QUIZ 3 STUDENTS' ANSWERS

 

Albertine Din

Exam: quiz constitutional law nov. 21, 2020

Word count: 381

Writing time: 37 minutes

Email: albertine.din@gmail.com

Class: Consti Law 1

Teacher: Judge Bastasa

1. The doctrine of the "prerogative of royal dishonesty" is another way of saying that the state cannot be sued without its consent. This doctrine means that the state, or any of its officials who are acting in fulfillment of their duties, cannot be sued or be asked to pay for damages. This applies to individuals and foreign states who are trying to sue the state. They may not be allowed to do so without the consent of the state.

2. As an exception, the state is not immune from suit when it has given its consent to be sued. A specific example would be when the state itself becomes a party to a contract, as a consequence the state has descended to the level of the other party to the contract, and as such it has also relinquished its immunity from suit. Another example would be when the government initiates a complaint, thereby allowing the other party to file a countersuit or counterclaim.

3. While presidential immunity is not expressly provided in the 1987 Constitution, the Supreme Court has ruled that the framers have intended as such. In the most recent case of De Lima v. Duterte, the Supreme Court explained how presidential immunity is applied in the Philippines. Accordingly, they stated that the President is immune from suit because as the only person in Executive Department, suits would be a distraction from the President's execution of her duties as the Chief Executive, that this is based on public policy considerations. Moreover, the President is immune from suit during the duration of her tenure, and she could only be made accountable through impeachment. 

4. No, UP is not immune from suit because it is a juridical personality separate from the government. Moreover, it may be made liable to pay for damages in suits. However, in this case, before rendering UP liable, a claim for payment must first be filed at the Commission on Audit.

5. The suit will not prosper. I will not make Indonesia liable for the breach of said contract under the principle of sovereign equality of States. Moreover, by entering into this contract, the government of Indonesia was in the exercise of their diplomatic function in this contract, in which case, they are immune from suit.

Albertine Din

2020-11-21

Audey Principe

Exam: quiz constitutional law nov. 21, 2020

Word count: 487

Writing time: 58 minutes

Email: audeygprincipe@gmail.com

Class: Constitutional Law 1

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

1. The doctrine of prerogative of royal dishonesty is the previlidge of the state to defeat any legitimate claims against it by simple invoking its non-suability. In addition, this doctrine prohibits only suits against the state without consent , it also applicable to complaints filed against officials of the state for acts allegedly performed by them in the discharge of their duties.

2. The principle enshrined in Section 3, Article XVI of the Constitution that the "State may not be sued without its consent" reflects nothing less than a recognition of the sovereign character of the State and an express affirmation of the unwritten rule effectively insulating it from the jurisdiction of courts. The doctrine of sovereign immunity from suit may be invloked by any foreign state when it is sued in the country just as the Philippines may invole sovereign immunity from suit filed in a foreign country, and except when it waives, the suit will fail. It is clear that the State may be sued, with its consent, either expressly or impliedly.

3. The presidential immunity first appeared in 1973 Constitution of the Philippines, Section 17 of Article VII states that, "the president shall be immune from suit during his tenure. Thereafter,  no suit whatsoever shall lie for official acts done by him or by others pursuant to his specific orders during his tenure". In the 1987 Constitution the provisions cited mentioned above was removed. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court held in David, et al vs. Macapagal-Arroyo that, "settled in the doctrine that the President, during his tenure of office or actual incumbency, may not be sued in any civil or criminal case, and there is no need to provide for it in the Constitution or law." 

4. The University of the Philippines (UP) is a juridical personality separate and distinct from the government and has the capacity to sue and be sued. In the political law docrine, it is the Commission on Audit (COA) which has primary jurisdiction to examine, audit and settle "all debts and claims of any sort" due from or owing the Government or any of its subdivisions, agencies and instrumentalities, including governmnet-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries.

5. The mere intering into a contract by the Republic of Indonesia with a private party cannot be construed as the ultimate test of whether or not it is an act juri imperii or juri gestionis. The state may enter into contracts with private entities to maintain the premises, funishings and equipment of the embassy. The Rep. of Indonesia is acting in pursuit of a sovereign activity when it entered into a contract with the repair company. The maintenance aggreement was entered into by the Rep. of Indonesia in the discharge of its governmental functions. It cannot be deemed to have waived its immunity from suit. Thus, the suit will not prosper and they are not liable for the breach of contract. 

