Practice question
An adviser reads Marcos v. Manglapus as holding that executive power is confined to an exhaustive checklist of individual clauses, so that no unenumerated executive function can exist. Another adviser reads it as permission to disregard every constitutional or statutory limit. Which conclusion best reflects the decision?
- Both absolute readings are correct.
- Only enumerated words can ever support any executive function.
- All unenumerated presidential actions are automatically valid.
- The case recognizes residual executive powers beyond express enumeration, but that recognition does not remove constitutional and legal limits.
- The case transfers all judicial power to the President.
Legal references
- 1987 Constitution, Article VII, Sections 1 and 17: https://lawphil.net/consti/cons1987.html
- Marcos v. Manglapus, G.R. No. 88211, September 15, 1989, main decision: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1989/sep1989/gr_88211_1989.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.