POLITICAL LAW The s ‘With the passage of time, the members of the House of Representatives increased with the creation of new legis: lative districts and the corresponding adjustments in the number of party-list representatives. At a time when the House membership was already 290, a great number of the members decided that it was time to propose amendments to the Constitution, The Senators, however, were cool to the: dea. But the members of the House insisted. They accord- ingly convened Congress into a constituent assembly in spite of the opposition of the majority of the members of the Senate, When the votes were counted, 275 members of the House of Representatives approved the proposed Gmendments. Only 10 Senators supported suuch proposals. ‘The proponents now claim that the proposals were validly made, since more than the required three-foti'ths vote of ‘Congress has been.obtained. The 14 Senators who voted ‘againat the proposals claim that the proposals needed not three-fourths vote of the entire Congress but each house. Since the required number of votes in the Senate was not obtained, then there could be no valid proposals, so argued ‘the Senators. Were the proposals validly adopted by Congress? (5%) SUGGESTED ANSWER. ‘The proposals were not validly adopted, because the ten (10) Senators who voted in favor of the proposed amendinents constituted less than three-fourths of all the Members of the Senate. Although Section'1, Article XVII of the Constitution did not expressly provide that the Senate and the House of Representatives must vote separately, when the Legislature consists of two [2) houses, the determination of one house is to be submitted to the separate determination of the other house (Miller v. Mardo, GR. No. U-15138, July 31, 1961, 2 SCRA 898).MMUEDIHUNS IN POLITICAL LAW. mM. Several citizens, unhappy with the proliferation of farni- lies dominating the political landscape, decided to tale matters into their own hands. They proposed to come up with a people's initiative defining political dynasties. They Started a signature campaign for the purpose of coming up with a petition for that purpose.’ Some others expressed misgivings about a people's initiative for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution, however. They cited the Court’s decision in Santiago v. Commission on Bledtions (G.R. No, 127325, June 10, 1997; 270 SCRA 106}, as authority for their position that there is yet no enabling law for such purpose. On the other hand, there are ales those who claim that the individual votes of the justices in Lambino v. Comimission on Elections (G.R. No. 174183, October 25, 2006, 505 SCRA 160), mean that Santiags’s pronouncement has effectively been abandoned. Ifyou were consulted by those behind the new attempt at a people's initiative, how-would you advise them? (4%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: : fo amend the Constitution. The decision in Santiago ». Commission on Elections (G.R. No. 127325, June 10, 1997, 270 SCRA 106), which has not been reversed, upheld the adequacy of the provisions in Republic Act 6785 on initiative to enact a law. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: Tshall advise those starting a people’s initiative that the ling in Santiago v. Commission on Elections that thereis as yet no enabling Iaw for an initiative has not been reversed. According to Section 4 (3), Article VII of the Constitution, a doctrine of law laid down in a deci sion ndered by the Supreme Court en bane may not be reversed except by it acting en banc. The imajority opinion in Lambino v. Commtssion on Elections (C.K. QUESTIONS IN POLITICAL LAW. No. 174183; October 25, 2006, 505 SCRA 160), refused to re-examine the ruling in Santiago » Commission m Elections (@-R. No. 127928, March 19, 1997, 270 5 ecause it was not necessary for . sree Sostices who voted to revere te ruling constituted the minority.‘QUESTIONS IN POLITICAL LAW m. In Serrano v. Gallant Maritime ; nt Maritime Serves, 1 e 167614, March 24, 2009, 82 SCRA 284}, the Supren our doled as vilsve of the Equal Protection Gauee the Seraph of Ses 10 Rt No, 8042 Quran Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act_of 1995) for lecriminat against illegally dismissed OFWs who still had more tha: ok Yeerto their contact compared to thse who only had lesa fan a year remaining, The hext year, Congrors enacted Ba No 10322, an amendment othe Mia Workers nd seas Filipinos Act, which practical) rein peopsion strck down in Serrano, gece te ve sramachoran overseas sex wo il ad Wo jars maining on his contract wen he was ileglly erm sale, and Who would only be eatied a tmaxitnuin of Srcmonth’s pay Under the reinstated provi Sion aed provision, engages tow aie you w argue tnt te new aw os mrad ins ait brings back tothe statute ooke a provision tat has already been struck down by the Court? (5%) C SUGGESTED ANSWER: Iwill argue that since Section 20 of Repu No. 8042 has alrendy been declared waconstitutionsl By the Supreme Court, ite nullity cannot be cured by teincorporation or reenactment of the same or a similar law or provision. Once «law