Practice question
An existing law vests a presidential administrative function subject to a defined limit. A new executive order retains the function but doubles its legal scope, citing only Section 20 and the Marcos recognition of implied powers. No law authorizes the expansion, and the conflict with the source statute is conceded. Which is best?
- Any implied-power citation automatically repeals the limit.
- Preservation of a vested function and recognition of implied executive powers do not establish unrestricted authority to amend the governing statute.
- The President may choose which statutes still exist by title alone.
- The source statute becomes a private contract.
- The absence of a new statute is irrelevant whenever officials claim usefulness.
Legal references
- Executive Order No. 292, Book III, Title I, Chapter 7, Section 20: https://lawphil.net/executive/execord/eo1987/eo_292_1987.html
- Review Center Association of the Philippines v. Ermita, G.R. No. 180046, April 2, 2009, main decision: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/49250
- Marcos v. Manglapus, G.R. No. 88211, October 27, 1989, majority resolution on reconsideration: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1989/oct1989/gr_88211_1989.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.