Atty.

Jamon’s Constitutional Law 1 midterm and final exam questions

1. What matters are entered in the Journals of Congress?
A JOURNAL IS THE ABBREVIATED ACCOUNT OF THE DAILY PROCEEDINGS.
Matters to be entered in the Journal
*Yeas and nays of the final reading of the bill.
*Veto message of the President.
*Yeas and nays on repassing the bill vetoed by the President.
* Yeas and nays on any question at the request of 1/5 of the Members present.
Each House shall keep a Journal of its proceedings, and from
time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may, in its
judgment, affect national security; and the yeas and nay on any
question shall, at the request of one-fifth of the Members present,
be entered in the Journal.

2. What are the instances when Congress meets jointly but votes
separately?
Voting Separately
*Choosing the President in case two or more shall have an equal and highest
number of votes (Art. VII, Sec. 4)
*Determining the President’s temporary disability (Art. VII, Section 11, par.4)
*Declaring a state of war (Art. VI, Sec. 23, par.1)
*Amending the Constitution (Art. XVII, Sec. 1, par. 1)

3. Distinguished Domicile and Residence.

- Clearly, the place “where a party actually or constructively
has his permanent home,” where he, no matter where he
maybe found at any given time, eventually intends to return
and remain, i.e., his domicile, is that to which the
Constitution refers when it speaks of residence for the
purposes of election law. The manifest purpose of this
deviation is “to exclude strangers or newcomers unfamiliar
with the conditions and needs of the community” from taking
advantage of favorable circumstances existing in that
community for electoral gain.

Marcos v. Comelec
-Concept of domicile to mean an individuals’ “permanent
home” , “a place to which, whenever absent for business or
for pleasure, one intends to return, and depends on facts
and circumstances in the sense that they disclose intent.”
-Domicile includes the twin elements of “the fact of residing
or physical presence in a fixed place” and animus manendi,
or intention of returning there permanently.
-Residence, it its ordinary conception, implies the factual
relationship of an individual to a certain place. It is the
physical presence of a person in a given area, community, or
country. The essential distinction between residence and
domicile in law is that residence involves the intent to leave
when the purpose for which the resident has taken up his
abode ends. If a person’s intent be to remain, it becomes his
domicile; if his intent is to leave as soon as his purpose it I is
residence. It is thus, quite perfectly normal for an individual
 to have different residence in various paces, However, a
person can only have a single domicile, unless, for various
reasons, he successfully abandons his domicile in favor of
another domicile of choice.

4. What is quorum? What constitutes quorum and majority in the

Senate? Distinguished quorum and majority.
- Avelino v. Cuenco
Quorum – any number sufficient to transact business, which may be less than
the majority of the membership
Quorum- Art VI Sec 16(2):
A majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a
smaller number may adjourn from day to day and may compel the
attendance of absent Members in such manner, and under such penalties,
as such House may provide.
The base for computing the majority of the legislative body for the purpose of
determining the existence of a quorum should normally be the total membership
of the body, although it will be noted that in the case Avelino v. Cuenco the base
used was twenty-three and not twenty-four, which was the total membership of
the Senate.

Majority –

5. Explain the doctrine of “forbidden office”.

- Incompatible Office – office that cannot be held by the legislator during his term
in Congress, to prevent him from owing loyalty to another branch of the
government

Forbidden Office – any office in the government that has been created or the
emoluments thereof have been increased during the legislator’s term, to prevent
trafficking in public office

6. What is the “enrolled bill” doctrine.

- An enrolled bill is the official copy of approved legislation and bears the
certifications of both the presiding officers of each House. A duly authenticated
bill imports absolute verity and is binding on the courts.

