Practice question
A deputy executive official grants an exemption that the applicable presidential issuance reserves to presidential authority. The deputy supplies no express designation or delegation, no act of the Executive Secretary adopting the decision, and relies only on the title 'deputy' as proof of automatic alter-ego power. Under the limitation discussed in PIDS v. COA, which conclusion is sound?
- Every deputy has every power of the President merely by title.
- A person's title alone supplies all missing legal authority.
- Qualified political agency automatically extends to every employee in the Palace.
- The deputy's asserted title alone is insufficient; the actual legal designation, delegation or competent adopting act must be established.
- A deputy can never exercise any legally delegated function under any circumstances.
Legal references
- Philippine Institute for Development Studies v. COA, G.R. No. 212022, August 20, 2019, main decision, deputy authority and express designation: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65612
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.