Audey Principe

2020-11-21

Cesar Tinga

Exam: quiz constitutional law nov. 21, 2020

Word count: 250

Writing time: 39 minutes

Email: sartings5545@gmail.com

Class: Constitutional Law 1

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

1. The prerogative of royal dishonesty is a privilege granted to a state to defeat any legitimate claim against it by simply invoking its non-suability. This prohibits suits not only to state but applicable also to complainst filed against its officials in line of duty.

2. In general, a state is immune from suit unless: 1. if the state consents to the suit in 2 ways a) thru express consent which is embodied in the general and special laws b) when a state enters into a contract or itself commences litigation. this is the implied way.

3. under the 1987 Constitution the President is immune from any suit during his term. The framers of the Constituion provides this so that the President shall not be disturb with any suits in his functions as President of the State.

4. The Constitution is very inclusive in its provision of those who are immuned from suit. hence, U.P is not one of them, therefore filing a suit for UP will apply.

5. No. the company cannot file a complaint against Republic of Indonesia unless the the state because the transaction of the Republic of Indonesia is classifies as acts Jure imperil. the state in this is immuned from suability. Indonesia can be held liable for the non payment of contract of repair for the embassy office of Indonesia in the Philippines, the last recourse we could do is to ask the state to spouse the cause of non-payment before the international court.

Cesar Tinga

2020-11-21

Cherrie May Baes Pancho

Exam: quiz constitutional law nov. 21, 2020

Word count: 261

Writing time: 27 minutes

Email: cmb102792@gmail.com

Class: Constitutional Law 1

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

1. Prerogative of Royal Dishonesty is a doctrine that has a privilege to grant the state to defeat the legitimate claim by simply invoking its non-suability. 
2. Under the E.O No. 292, In Chapter 3, Section 10 states that no suit shall lie against the state except with a consent as a provided in the law. In Section 11, The State's responsibility for the act of agent defines that shall be legally responsible the acts to perform its accordance with the constitution that has authorized representative. The state shall not have a mistake and errors from the officers or agents in the exercise of their functions.
3. Under the Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution states that the President of the Philippines shall be immune from suit during his tenure. No suit shall lie for official acts done by him or others pursuant to his specific orders during his tenure. The immunities shall apply for the incumbent President. 
4. No, Under the Article XVI of the 1987 Constituition that the state may not be sued without a consent, The issue of the security guard from U.P has a right to paid their salaries of the job. 

5. Yes, Under the Article XVI of the 1987 Constitutiton that the state may not be sued without a consent. The Republic of Indonesia must pay the contract before having a negotiation in the Philippines. No, the Breach of Contract may give rise to the complaint for specific performance or rescission of contract. It may be criminally liable if the indonesia violates it. 

Cherrie May Baes Pancho

2020-11-21

DC Kimberly Cuenca

Exam: quiz constitutional law nov. 21, 2020

Word count: 224

Writing time: 21 minutes

Email: kimberlycuenca@gmail.com

Class: Constitutional Law 1

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

1. 

  Also called the doctrine of state immunity, the prerogative of royal dishonesty is based in justification given by Justice Holmes that all states are sovereign equals and cannot assert jurisdiction over one another. The privilige the prerogative of royal dishonesty grants the state to defeat any legitimate claim against it is by simply invoking its non-suability. 

2.

  The exceptions to the rule are if it is regarding to private acts or acts jure gestionis. Acts jure gestionis are acts by right of management. It refers ti activities of a commercial natire carried out by a foreign State. 

3.  

  The legal basis of the principle on the presidential immunity is Article VII of the Constitutional Law. It statres that the President should be immune from suit during his term. The principle need not to be written in the Constitution. The immunity's scope is that the President may not be sued in any civil or criminal case. 

4.

5. 

  Yes, the suit will prosper. The principle erga omnes will be used as a basis in the said suit. I will make Indonesia liable for the breach  of said contract because it clearly violated the contracts they had with the repair company in our country. We have the right to protect the basic right of all human persons, we have a legal interest in our protection.