- Under the enrolled bill doctrine, the signing by the Speaker

and the President of the Senate and the certification of
secretaries by both Houses of Congress are conclusive of its
due enactment.
o - Enrolled Bill Doctrine: As the President has no authority to approve a bill not passed by Congress, an
enrolled Act in the custody of the Secretary of State, and having the official attestations of the Speaker of the
House of Representatives, of the President of the Senate, and of the Chief Executive, carries, on its face, a
solemn assurance by the legislative and executive departments of the government, charged, respectively, with
the duty of enacting and executing the laws, that it was passed by Congress.
o Approval of Congress, not signatures of the officers, is essential

7. Explain the doctrine of “Primary Jurisdiction”

- In Codilla v De Venecia, the Court held that, the Constitution expressly grants to the House of
Representatives the prerogative, within constitutionally defined limits, to choose from its
 district and party-list representatives those who may occupy the seats allotted to the House in
HRET and the CA. Thus, petitioner’s primary recourse rests with the House of Representatives
and not with this Court. Under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, prior recourse to the House is
necessary before petitioners may bring the case to the court. Sections 17 and 18, Article VI of
the Constitution state that party-list representatives must first show the House that they
possess the required numerical strength to be entitled to seats in the HRET and CA. Moreover,
facts show, at that time, that party-list groups merely refrained from participating in the election process.
There was no mention of nominees

8. Explain the parliamentary immunity of the members of the Congress

and Senate. Explain the “freedom from arrest” clause and the
“speech and debate” clause.
- Freedom from Arrest- Article VI, Sec. 11
A Senator or member of the House of Representatives shall, in all offenses
punishable by not more than six years imprisonment, be privileged from arrest
while the Congress is in session.
Note: Immunity applies for as long as Congress is in session, whether or not the
legislator involved is actually attending it. “Session” as here used does not refer
to the day-to-day meetings of the legislature but to the entire period from its initial
convening until its final adjournment.
People v. Jalosjos
Immunity from arrest is not enjoyed by one who has been convicted. Rape is
punishable by more than six years imprisonment; hence immunity from arrest
cannot be invoked.

Speech and Debate clause- Article VI, Sec.11

xxx No Member shall be questioned nor be held liable in any other place for any
speech or debate in the Congress r in any committee thereof.
Jimenez v. Cabangbang
“Speech or debate” used in Article VI, Section 15 (now 11) of the Constitution
refers to utterances made by Congressmen in the performance of their official
functions while Congress is in session. The open letter to the President was
made by Cabangbang when Congress was not in session. And in causing the
communication to be so published, he was not performing his official duty xxx as
a member of Congress. Hence, the communication is not absolutely privileged.

9. Definite political question and justiciable question.

- Miranda v. Aguirre
- Political question connotes what it means in ordinary parlance,
namely, a question of policy. It refers to those questions which
under the Constitution are to be decided by the people ion their
sovereign capacity; or in regard to which full discretionary authority
has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the
government.’ It is concerned with issues dependent upon the
wisdom, not legality, of a particular measure.
-A purely justiciable issue implies a given right, legally demandable
and enforceable, an act of omission violative of such right, and a
remedy granted and sanctioned by aw, for said breach of right.
-Francisco v. House of Representatives, Supra.
-There are two species of political questions: (1) “truly political
questions” and (2) “not truly political questions”. The former is
beyond judicial review, while the former is subject to the review of
the court.
-The determination of a truly political question from a non-justiciable
political question lies in the answer to the question of whether there
constitutionally imposed limits on powers or functions conferred
upon political bodies. If there are, the courts are duty-bound to
examine whether the branch or instrumentality of the government
property acted within such limits

10. Discuss the case of Marbury v Madison.

- Brief Fact Summary. William Marbury (Marbury), an end-of-term appointee of President John Adams
(President Adams) to a justice of the peace position in the District of Columbia, brought suit against President
Thomas Jefferson’s (President Jefferson) Secretary of State, James Madison, seeking delivery of his
commission.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. The Supreme Court of the United States (Supreme Court) has constitutional
authority to review executive actions and legislative acts. The Supreme Court has limited jurisdiction, the
bounds of which are set by the United States Constitution (Constitution), which may not be enlarged by the
Congress.

