Practice question
A statute expressly requires a particular decision to be made by the President personally. A department secretary instead makes it, relying solely on the proposition that all departmental acts are always presidential acts. The parties concede the statutory personal-action requirement. Which analysis is best?
- The doctrine automatically repeals the statute.
- The secretary may erase the word personally by memorandum.
- Every statutory limit is merely advisory.
- Villena expressly preserves acts requiring personal presidential exercise, so the general departmental presumption does not answer the conceded requirement.
- The decision becomes valid solely if the secretary is senior.
Legal references
- Villena v. Secretary of the Interior, G.R. No. L-46570, April 21, 1939, main decision, presidential departmental agents and personal-action exceptions: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1939/apr1939/gr_l-46570_1939.html
- 1987 Constitution: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/3/353 Article VII, Section 17.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.