DC Kimberly Cuenca

2020-11-21

Edison Alviar

Exam: quiz constitutional law nov. 21, 2020

Word count: 179

Writing time: 49 minutes

Email: edisonalviar755133@gmail.com

Class: Constitution

Teacher: Hon. Ric Bastasa

1. prerogative of royal dishonesty is priviledge wherein it grants the state to defeat any legitimate claims against it by simply its non-suability mit is also called as the state immunity. However this doctrine is not absolute, because in order to sue one state there should be a concent from the concerned state to be sued.

2. Except in cases where immunity is waived, certain admiralty suit involves commercial activity.

3.Article VII, section 17, of the constituttion provides that " the president is immune from suit during his tenure. thereafter, no suit whatsoever shall lie for official acts done by him or by other pursuant to his specific orders during his tenure. therefore it is a constitutional guarantee vested upon the elected president of the Philippines to be immune from suit. 

4. No. because only the President is immune from suit.

5. Yes. because the contract made between the maintenance company and the embassy of Indonesia is not considered as the diplomatic agenda thus it cannot be considered as part of the immunity granted to the respondent state.

Edison Alviar

2020-11-21

Holly-Ann Cabasag

Exam: quiz constitutional law nov. 21, 2020

Word count: 316

Writing time: 44 minutes

Email: cabasaghollyann4@gmail.com

Class: Constitutional Law

Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa

1. Prerogative dishonesty is a doctrine wherein it also or called as "the royal prerogative of dishonesty" because of the privilege it grants the state to defeat any legitimate claim against it by simply invoking its non-suability.

2. Article XVI, Section 3 of the Constitution provides the immunity of the government from suit. However exceptions include that the state can be sued with its consent. The consent of the state to be sued may be manifested expressly or impliedly. It is an express consent when there is a law expressly grants the authority to sue the state or any of its agencies. Upon other hand, it is impliedly when the State enters into contract or commences litigation.

3. The President during his tenure of office may not be sued in any civil or criminal case and that there is no need to provide in the Constitution. If the President will be sued during his actual incumbency, it will degrade the dignity of the high office as the President and as the Head of State as he will be dragged into court litigations if that would happened. The reason for the absolute cloak of immunity of the President because it is important that he be freed from any form of harassment, hindrance or distraction to enable him to fully attend to the performance of his official duties and funtions as head of the state.

4. No. The UP is not immune from suit however they can be made liable because they entered into contract. Thus, making them liable for the unpaid salaries of the security guards. 

5.  Yes. The suit will prosper. The Philippines already entered into a contract with the Republic of Indonesia. The said consent is impliedly as the State enters into a contract. Thus, Indonesia is liable for the breach of contract because Indonesia failed to follow what is stipulated in the said contract. 

Holly-Ann Cabasag

2020-11-21

Kyle Kristian Jay Geromo

Exam: quiz constitutional law nov. 21, 2020

Word count: 1

Email: kylekristianjaygeromo@gmailcom

Class: Constitutional Law 1

Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa

1. 

Kyle Kristian Jay Geromo

2020-11-21

Kyle Kristian Jay Geromo

Exam: quiz constitutional law nov. 21, 2020

Word count: 475

Writing time: 86 minutes

Email: kylekristianjaygeromo@gmail.com

Class: Constitutional Law 1

Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa

1. The prerogative of royal dishonesty is a privilege that grants the state to defeat any legitimate claim against it by simply invoking its non-suability. This is the doctrine of state immunity wherein a suit is based on the political truism. It is also applicable to complaints filed against officials of the state for acts allegedly performed by them in the discharge of their duties. The rules is that if the judgment against such officials will require the state itself to perform an affirmative act to satisfy the same.

2. The state is immune from suit. Under the Constitution, Article 16 Sec. 3 that the state may not be sued without its consent, however suability depends whether the State has consented to be sued. Soverign of a country is exempt from suit not because of the juridical notion that the State can do no wrong. Consent to be sued given  by the state either expressly or impledly. There is express consent when there is a law expressly granting authority to sue the state, and there is implied consent, when the state enters a private contract, enters into an operation of business, and when the state sues a private party. 