Facts. Before the inauguration of President Jefferson, outgoing President Adams attempted to secure
Federalist control of the judiciary by creating new judgeships and filling them with Federalist appointees.
Included in these efforts was the nomination by President Adams, under the Organic Act of the District of
Columbia (the District), of 42 new justices of the peace for the District, which were confirmed by the Senate the
day before President Jefferson’s inauguration. A few of the commissions, including Marbury’s, were
undelivered when President Jefferson took office. The new president instructed Secretary of State James
Madison to withhold delivery of the commissions. Marbury sought mandamus in the Supreme Court, requiring
James Madison to deliver his commission.

Issue. Is Marbury entitled to mandamus from the Supreme Court?

11. What are the latest guidelines in determining the winners in

the partylist elections and in their seat allocations in the Congress?
-Veterans Federation Party v. Comelec
- The 20% allocation for party-list representatives mentioned
in Section 5(2), Article VI is not mandatory but merely a
ceiling. The 2% threshold and three-seat limit is
constitutional
Formula on how to determine the additional seats:
1. 20% allocation- the combined number of all party-list
representatives shall not exceed 20% of the total
membership of the HR, including those under the party-list.
2. 2% threshold- only those garnering at least 2% of the total
votes cast for party-list are qualified to have a seat.
3. three-seat limit – additional seats shall be computed “in
proportion to their total number of votes”.
4. proportional representation

12. What are the latest guidelines in determining whether or not

the organizations or parties intending to participate in the partylist
system qualify?
--Bagong Bayani v. Comelec
-Guidelines for Screening Party-List Participants
1. First, the political party, sector, organization or coalition
must represent the marginalized and underrepresented
groups identified in Section 5 of RA 7941.
2. Second, while even major political parties are expressly
allowed by RA 7941 and the Constitution to participate in the
party-list system, they must comply with the declared
statutory policy of enabling "Filipino citizens belonging to
marginalized and underrepresented sectors x x x to be
elected to the House of Representatives."
3. Third, religious sector may not be represented in the
party-list system.
4. Fourth, a party or an organization must not be disqualified
under Section 6 of RA 7941.
5. Fifth, the party or organization must not be an adjunct of,
or a project organized or an entity funded or assisted by, the
government. By the very nature of the party-list system, the
party or organization must be a group of citizens, organized
by citizens and operated by citizens.
6. Sixth, the party must not only comply with the
requirements of the law; its nominees must likewise do so.
7. Seventh, not only the candidate party or organization must
represent marginalized and underrepresented sectors; so
also must its nominees.
8. Eighth, while lacking a well-defined political constituency,
the nominee must likewise be able to contribute to the
formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that will
benefit the nation as a whole.

13. What are the rules in constitutional construction?

- Verba legis, that is, wherever possible, the
words used in the Constitution must be given
their ordinary meaning except where technical
terms are employed
- Where there is ambiguity, ratio legis est anima.
The words of the Constitution should be
interpreted in accordance with the intent of its
framers.
Ut magis valeat quam pereat. The Constitution
is to be interpreted as a whole.4

14. Explain and expound the system of “initiative” as provided in

the Constitution
In Santiago v COMELEC9, R.A. No. 6735
intended to include the System of Initiative
on Amendments to the Constitution, but is,
inadequate and incomplete to cover that
system because it does not contain any
implementation process for Amendments
to the Constitution and merely mentions it.
This law cannot use the rules and
regulations of COMELEC Resolution No.
2300 to compensate for this.
o Moreover, COMELEC Resolution No.
2300, insofar as it prescribes rules and
regulations on the conduct of initiative on
amendments to the Constitution, is void.
COMELEC cannot validly promulgate
rules and regulations to implement the
exercise of the right of the people to
directly propose amendments to the
Constitution through the system of
initiative. It does not have that power
under R.A. No. 6735. Reliance on the
COMELEC‘s power under Section 2(1) of
Article IX-C of the Constitution is therefore
misplaced.10
o See also R.A. No. 6735, August 4, 1989.

