Practice question
The President considers an agreement with a foreign-owned corporation for large-scale mineral development under general statutory terms. An opponent claims the Constitution bars every such agreement merely because the corporation is foreign-owned. A supporter claims foreign ownership removes all State supervision. Which is best?
- Both categorical claims are correct
- All foreign participation is necessarily prohibited
- Every foreign contract is exempt from law
- Neither position is correct: Section 2 provides the specified route subject to constitutional and statutory safeguards
- A local permit alone transfers ownership of all minerals
Legal references
- 1987 Constitution, Article XII, Sections 2, 3, 5, 7 and 8: https://lawphil.net/consti/cons1987.html
- La Bugal-Blaan Tribal Association v. Ramos, G.R. No. 127882, December 1, 2004, main resolution: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_127882_2004.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.