3. No, it is not expressly provided in the Constitution. In the case of David et. al. vs Macapagal-Arroyo, it is settled in the doctrine that the President during his tenure of office or actual incumbancy may not be sued in any civil or criminal case, and there is no  need to provided in the constitution. It will degrade the dignity of the high office of the President if he can be dragged into court litigations while serving his office. It is important that he is free from harassment and distraction to allow a full performance in his function. The president has absolute immunity unlike in the legislative and judicial branch which impairs his usefulness in the discharge of great important duties. It is not provided in the Constitution as it is deemed inherent in the Office of the President. The extent of this immunity is in his entire function of the office until the end of his term or removed through impeachment. 

4. No, University of the Philippines is not immune from the suit. According to the law, only governmental activities are immune to such case. It is liable for such action since they entered in such contract with the security guards. 

5. Yes, the suit will prosper. The state will be held liable if it impliedly express consent to sued when entered into a private contract. In this case, Indonesia made a contract for a repair of the embassy office in the Philippines, however it did not payed the company which is under the contract. Indonesia is libale for the breach of contract since it did not follow what was stipulated under such agreement. 

Kyle Kristian Jay Geromo

2020-11-21

Livina Petralba

Exam: quiz constitutional law nov. 21, 2020

Word count: 195

Writing time: 76 minutes

Email: petralbalivina@gmaill.com

Class: JD-I

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

1. Prerogtive of royal dishonesty is the privilege that gives a state to defeat any legitimate claim against it through an invoke of its non-suability.

2. The suit is immune from suit as a general rule, except with its consent as provided. The state shall be legally responsible first to its actions done according to the Constitution and its laws.

3. The president of the Philippines is immune from suit during his tenure under the law of the Philippine Constitution. The Philippine president can be sued when  they involven criminal cases such as plunder, bribery or graft and corruption.

4. Yes, the University of the Philipines can be sued since they are liable for the salary of their security guards. There funds will also be made liable for the unpaid salaries of their security guards since it is  their employees.

5.  Yes, the suit will proser since the unpaid company followed the due process that it will pass first to its state. Yes, Indonesia will be liable for the breach of the said  contract since it is them who made it and it is for the welfare of  their state because it is their embassy.

Livina Petralba

2020-11-21

lovelle naquila

Exam: quiz constitutional law nov. 21, 2020

Word count: 378

Writing time: 56 minutes

Email: lovellenaquila@gmail.com

Class: jd 1

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

1. Royal Prerogative of dishonesty- is the privilege it grants the state to defeat any legitimate claim against it by simply invokingits non- suabiliety. The consent of the state to be sued may be manifested expressly or impliedly.

2. The exceptions are when the official is sued in his personal or private capacity for acts done with malice or in bad faith, or when the official does unauthorized or illegal acts or goes beyond the scope of his authority or commits a crime, in which case, the principle of state immunity from suit does not apply and the official concerned may be held personally liable therefor.  The rule does not apply where the public official is charged in his official capacity for acts that are unlawful and injurious to the rights of others.

3.  In 1973 Constitution of the RP  first appeard the immunity of President, but in 1987 Constitution of the Phililippines, the section of presidential immunity has been removed.Even so accoding to high court the Presidential immunity from suit remains preserved under our system of government, not expressly reserved in the present constitution but the high court cited a previous ruling  like Dvid etal vs Macapagal-Arroyo, et al.

The doctrine that the President, during his tenure of office may not be sued in any civil or criminal case, and there is no need to provide for it in the constitution or law. It is important that he be freed from any form of harassment, hindrance or distraction to enable him to fully attend to the performance of his official duties and functions.

4. Yes U. P is immune from suit. The funds of UP were not be liable for the unpaid salaries of the security guards.

5 Yes it will prosper and Indonesia is liable for the breach of said contract. According to Article ii Secion 2 of the Constitution that the immunity of the sovereign is recognized only with regard to public acts or acts jure imperii but not with regard to private acts or acts jure gestionis. Any legal action arising out of the agreement shall be settled according to the laws of the Philippines and by a specified court of the Philippines is not necessarily a waiver of sovereign immunity from suit,

lovelle naquila

2020-11-21

Marie Beth Revilla

Exam: quiz constitutional law nov. 21, 2020

Word count: 268

Writing time: 85 minutes

Email: mariebeth.revilla1432@gmail.com

Class: Constitutional Law

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

1.) Prerogative of royal dishonesty is a doctrine and it is named so because of the privilige it grants the state to defeat any legitimate claim against it by simply invoking its non-suatability.In democratic societies it is hardly fair, because the state is not a tyrant unmoved by the valid claims of its citizens. 

