SUGGESTED ANSWERS TO 2013 POLITICAL LAW BAR

EXAMINATION QUESTIONS
By: Carlo Paul Castro SanaUniversity of Pangasinan

PHINMA Education Network, COLLEGE OF LAW

UNIVERSITY OF PANGASINAN
COLLEGE OF LAW

SUGGESTED ANSWERS TO 2013POLITICAL LAW BAR

EXAMINATIONQUESTIONS
By: Carlo Paul C. Sana
I.
In the last quarter of 2012, about 5,000container vans of imported goods intended for
theChristmas Season were seized by agents of theBureau of Customs. The imported goods
werereleased only on January 10, 2013. A group ofimporters got together and filed an action
fordamages before the Regional Trial Court of Manilaagainst the Department of Finance and
Bureau ofCustoms.The Bureau of Customs raised the defenseof immunity from suit and,
alternatively, that liabilityshould lie with XYZ Corp. which the Bureau hadcontracted for the
lease of ten (10) high powered vancranes but delivered only five (5) of these cranes,thus causing
the delay in its cargo-handlingoperations. It appears that the Bureau, despitedemand, did not pay
XYZ Corp. the Php 1.0 Milliondeposit and advance rental required under theircontract.
(A)

Will the action by the group of importersprosper? (5%)

No. The action by the group of importers will
not prosper because the Supreme Court said that theBureau of Customs, being an unincorporated
agencywithout a separate judicial personality, enjoysimmunity from suit. It is invested with an
inherent power of sovereignty, namely the power of taxation;it performs governmental functions
(Farolan v. Courtof Tax Appeals, 217 SCRA 298).
Moreover, the Bureau of Customs is a part of theDepartment of Finance, with no personality of
itsown apart from that of the national government.
Its primary function is governmental, that of assessingand collecting lawful revenues from
imported articlesand all other tariff and customs duties, fees, charges,fines, and penalties (Sec.
602, RA 1937). This clearlyexplains the reason why the Department of Financealso enjoys
immunity from suit.
(B)

Can XYZ Corp. sue the Bureau of Customs tocollect rentals for the delivered cranes? (5%)
No. Even in the exercise of proprietary functionsincidental to its primarily governmental
functions, anunincorporated agency, in this case the Bureau ofCustoms, still cannot be sued
without its consent
(Mobil Philippines Exploration v. Customs ArrastreService, 18 SCRA 1120).
II.
While Congress was in session, the Presidentappointed eight acting Secretaries. A group
ofSenators from the minority bloc questioned thevalidity of the appointments in a petition before
theSupreme Court on the ground that while Congress isin session, no appointment that requires
confirmation by the Commission on Appointments can be madewit
hout the latters consent, and that an
undersecretary should instead be designated asActing Secretary.
Should the petition be granted? (5%)
No, the petition should not be granted. The clearand expressed intent of the framers of the
1987Constitution is to exclude presidential appointmentsfrom confirmation on the Commission
onAppointments except appointments to officesexpressly mentioned in the first sentence of
Section16, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution
(Sarmiento III v. Mison, 159 SCRA 549).
Since the appointmentof an acting secretary is not included under the firstsentence of Section 16,
Article VII of the 1987Constitution, it is no longer subject to confirmation by the Commission on
Appointments.

III.
A robbery with homicide had taken place andLito, Badong, and Rollie were invited for
questioning based on the information furnished by a neighbor that
he saw them come out of the victims house at the
time of the robbery/killing. The police confronted thethree with this and other information they
hadgathered, and pointedly accused them of committingthe crime.Lito initially resisted, but
eventually broke downand admitted his participation in the crime. Elated bythis break and
desirous of securing a writtenconfession soonest, the police called City AttorneyJuan Buan
to serve as the trios counsel and to advise
them about their rights during the investigation.
Badong and Rollie, weakened in spirit by Litos
early admission, likewise admitted their participation.The trio thus signed a joint extrajudicial
confessionwhich served as the main evidence against them attheir trial. They were convicted
based on theirconfession.
Should the judgment of conviction be affirmed orreversed on appeal? (5%)
The judgment of conviction should be reversed.The police officers committed an offense
byconfronting the three accused. This is a violation toSection 12, Article III of the 1987
Constitution,which states that any person under investigation forthe commission of an offense
shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have acompetent and
independent counsel preferably of hisown choice. If the person cannot afford the servicesof
counsel, he must be provided with one. Theserights cannot be waived except in writing and in
the presence of counsel