Practice question
After declaring a national emergency, the President orders the temporary takeover of a privately owned electricity utility and cites only the emergency declaration and Article XII, Section 17. The government concedes that no law authorizes the President to exercise the asserted takeover power. It argues that the Constitution's reference to the State makes the President alone sufficient. Under David, which conclusion is best?
- Every emergency proclamation automatically authorizes every private-business takeover
- The declaration alone does not supply the necessary delegated authority for the asserted presidential takeover
- The utility may be taken over merely because it earns profits
- Article XII abolishes the legislative role during emergencies
- A company's refusal itself creates presidential authority
Legal references
- 1987 Constitution, Article VI, Section 23(2): https://lawphil.net/consti/cons1987.html
- David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396 and consolidated cases, May 3, 2006, main decision: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/41473
- 1987 Constitution, Article XII, Section 17: https://lawphil.net/consti/cons1987.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.