2.) Under the constitution article 16 section 3 the state can be sued with its consent and it may be manifested expressly or impliedly, it is expressed if there is a general law or special law that is implied when the state enters into a contract, but as a general rule the state is immune from suit.

3.)In David et. al Vs. Macapagal there is no need to provide in the constitution of law about the presidents immunity because if the president can be easily dragged into court litigations while serving as such it will degrade the dignity of the high office. It is of paramount importance that the president is freed from harrasment, hindrance or distraction to enable him to fully attend the performance of his official duties and functions.

4.)UP is not immune from such suit because under the law only sovereign or governmental ativities can be immune, though UP is under the government UP in this case can be held liable for this suit but not the government.

5.) Yes, it will prosper because there is a contract that implied that the state can be sued for such. Yes indonesia is liable for the breach of contract because they did not follow the implied agreement.

Marie Beth Revilla

2020-11-21

Mary Choleene Bautista

Exam: quiz constitutional law nov. 21, 2020

Word count: 351

Writing time: 52 minutes

Email: leenebautista@gmail.com

Class: Consti 1

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

1.  "Prerogative of royal dishonesty" is what they called a doctrine where noone can sue the state without its consent.  It gives the privilege of the state to stop any suit against it by raising  its non-suability.

2. The exception to the immunity of the state from any law suit is if the State itself consents, whether expressly or impliedly.  The state expressly give consent either through a general law or a special law.  Implied consent, however, happens when the state itself with commence the lawsuit against another.  When these situations happen, it shows that the State had waive its immunity from lawsuit and therefore will be sued.

3.  The president is indeed immune from any law suit as to the extent of his tenure.  During his hold of the office, the president cannot be sued from the official acts done by him or from acts done by other people due to the president's orders.  It has been expressly provided in the 1973 Constitution of the Philippines.

4.  In this case, U.P. is not immune to the suit being filed against it, in fact, U.P. is a juridical personality separate and distinct from the government and has capacity to sue or to be sued.  However, the funds that was used to pay the security guards is not liable for the latter's unpaid salaries.  The bank account that the money was taken from belongs to the State and therefore, the court ruled that in order to make a claim of such money, the claimants shall first receive judgement from the COA that they are indeed entitled to be awarded of such claims.

5.  No the suit will not prosper.  The Republic of Indonesia is immune from any lawsuit filed against them.  In this case, the Republic of Indonesia had not given its consent to be sued.  The latter's intention of repairing its embassy office in the Philippines is an act of sovereign activity and not a professional or commercial activity.  Therefore, Indonesia will not be liable for the breach of contract with the company for not paying what is due.

Mary Choleene Bautista

2020-11-21

Mary Rovytte Banas

Exam: quiz constitutional law nov. 21, 2020

Word count: 309

Writing time: 59 minutes

Email: maryrovytte.b@gmail.com

Class: Constitutional Law

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

1.

  Prerogative of royal dishonesty is the privilege that grants the state to defeat any legitimate claim against it by simply invoking that it is immune from suit. 

2.

  The general rule, as to the state is immune from suit, is that in no case may a public officer be sued without ist consent of the state.

    

  Exceptions to the rule are:

1. a public officer may be sued as such to compel him to do an act required by law; or
2. where the government itself has violated its own laws. 

3.

    The basis as to the presidential immunity is from the doctrine of command responsibility. Of which as provided by the latter, that the Presidents, as the Commander-in-Chief of the AFP, can be held liable for affront against the petitioner's rights to life, liberty and security as loang as substantial evidence exist to show that he or she had exhibited involvement in or can be imputed with knowledge of the violations, or had failed to exercise necessary investigations required under the rules.

    No. There is no expressed provisions that says the president is immune from suit.