15. Explain and expound the “moot and academic” rule in judicial
review. Is there an exception?
-Mootness
-Atlas Fertilizer v. Sec, DAR
-The provisions that the petitioners are refuting are
now repealed and excluded from the coverage of
CARL. IN view of the foregoing, the question
concerning the constitutionality of the assailed
provisions has become moot and academic with the
passage of a new law which repealed the same.
-Lacson v. Perez
-All the petitions assailing the declaration of a state of
rebellion of PGM and the warrantless arrests
allegedly effected by virtue thereof, as having no
basis both in fact and in law. Significantly, PGMA
ordered the lifting of the declaration of a “state of
rebellion” in Metro Manila. Accordingly, the instant
petitioners have been rendered moot and academic.
-Exceptions to Mootness:
-Sanlakas v. Executive Secretary
-As a rule, courts do not adjudicate moot cases,
judicial power being limited to the determination of
“actual controversies.” Nevertheless, courts will
decide a question, otherwise moot, if it is “capable of
repetition yet evading review.”
-Pimentel, Jr. v. Ermita
-As an exception to the rule of mootness, courts will
decide a question otherwise moot if it is capable of
repetition yet evading review. In the present case, the
mootness of the petition does not bar its resolution.
The question of constitutionality of the President’s
appointment of department secretaries in an acting
capacity while Congress is in session will arise in
every such appointment.

16. What are the rules provided for by the Constitution in the
suspension, extension, and revocation of proclamation of the
privilege of writ of habeas corpus when exercised the President?
-Article VII, Section 18. The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief
of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary,
he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless
violence, invasion or rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion, when the
public safety requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding sixty days,
suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines
or any part thereof under martial law. Within forty-eight hours from the
proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus, the President shall submit a report in person or in writing
to the Congress. The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a
majority of all its Members in regular or special session, may revoke such
proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the
President. Upon the initiative of the President, the Congress may, in the
same manner, extend such proclamation or suspension for a period to be
determined by the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and
public safety requires it.
The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four hours following
such proclamation or suspension, convene in accordance with its rules
without need of a call.
The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any
citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial
law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ or the extension thereof,
and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing.
A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution,
nor supplant the functioning of the civil courts or legislative assemblies,
nor authorize the conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies
over civilians where civil courts are able to function, nor automatically
suspend the privilege of the writ.
The suspension of the privilege of the writ shall apply only to persons
judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly connected
with invasion.
During the suspension of the privilege of the writ, any person thus arrested
or detained shall be judicially charged within three days, otherwise he
shall be released.
-IBP v. Zamora
Section 18, Article VII embodies the powers of the President as the
Commander-in-Chief. The full discretionary power of the President to
determine the factual basis for the exercise of the calling out power is also
implied and further reinforced therein. Under the said provisions,
Congress may revoke such proclamation or suspension and the Court
may review the sufficiency of the factual basis thereof. However, there is
no such equivalent provision dealing with the revocation or review of the
President’s action to call out the armed forces.
The only criterion to exercise the calling-out power is that “whenever it
becomes necessary,” the President may call the armed forces “to prevent
or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion." The implication is that
the President is given full discretion and wide latitude in the exercise of the
power to call.
-Sanlakas v. Executive Secretary
The purpose of exercising the calling out power of all armed forces the
Constitution does not require the President to make a declaration of a
state of rebellion. It only requires that it be necessary.
Section 18, Article VII also does not expressly prohibit the President from
declaring a state of rebellion. Note that the Constitution vests the
President not only with Commander-in-Chief powers but, first and
foremost, with Executive powers

17. What are the requirements of judicial review

Essential Requisites for judicial review
1. An actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power;
2. The person challenging the act must have “standing” to challenge;
3. The question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest possible
opportunity; and
4. The issue of constitutionality must be the very list mota of the case.

18. Explain the principle of Judicial Restraint

- - 7 Pillars of Judicial Restraint
a. The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a
legislation unless it is the last resort, and is a necessity in the
determination of the important issues between individuals.
b. The Court will not decide questions of constitutionality
unless it is absolutely necessary to the case.
c. The Court will not formulate a rule of constitutional law
outside the context of the facts to which is it to be applied.
d. The Court will not pass upon a constitutional question if
there are some other grounds to which it can be decided.
e. The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a
statute when a complainant fails to show that he is injured by
its operation.
f. The court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a
statute when the complainant has once benefited from it.
g. When the constitutionality of an act of the Congress is
drawn in question, the Court will first ascertain whether a
construction of the statue is possible of resolving it.

