Embedded Files
Activity #2 - The Philippine Constitution
Contextualized Edition - De La Salle Andres Soriano Memorial College Setting
INSTRUCTIONS
Read and analyze each statement carefully. Use your handouts as the primary reference in answering the guide questions. You are also permitted to search online with care, but make sure the information you use is reliable and accurate. Write your answers in not more than three (3) sentences each. Be direct and straight to the point. Do this on a sheet of yellow paper. Please refer the rubric below for scoring.
If your answer requires the context in the PH 1987 Constitution, please do this format.
Answer:
Based on Article xx, Sec xx, the/ that/.... (then add your answer.)
RUBRIC for Scoring
Completeness (4 points) – The answer addresses all parts of the question clearly.
Accuracy (3 points) – The answer is factually correct and supported by the handout/credible sources.
Clarity (2 points) – The response is concise, easy to understand, but not related to the handout
Relevance (1 point) – The answer stays on topic, but missed to answer the question.
SITUATION 1
VP SARA DUTERTE'S IMPEACHMENT ISSUE
In 2025, the Philippines faces a political storm surrounding Vice President Sara Duterte. Reports of alleged misuse of confidential and intelligence funds have sparked debates in Congress, civil society, and among ordinary citizens. Critics argue that such expenditures—funded by taxpayers—may have bypassed transparency rules and checks mandated under the Constitution’s provisions on accountability and public trust (Article XI, Sec. 1-3).
Citizens’ groups filed petitions urging Congress to initiate impeachment proceedings against the Vice President. Supporters, however, defend her, claiming that as Vice President and former Education Secretary, she had broad discretionary powers to allocate funds for national security and education programs.
The House of Representatives now faces pressure to decide whether the allegations rise to the level of “betrayal of public trust” or “graft and corruption” under Article XI, Section 2. If elevated, the Senate would sit as an impeachment court. Meanwhile, protesters rally outside the Batasang Pambansa, holding placards that read “Public Office is a Public Trust” (Article XI, Sec. 1).
This controversy highlights how the Constitution not only sets qualifications for the Vice President (Article VII, Sec. 3) but also establishes mechanisms for accountability to prevent abuses of power. The unfolding situation tests both the strength of institutions and the people’s role through suffrage and political participation (Article V).
Questions
1. What constitutional principle is invoked when citizens demand accountability from Vice President Sara Duterte?
2. Can the Vice President be removed from office through impeachment?
3. Who has the exclusive power to initiate impeachment against the Vice President?
4. Who acts as the judge in impeachment trials of the Vice President?
5. What vote is required in the Senate to convict the Vice President?
6. If the Vice President is removed, how is a replacement chosen?
Bonus: for correction based on the discussion. Please refer your answer in Article VII, Sec. 9
7. What role does the Supreme Court play in controversies over the Vice President’s qualifications or election?
8. Can citizens directly remove the Vice President through suffrage outside impeachment?
9. Are discretionary or confidential funds covered by constitutional accountability provisions?
10. Could allegations of corruption against the Vice President also fall under Ombudsman jurisdiction?
SITUATION 2
FLOOD CONTROL ISSUE
In 2025, severe monsoon rains and typhoons once again battered Metro Manila and other provinces, causing massive flooding. Videos of submerged highways and stranded commuters went viral. Citizens angrily questioned the government’s use of the national budget for flood control projects, as billions of pesos had been allocated yearly for drainage systems and river rehabilitation.
The controversy deepened when reports surfaced that some flood control funds were misused or delayed, with unfinished projects leaving communities defenseless. Local governments blamed the national government for slow releases of funds, while national agencies argued that local governments (LGUs) failed to enforce zoning laws and curb illegal dumping.
This debate highlights constitutional provisions on local autonomy (Article X), the duty of Congress to pass appropriations (Article VI, Sec. 25), and the principle of public accountability (Article XI, Sec. 1). The people now demand answers: Were funds misused? Who is responsible—the LGUs, Congress, or national agencies? And most importantly, how can the Constitution ensure public trust in disaster preparedness?
