Practice question
Before a measure is invalidated, recipients receive services in good faith. In a later liability case, evidence is offered that a particular officer knowingly circumvented constitutional limits. The officer asserts that Araullo makes good faith conclusive and bars the court from receiving the evidence. How should the court treat this assertion?
- Accept it because reliance by recipients proves every officer's good faith.
- Reject it because the presumption may be contested and the officer's responsibility requires a proper factual inquiry.
- Reject it and convict immediately without examining the evidence.
- Accept it because operative fact applies automatically to every transaction.
- Dismiss because constitutional invalidity forbids any subsequent liability proceeding.
Legal references
- Araullo v. Aquino III, G.R. No. 209287 et al., February 3, 2015 Resolution, sections 6–7, https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/feb2015/gr_209287_2015.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.