Practice question
A person’s appointment is defective, but she openly performs official duties under color of authority and qualifies as de facto. A party argues that recognizing her lawful official act necessarily means the court has declared her appointment substantively valid. Which is best?
- Recognition of the act does not necessarily cure the appointment or establish de jure title.
- Every protected act automatically supplies all missing statutory qualifications.
- An office’s customers may amend appointment laws by using its services.
- The defect disappears solely because the document has a seal.
- De facto and de jure always mean exactly the same thing.
Legal references
- General Manager, Philippine Ports Authority v. Monserate, G.R. No. 129616, April 17, 2002, main decision: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/gr_129616_2002.html
- Civil Service Commission v. Unda, G.R. Nos. 213237 and 213331, September 13, 2017, main decision: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/sep2017/gr_213237_2017.html
- Gonzales v. COMELEC, G.R. Nos. L-28196 and L-28224, November 9, 1967, main decision: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1967/nov1967/gr_l-28196_1967.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.