  As a rule, the Presidential is immune from any civil and criminal offense. This, however, this does not mean that the President is not accountable to anyone. The President is still accountable of the offense he committed but, he may be removed from office only in the mode provided by law and that is by impeachment. 

4.

 

     No. The UP is not immune from suit. As ruled in a recent case: 

  UP is a juridical personality separate and distinct from the government and has the capacity to sue and be sued. It cannot evade execution and its funds may be subject to garnishment of levy.  

  Therefore, UP can be sued and be held liable for the unpaid wages of the security guard.

5.

Mary Rovytte Banas

2020-11-21

Meg Dianne Paler

Exam: quiz constitutional law nov. 21, 2020

Word count: 169

Writing time: 27 minutes

Email: megdianne@yahoo.com

Class: Constitution 1

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

PALER, Meg Dianne C. 

1. The so called "prerogative of royal dishonesty" means that no state is above or over other county, and that all states are equal. this is the concept of state immunity granting the previlige to defeat any claims by invoking this doctrine. 

2. The 2 exceptions of state immunity are: 

a. the state cannot be sued without its consent 

b. 

3. Under the law, the President is immune from suit during his tenure to ensure that he can excercise his duties and functions in running the country, free from distractions, hindrances. 

4. The UP is not immune from suit. Yes, the funds of the school is liable for the unpaid security guards. 

5. As per the international law, we can file a suit in the international court against the Republic of Indonesia. This move should be supported by our country as well. just like in the case of Belgium v. Spain where Mavrotis broguht up a case in international court which was supported by Greece. 

Meg Dianne Paler

2020-11-21

Nicefel Villomo

Exam: quiz constitutional law nov. 21, 2020

Word count: 433

Writing time: 91 minutes

Email: Nicefelvillomo@yahoo.com

Class: Constitutional Law

Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa

1.)     The Royal Prerogative of Dishonesty is the privilege that grant the state to defeat any legitimate claim against it by simply invoking it's non-suability. The doctrine appears to prohibit only suits against the state without consent, it is also applicable to complaints files against officials of the state for acts alledgely performed by them in the discharge of their duties. In such a situation, the state may move to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it has been filed without consent. 

2.)  As a General rule the state is immune from suit as it is stated in article 16 section 3.

Under our Constitution the principle of immunity of the government from suit is expressly provided in Article XVI, Section 3. the principle is based on the very essence of sovereignty, and on the practical ground that there can be no legal ground that there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends. However there is also a rule that he can be sued if the state allowed or it has a consent. The consent may be manifested expressly or impliedly, it is expressly if it was already granted with authority and impliedly when the state enters into contract or commences litigation.

3.)  According to the case of David et al vs Macapagal, the president during his tenure of office or actual incumbency, may not be sued in any civil or criminal case, and there is no need to provide for it in Constitution or law. It will degrade the dignity of the high office of the President, the head of the state, if he dragged into court litigations while serving as such. No it is not expressly provided in the constitution but it is inherent to the office of the president that he is immune. Until his term is done or he will be romoved in the state through impeachment.

4.)  No. UP is not immune from suit. The state in many cases may be suable but not liable. In this case UP is  liable for the unpaid salaries of the security guards since it was their employee and their contract was signed in ther institution, but the government is not liable of the damages of UP.

5.)  Yes. the suit will prosper, Since it is impliedy with consent to be sued because there is a contract between Indonesia and the philippines. Yes they are liable of contract of breach because they did not followed which is stated in the contract to pay the company.

Nicefel Villomo

2020-11-21

Raul Ronnel Barbosa

Exam: quiz constitutional law nov. 21, 2020

Word count: 158

Writing time: 30 minutes

Email: barbosaraul21@gmail.com

Class: Constitutional Law 1

Teacher: Hon. Ric Bastasa

1.) It is invoked by the state in order to quel suits filed against it.

2.) When the state consents to the suit. One can sue the state if the state or its agencies consents to it e.g. a corrupt Secretary of the DOJ is sued for estafa.  

3.) Under the RPC, it can be found that the President is indeed immune from suit. It is not expressly provided in the constitution but it is still part of the law. The President's immunity is active during his tenure.

4.) It is immune but only insofar as the state will not consent to UP being sued. Through the passage of a law, its funds can be made to pay for the unpaid salaries of the guards.