19. Can the Supreme Court acquire jurisdiction over the rules on
proceedings of the Commission on Appointments? Explain.
-

20. What constitutes the members of HRET and SET?

- The Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an Electoral
Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election,
returns, and qualifications of their respective Members. Each Electoral Tribunal
shall be composed of nine Members, three of whom shall be Justices of the
Supreme Court to be designated by the Chief Justice, and the remaining six shall
be Members of the Senate or the House of Representatives, as the case may be,
who shall be CHOSEN on the basis of proportional representation from the
political parties or organizations registered under the party-list system
represented therein. The senior Justice in the Electoral Tribnal shall be its
Chairman.

By providing for a Tribunal to be staffed by both Justices of the SC and Members

of Congress, the Constitution intended that both those judicial and legislative
components commonly share the duty and authority of deciding all contests
relating to the elections, returns, and qualifications of Senators.
The Electoral Tribunal cannot function as such, absent its entire membership of
Senators and that no amendment of its Rules can confer on the Three-Justice
Members alone the power of valid jurisdiction of a senatorial election contest.

21. Distinguished revision and amendment.

Amendments – alteration of one or a few specific and isolated provision of
the Constitution
Revision – reexamination of the entire Constitution or an important cluster
of provisions in the Constitution.

22. What is the “mootness” rule?

case becomes moot when there are facts,
injuries and heated arguments but for some reason
the legal problem has become stale.36
As a rule, courts do not adjudicate moot cases,
judicial power being limited to the determination of
“actual controversies.” Nevertheless, courts will
decide a question, otherwise moot, if it is “capable
of repetition yet evading review.”

23. Enumerate 5 legal standings and explain.

A. Citizen Standing- In Chavez v Public Estates Authority and Amari,
G.R. No. 133250, July 9, 2002, the Supreme Court
said that the petitioner has legal standing to bring
this taxpayer’s suit because the petitioner seeks to
compel PEA to comply with its constitutional duties.
In this case, there were two constitutional issues
involved: first, the right of the citizen to information
on matters of public concern; and second, the
application of a constitutional provision intended to
insure equitable distribution of alienable lands of
the public domain among Filipino citizens.
B. Associational Standing - In KMU Labor Center v Garcia, 239 SCRA 386,
the Court held that KMU members who avail of the
use of buses, trains and jeepneys everyday are
directly affected by the burdensome cost of
arbitrary increases in passenger fares. They are,
therefore, proper parties to contest the validity of
DOTC memoranda, etc., authorizing provincial bus
and jeepney operators to increase or decrease
transportation fares.
In the same vein, an association of registered
recruitment agencies had legal standing to
question the constitutionality of the Migrant
Workers and Overseas Filipino Act, in order to
assert the concern of its constituents.
AND In Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) v
Zamora, G.R. No. 141284, August 15, 2000, the
petition seeking to nullify the order of President
Estrada for the deployment of the Philippine
Marines to join the PNP in visibility patrols around
the Metro Manila area, was dismissed on the ground that the IBP had no legal standing to
question the presidential act.
The mere invocation of the IBP of its duty to
preserve the rule of law and nothing more, while
undoubtedly true, is not sufficient to clothe it with
standing in this case—too general interest—not a
specific and substantial interest in the resolution of
the case. Not only is the presumed injury not
personal in character it is likewise too vague, highly
speculative and uncertain to satisfy the
requirement of standing.
A: In Executive Secretary v CA50, The modern view
is that an association has standing to complain of
injuries to its members. This view fuses the legal
identity of an association with that of its
members. An association has standing to file suit
for its workers despite its lack of direct interest if its
members are affected by the action. An
organization has standing to assert the concerns of
its constituents

C. Taxpayer’s Standing - In Information Technology Foundation v

COMELEC, G.R. No. 159139, January 13, 2004,
reiterated the principle that taxpayers are allowed
to sue when there is a claim of “illegal disbursement of public funds”, or if public money is
being “deflected to any improper purpose”, or when
petitioners seek to restrain respondent from
“wasting public funds through the enforcement of
an invalid or unconstitutional law”. In this case, the
individual petitioners, suing as taxpayers, assert a
material interest in seeing to it that public funds are
properly and lawfully used, claiming that the
bidding was defective, the winning bidder not a
qualified entity, and the award of the contract
contrary to law and regulations.