Questions
1. Who is responsible for ensuring that flood control projects are implemented effectively?
2. Do local governments have the power to generate their own resources for flood control?
3. Are national taxes automatically shared with LGUs to support services like flood control?
4. What constitutional safeguard ensures that flood control funds are used only for their intended purpose?
5. If flood control funds are misused, which agency has the duty to investigate?
6. Can the Ombudsman intervene if public officials are suspected of corruption in flood projects?
7. If Congress fails to pass a budget for flood control, what happens?
8. Can Congress increase the flood control budget beyond what the President recommends?
9. What constitutional principle requires that public officials prioritize the people’s welfare in handling disasters like floods?
10. If LGUs fail in their flood control duties, can the people act directly?
SITUATION 3
VICE GANDA'S THE JET SKI ISSUE
In a recent comedy segment, Vice Ganda quipped, “Nothing beats the Jetski holiday”, satirizing political leaders’ past statements about riding a jetski to assert Philippine sovereignty over the West Philippine Sea (WPS). The remark went viral, reigniting debates over how the Philippines is handling its maritime claims against China.
The joke, while humorous, resonated with Filipinos frustrated by the lack of concrete government action in defending the nation’s rights in the WPS. Under the 1987 Constitution, Article XII, Section 2, all natural resources—including marine wealth in the country’s archipelagic waters, territorial sea, and exclusive economic zone—belong to the State.
At the same time, Article II, Section 7 (not in your truncated text but part of the Constitution) mandates the State to pursue an independent foreign policy. Many Filipinos now ask: Is the government doing enough to assert sovereignty? Are diplomatic negotiations, treaties, or military actions constitutional responses? And beyond the joke, how can humor be a form of political commentary that strengthens democratic accountability?
Questions
1. Who owns the resources in the West Philippine Sea under the Constitution?
2. Can the President enter into agreements with foreign corporations to explore resources in the WPS?
3. What branch of government approves treaties related to the West Philippine Sea?
4. Can humor, like Vice Ganda’s joke, be seen as part of democratic participation?
5. Who has the power to deploy the armed forces to defend Philippine territory?
6. Who has the sole power to declare a state of war if tensions escalate in the WPS?
7. If public officials neglect the defense of the WPS, what accountability mechanism applies?
8. Can local fishermen invoke the Constitution to demand protection of their rights in the WPS?
9. What role does suffrage play in shaping WPS policy?
10. Why is the “Jetski Holiday” joke politically powerful?
SITUATION 4
GWEN GARCIA VS PAM BARICUATRO
In May 2025, Pam Baricuatro, a political newcomer, delivered a historic upset by defeating long-time Cebu Governor Gwendolyn Garcia in the local elections. With over 1.1 million votes to García’s 765,051, Baricuatro was officially proclaimed governor-elect on May 13.
However, the aftermath revealed deep tensions. Baricuatro’s team accused Garcia of delaying the transition, withholding vital documents, and blocking early coordination with department heads—moves which, they claimed, jeopardized continuity of public services.
Adding to the complexity, Garcia filed an electoral protest on June 3, alleging technical irregularities and miscounted votes across more than 4,100 clustered precincts
GMA Network.
As of mid-June, Baricuatro’s camp firmly maintained that the protest lacked merit, citing procedural and substantive flaws—like failing to specify precincts, lacking required respondents, and insufficient evidence to overturn the nearly 343,000-vote lead.
Still, the transition remains strained, with the possibility of public backlash if cooperation breaks down further.
Meanwhile, underneath the political drama lies another layer: just weeks earlier, Garcia had been slapped with a six-month preventive suspension by the Ombudsman over alleged environmental violations in a desilting project. She has contested that suspension and obtained a TRO from the Court of Appeals.