5.) Consent does not equate to liability. Even if Indonesia will lose the court battle, the one who's liable will be the special agent that Indonesia sent. 

Raul Ronnel Barbosa

2020-11-21

Vanessa Mawile

Exam: quiz constitutional law nov. 21, 2020

Word count: 387

Writing time: 89 minutes

Email: vanessamawile04@gmail.com

Class: Constitutional Law 1

Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa

1. As explained in USA vs Guinto, prerogative of royal dishonesty is a privelege that grants the state to defeat any legitimate claim against it by simple invoking its non-suability. It is another name for doctrine of state immunity which states that there can be no legal right against the authority which makes the law on which right depends. This does not mean however, that the state cannot be sued under anything, for it can be sued if it consents.

2. As a general rule, the state is immune from suit. Article 16, sec. 3 provides, the State may not be sued without its consent which means if the State consents, then it can be sued; for all states are sovereign equals and cannot assert jurisdiction over one another. The consent maybe manifested expressly or impliedly. It is expressed if there is a special law and implied when the state enters into contract or commences litigation.

3. In the case of Macapagal Arroyo, it was explained that the President during his tenure of office may not be sued in any civil or criminal case and it is not stated in the 1987 constitution. President immunity is provided in the earlier constitution but its was removed in the 1987 for there is no need to provide for it in the Constitution or the law as it is deemed inherent in his Office. He is immuned until he is impeached or removed from the office. Moreover, the reason of absolute immunity is that it will lessen the dignity of the President if he can be brought in litigations. He has to be freed from any distractions to enable him to fully attend to his duties and responsibilities.

4. No, the UP is not immune from such suit. Under the law, the doctrine of immunity is restricted to sovereign or governmental activities. It cannot be extended to commercial, private and propriety acts. In this case, UP can be held liable for the unpaid salaries as they have entered into contract already.

5. Yes, the suit will prosper. In this case, the Republic of Indonesia impliedly consented for it to be sued as it entered into contract with the company. Yes, Indonesia is liable for the breach of contract for its obligation arose from its own wrongful action in business transaction.

Vanessa Mawile

2020-11-21

Yasser Nasser Galvez

Exam: quiz constitutional law nov. 21, 2020

Word count: 370

Writing time: 57 minutes

Email: engrgalvez92@gmail.com

Class: JD-1 Consti Law 1

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

1. Under the 1987 Constitution, the principle of immunity of the government from suit is expressly provided in Article XVI, Sec 3. The doctrine is called “prerogative of royal dishonesty” because it grants the state the prerogative to defeat any legitimate claim against it by simply invoking its non-suability arising from the fact that all states are sovereign equals and cannot assert jurisdiction over one another.

2. The exception to the general rule of sovereign immunity, according to the newer restrictive theory, are private acts or acts jure gestiones or acts by right of management performed by the sovereign state independent from its public and governmental obligations.

3. The President, during his tenure of office or actual incumbency, may not be sued in any civil or criminal case. Presidential immunity from suits remains preserved under our system of government, albeit not expressly reserved in the 1987 Constitution. A closer look at the 1973 Constitution, one is provided for such provision. Supreme Court decisions, which shall form part of the laws (case law) of the land provided for the legal basis of this immunity; one such case is its ruling in seven consolidated cases of David et. al vs. Macapagal-Arroyo et.al, G.R. No.171396 (2006). 

The privilege of presidential immunity from suits exists and extends only during the term and incumbency of the President.

4. UP System is not immune from suit as there is no legal basis for such under our laws. Therefore, it's funds shall be made liable to pay for the salaries of the security guards.

5. The suit will not prosper. As a general rule, states enjoying sovereign immunity is immune from suit. Unless it be proven that the acts performed are acts falling under jure gestiones, or acts by right of management which would impliedly divest it of its sovereign immunity from suit. In the present case, Indonesia is discharging its public and governmental responsibility falling under the newer restrictive theory of acts jure imperii. On the other hand, the suit will only prosper if the aggrieved party asks the PH government to espouse their cause through diplomatic channels. Once the PH government decides to espouse, such claim ceases to be a private cause.

Yasser Nasser Galvez