has been declared tucoustitutlonal, t retains unconstitutional unless circumstances have so changed as to warrant a revers conclusion (Sameer Overseas Placement Agenci . Cabiles, G.R. No. 170139, August 5, 2014). ee ‘QUESTIONS IN POLITICAL Law WV. Beauty was proclaimed as the winning candidate for the position of Representative in the House of Represen- tatives three (3) days after the elections in May. She then immediately took her oath of office, However, there was a pending disqualification case against her, which case was Eventually decided by the COMELEC against her 10 days aiter the election. Since she has already been proclaimed, She ignored that decision and did not bother appealing it ‘The COMELEC then declared in the first week of June that its decision holding that Beauty was not validly clected had becotie final. Beauty then went to the Supreme Court questioning the jurisdiction of the COMELEC claiming that since she had already been proclaimed and had taken her oath of office, such election body had no more right to come up with a decision ~ that the jurisdiction had already been transferred to the House of Representatives Electoral ‘Tribunal. How defensible is the argument of Beauty? (426) SUGGESTED ANSWER: ‘The House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal has acquired exclusive jurisdiction over the case of Beauty, since she has already been proclaimed. The proclamation of the winning candidate is the opera- tive fact that triggers the exclusive jurisdiction of the House of Representative Electoral Tribunal over elec- tion contests relating to the election, returns and qual- ifcations of the winning candidate. The proclamation divests the Commission on Elections of jurisdiction ‘over the question of disqualifications pending before {at the time of the proclamation. Any case pertaining to questions over the qualifications of a winning candi- Gate should be raised before the House of Represen- tative Electoral Tribunal (Limkaichong v. Commission on Elections, G.R. Nos. 178831-32, July 30, 2009, 583 SCRA 1}; Jalosjos, Jr, v. Commission on Elections, GR. No. 192474, June 26, 2012, 674 SCRA 530},\MUEOTIUND IY POLITICAL LAW, ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: ‘The argument of Beauts weiss wuty is untenable, For the Hei of Representatives Electoral vibual to neque one sistion oves the disqualification cage, she must be a Member ofthe House of Reprosentties, although she had boon proclaimed and had taken her oath asthe EEE RL fel ret ssramed office, The term of ottce of soon ofthe thictieth day of Jane neat following thet slpstion (Reyes v. Commission on Elections, G. Ne » October 22, 2013, 699 SCRA 522). ie Laue s Huma er uuiieri ene v. Greenpeas is an ideology-based political party fighting for environmental causes. It decided to participate under ‘the party-list system. When the election results came in, it only obtained 1.99 percent of the votes cast under the party list system. Bluebean, a political observer, claimed that Greenpeds is not entitled to any seat since it failed to obtain at least 2% of the votes. Moreover, since it docs not represent any of the marginalized and underrepresented Sectors of society, Greenpeas ie not entitled to participate under the party-list system. How valid are the observations of Bluebean? (4%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: ‘The claim of Bluebean that Greenpeas is not enti- ted to a seat under. the party-list system because it obtained only 1.99 percent of the votes cast under the party-list system is not correct. Since the provision fo Section 5 (2), Article VI of the Constitution that the party-list representatives shall constitute twenty percent (20% of the total number of the Members of the House of Representatives is mandatory, after the parties receiving at least two percent (2%) of the total votes case for the party-list system have been allocated ‘one seat, the remaining seats should be allocated among, the parties by the proportional percentage of the votes received by each party as against the total party-list votes (Barangay Association for National Advance: ment and Transparency v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 179271, April 21, 2009, 586 SCRA 211). ‘The claim of Bluebean that Greenpeas is not entitled to participate in the party-list elections because it does not represent any marginalized and underrepresented sectors of society is not correct. It is enough that its principal advocacy pertains to the special interests of its sector (Atong Panglaum, Inc. v. Commission on Blec- tions, GR. No. 203766, April 2, 2013, 694 SCRA 477).pork barrel of members of Congress to noin-existent rs i the principal actor responsibie forthe scan, the leader ef a ee Scott ee tion which ostensibly funneled see meee eveen e wn ed SET ote tn ae mt im in contempt and sent him to. tit he’ foc haa Seta ce sete eae i Preparatory to the assumption to office of the ily _ ‘behind bars and the remaining senators refused to have him released, claiming thatthe Sena , atthe Senate isa continu therefor, he ean be detained indefinitely