Questions
1. What constitutional principle governs the peaceful transition of local government leadership?
2. Is withholding government documents during a transition constitutionally problematic?
3. Who adjudicates election protests against local officials such as a governor?
4. Does filing an election protest delay a governor-elect’s assumption of office?
5. Can public officials be suspended even while contesting their authority?
6. Does the Constitution address environmental compliance in project permits?
7. Are public officials accountable if they resist transitions or violate environmental laws?
8. Is judicial review available for Ombudsman sanctions such as preventive suspension?
9. Does political newcomer Pamela Baricuatro have constitutional grounds to demand smooth transition?
10. How does this dispute illustrate the Constitution’s system of checks and balances?
SITUATION 5
HINDI KULAY PULA'T DILAW TUNAY NA MAGKALABAN
In February 1986, the Philippines faced a turning point in history. President Ferdinand Marcos Sr., in power for over two decades and ruling under Martial Law from 1972 to 1981, declared himself the winner of the snap elections against Corazon Aquino, widow of slain opposition leader Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino Jr. The results were widely viewed as fraudulent, sparking mass protests.
From February 22 to 25, millions of Filipinos took to EDSA (Epifanio de los Santos Avenue) in the famous People Power Revolution, backed by religious leaders, soldiers, and ordinary citizens. On February 25, both Marcos and Aquino held separate inaugurations—Marcos in Malacañang and Aquino at Club Filipino in San Juan.
The U.S. later flew Marcos into exile in Hawaii, while Cory Aquino assumed the presidency, dismantled the Batasang Pambansa (Marcos’ parliament), and issued the “Freedom Constitution” (Proclamation No. 3, 1986), which became the legal foundation for the drafting of the 1987 Constitution.
The Aquino presidency marked a restoration of democracy and a rejection of authoritarianism. The 1987 Constitution, ratified on February 2, 1987, was designed to prevent abuses of power by strengthening accountability, limiting presidential powers, and protecting human rights.
Thus, the Marcos–Aquino conflict was not only a political battle but also a constitutional struggle for legitimacy, democracy, and people’s sovereignty.
Questions
1. Why was Marcos Sr.’s claim to power in 1986 widely rejected?
2. How did Cory Aquino legally justify her presidency after Marcos fled?
3. Why did the 1987 Constitution limit presidential terms to a single six-year tenure?
4. What provision ensures that elections reflect the true will of the people?
5. How does the Constitution prevent the abuse of Martial Law that Marcos declared in 1972?
6. Could Marcos Sr. have been impeached under the 1987 Constitution for his authoritarian acts?
7. What role did the judiciary have in Marcos’ rule, and how does the 1987 Constitution address judicial independence?
8. How does the Constitution ensure accountability of presidents like Marcos Sr. and Aquino?
9. Why was the creation of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) necessary after Marcos’ regime?
10. How did People Power itself align with constitutional principles?
SITUATION 6
ERAP ESTRADA AND GLORIA MACAPAGAL ARROYO
By the late 1990s, President Joseph Estrada enjoyed massive popularity. But by 2000, allegations of plunder and corruption tied to illegal gambling payoffs shook his administration. On October 2000, the House of Representatives impeached him. The impeachment trial began in December but collapsed in January 2001, when senators allied with Estrada voted to suppress evidence (the “second envelope” controversy).
This triggered EDSA II, a massive protest joined by students, clergy, civil society, and even the military. On January 20, 2001, the Supreme Court declared the presidency vacant, citing Estrada’s “constructive resignation,” and swore in Vice President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as President.
Estrada, however, argued he never resigned and that his removal was unconstitutional. He claimed he was still entitled to immunity and to finish his term. Yet, the Supreme Court upheld Arroyo’s presidency in Estrada v. Desierto (2001), affirming that sovereignty ultimately lies in the people and that the Constitution provides mechanisms for succession when the President is deemed unable to govern.
GMA would go on to serve the remainder of Estrada’s term and win her own in 2004, though her presidency was marred by controversies, including the “Hello Garci” election scandal.
This episode tested constitutional provisions on accountability of public officers (Article XI) and succession of the Vice President (Article VII, Sec. 8).
Questions
1. How was Estrada removed from office under the Constitution?
2. Was Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s succession constitutional?
3. Did Estrada truly resign?
4. Why was impeachment not completed in Estrada’s case?
5. Could Estrada have been prosecuted after leaving office?
6. Did People Power II violate the Constitution?
7. Why did Arroyo’s presidency face questions of legitimacy?
8. Could Estrada have returned to power after his ouster?
9. What role did the judiciary play in this succession crisis?
10. How did this episode reinforce the importance of accountability in the Constitution?
Page updated
Report abuse