D. Voter’s Standing
A: In Tolentino v COMELEC52, petitioners assert
harm classified as a “generalized grievance.”
Although, the latter is shared in substantially equal
measure by a large class of voters, if not all the
voters, who voted in that election, the Court,
however, accorded to petitioners legal standing in
their capacity as voters since they raise important
issues involving their right of suffrage, considering
that the issue raised in this petition is likely to arise
again.

E. Legislative Standing
A: In Ople v Torres, 292 SCRA 141, the Supreme
Court held that Senator Blas Ople was a proper
party to question the constitutionality of A.O. No.
308 in his capacity as Senator, as taxpayer and
member of the GSIS. As Senator, he had the
requisite to bring suit assailing the issuance of the
A.O. as a usurpation of legislative power; as
taxpayer and GSIS member, he could impugn the
legality of misalignment of public funds and the
misuse of the GSIS to implement the A.O. No. 308.

Governmental Standing
A: In People v Vera, 65 Phil. 56, the Supreme
Court declared that the Government of the
Philippines is a proper party to question the validity
of its own laws, because more than any one, it
should be concerned with the constitutionality of its
acts. In that case, it was held that the government
has substantial interest in having the Probation
Law declared as unconstitutional, because more
than the damage caused by the illegal expenditure
of public funds is the mortal wound inflicted upon
the fundamental law by enforcement of an invalid
statute.
24. When is an impeachment complaint “deemed filed”?
- An impeachment complaint is deemed filed only when “verified” or endorsed by at least one House member.
25. Explain the doctrine of “operational proximity”
-
26. What are the presidential appointments that requires
confirmation of Commission on Appointments?

27. What are the rules in case of vacancy in the seats of justices
of the Supreme Court?

28. Define ---

a. Writ of Amparo
b. Writ of Habeas Data
c. Writ of Kalikasan

29. Explain and distinguished “forbidden office” and “incompatible

office.”
- Incompatible Office – office that cannot be held by the legislator during his term
in Congress, to prevent him from owing loyalty to another branch of the
government

Forbidden Office – any office in the government that has been created or the
emoluments thereof have been increased during the legislator’s term, to prevent
trafficking in public office

30. What is the requirement in order for a treaty or international

agreement to be binding and effective in the Philippines?
- Article VII, Section 21. No treaty or international agreement shall be valid
and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the Members
of the Senate.
-People’s Movement for Press Freedom v. Hon. Raul Manglapus
-Commissioner of Customs v Eastern Sea Trading
Executive Agreements may be validly entered into by the President
without the need of concurrence of the Senate.
Treaties are formal documents which require ratification with the approval
of two thirds of the Senate. Executive agreements become binding
through executive
-Go Tek v. Deportation Board
It has been held that the Chief Executive is the sole and exclusive judge of
the existence of facts which warrant the deportation of aliens as disclosed
in an investigation conducted in accordance with. No other tribunal is at
liberty to reexamine or to controvert the sufficiency of the evidence on
which he acted.

31. What are the reglementary periods of the cases filed before
the Courts of the Judicial Branch?

32. Explain the following powers of the President---

a. Residual powers
b. Emergency powers
c. Commander-in-Chief powers

33. Explain what a “sin perjucio” judgment is

34. What are the privileges of a legislator of Congress or Senate?

Explain each privilege.

35. Explain the “Presidential Communication” privilege and the

“deliberative process” privilege.

36. What is the power of augmentation and who has the authority
to wield it?

37. Can the Congress enact laws prescribing qualifications for

judges of all court levels of the Judiciary Branch? Explain.

38. In case of tie in the voting of constitutionality of a law in the

Supreme Court, what is the status to be decreed on the law that has
been voted upon?

39. Can the government withhold information from the public?

Explain and expound.