Practice question
A local official orders a family to move from its chosen lawful residence because the official dislikes its lawful political activities. There is no lawful court order, statutory basis, emergency, or other legal ground for compulsory relocation. Separately, an office claims it can restrict foreign travel merely by asserting public health without any authorizing law. Which assessment correctly identifies the constitutional defects?
- Political disagreement automatically authorizes relocation.
- Both orders become valid when called administrative measures.
- Liberty of abode protects only families that own their homes.
- Both measures require attention to the provision's legal qualifications; the stipulated unsupported executive commands do not establish lawful restrictions.
- Public-health language removes every need for law.
Legal references
- 1987 Constitution, Article III, section 6, https://lawphil.net/consti/cons1987.html
- Genuino v. De Lima, G.R. No. 197930 et al., April 17, 2018, https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2018/apr2018/gr_197930_2018.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.