cause against them on the ground that neither were furnished copies of the counter-affidavit of the other; that there was a violation of due process because they were not given the opportunity to confront each other as regards their respective allegations against each other. Is the argument of Randy and Mike correct? Explain (10%)

Yes. Under prevailing jurisprudence, there is a violation of due process if a respondent was not furnished the counter-affidavits of his or her co-respondents in a preliminary investigation. In this case, Randy and Mike were undergoing preliminary investigation and the they have the right to be furnished the counter-affidavits of their co-respondents. Hence, Mike and Randy are correct.

No. Under prevailing jurisprudence, there is no violation of due process if a respondent was not furnished the counter-affidavits of his or her co-respondents in a preliminary investigation. In this case, Randy and Mike were undergoing preliminary investigation and the only due process requirement constitutionally accorded them was to be given the opportunity to answer the complaint against them. At this stage, they still do not have the right to confront witnesses or even their co-respondents. Hence, the argument of Randy and Mike is not correct.

No. Under prevailing jurisprudence, a respondent in all types of proceedings under investigation has no right to receive copies of the pleadings of his or her co-respondents. In this case, Mike and Randy are co-respondents. They have no right to obtain copies of the pleadings of their co-respondents.

Yes. Under prevailing jurisprudence, a respondent in all types of proceedings under investigation has the right to receive copies of the pleadings of his or her co-respondents. In this case, Mike and Randy are co-respondents. They have the right to obtain copies of the pleadings of their co-respondents.

#7. Mayor Princes of San Fernando City, La Union, signed Ordinance No. 20 series of 2025 (ORD 20) which seeks to ban online bingo in San Fernando City, La Union. The City justified the banning by invoking its police power; that banning online bingo will promote good morals among the residents of San Fernando, La Union, and will discourage gambling. Jeddy, an online bingo operator, questioned the constitutionality of ORD 20 on the ground that she was licensed by the Philippine Gaming Corporation to operate an online bingo website; that banning her website in the City of San Fernando, La Union, is against her right to due process as it unlawfully deprives her of her means of livelihood – her business which is her property. Jeddy invoked Sec. 1, Art. III of the 1987 Constitution which states that no one shall be deprived of his or her property without due process. Is Jeddy correct? (10%)

No, Jeddy is not correct. Under prevailing jurisprudence, a local government unit may exercise police power. Police power empowers the local government unit to enact laws for the general welfare of its constituents. Here, the City of San Fernando, La Union, is empowered to protect the morals of its constituents, hence, it may enact a law banning online bingo.

Yes, Jeddy is correct. Under the Constitution, no one may be deprived of his or her property without due process of law. Before her online bingo website may be put down, the City of San Fernando, La Union, must first apply for a closure order from a court of law. Here, no such order was obtained, hence, due process was not observed.

Yes, Jeddy is correct. Under prevailing jurisprudence, local government units have delegated power to enact laws. However, they may not legislate morality in view of the people's constitutional right to freedom of belief and expression.

Yes. Under prevailing jurisprudence, a local government unit's exercise of police power must not go beyond what was delegated unto it. The primary regulator of gambling is the national legislature which has the power to allow and disallow certain forms of gambling. In this case, the legislature, through PAGCOR, has allowed the operation of online bingo. The local government of San Fernando, La union, in its exercise of police power, cannot contravene statutes passed by Congress. Hence, Jeddy's right to due process was violated when her online bingo operation was banned in the City of San Fernando, La Union.

Finish