MY a ‘Are the senators right? (4%) ‘SUGGESTED ANSWER: ee ee oti cance tod freee afte continuing validity ofits orders punishing for contempt ot rc eg i otc (Arnaute v. Nazareno, 0. ee »» GR. No. L-3820, July 18, 1950, ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: "the Senators are right. Whi Whi the Senate as an ect Sato ts an inst tuto fe continuing, fn the conduct of fe Say today the Senate of each Congress acts separa from the Senate of the Conprce Btore I Al pending Ile termisate upon cplation of each Congress rls. Senate Committee on Accountabt Officers and Investigation, eaprciater Owes nection, Gs Ne 18084, Soper vu. Margic has been in the judiciary for along time, starting from the lowest court. Twenty (20) years from her first year in the judiciary, she was nominated as a Justice in the ‘Court of Appeals. Margie also happens to be a first- degree cousin of the President. The Judicial and Bar Council fncluded her in the short-list submitted to the President wrhose term of office was about to end—it was a month before the next presidential elections. Can the President still make appointments to the judiciary during the so-called raidnight appointment ban period? Assuming that he can still make appointments, could he appoint Margie, his cousin? (4%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: ‘The President can make appointments to the Supreme Court two months before a presidential elec~ tion until the end of his term but nut to the rest of the Judiciary like the Court of Appeals. Under Section + (a), Article VI of the Constitution, vacancies in the Supreme Court shall be filled within ninety (90) days from the occurrence of the vacancy. Under Section 9, Article VIII of the Constitution, vacancies in the lower conrts shall be filled within ninety (90) days from submission of the list of nominees. These appointments fare screened by the Judicial and Bar Council, and the Process necessarily precludes or prevents the Prest- {ent from making purely political appointments to the. courts, which is what is sought to be prevented by the prohibition (De Castro v. Judicial and Bar Council, GR. No. 191002, April 20, 2010, 615 SCRA 666). ‘The President may also appoint his first cousin, Margie, as Justice of the Court of Appeals. The probi- bition in Section 13, Asticle VII of the Constitution against appointment by the President of relatives Githin the fourth degree by consanguinity or affinity does not include appointments to the Judiciary.AL TERNATIVE ANSWER (FOR FIRST QUESTION): ‘The President cannot make suatts Present cannot make appointments to the election wat the end of his tert boonnos ote ak me ction 15, Article VII of the Constitution. De: ure] constitutional mandate to fill vacancies in Judi citey within the preceribedpovoda the prions Agnast the appotntmente releases the President om obligation to appoint within therm. The delsy excusable, since it will be impossil his obligation. be impossible to comply with vant. ‘The President, concerned about persistent reports of widespread irregularities and shenanigans related to the alleged ghost projects with which the pork barrel funds. of members of Congress had been associated, decided not to release the funds authorized under a Special Appro- priations Act for the construction of a new bridge. The Chief Executive explained that, to: properly conserve and preserve the limited funds of the government, as. well as fo avoid further mistrust by the people, such a project ~ which he considered as unnecessary since there was an fold bridge near the proposed bridge which was still func tional - should be scrapped. Does the President have such authority? (4%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: ‘The President has the authority to withhold the release of the funds under a Special Appropriation Act for a project which he considered unnecessary. The faithful execution of the laws requires the President to desist from implementing a law if by doing so will prejudice public interest. It is folly to require the Pres Pient to spend the entire amounts appropriated in the law in such a case (Philippine Constitution Association v. Enriquez, G.R. No. 113105, August 19, 1994, 235 ‘SCRA 506). ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: ‘The President does not possess the authority to serap the Special Appropriations Act for the construc tion of the new bridge. His refusal to spend the funds appropriated for the purpose is unlawful. ‘The President is expected to faithfully implement the purpose for which Congress appropriated funds. Generally, he cannot zeplace legislative discretion with hic own personal judgment as to the wisdom of a law (Arautle v. Aquino, G.R. No. 209287, July 1, 2014).1x, Gerrymandering refers to the practice of (1%) (A creating or dividi i one mr aarti Soca 6 ieee efit Member of (O) coming up with guessi it eee guessing game when it comes to (@) commandeering large chunks Gommandcering lage chunks ofthe budget for favoured SUGGESTED ANSWER: creating or dividing congressional districts in Sssaier wor a particular party or im: ‘The void-for-vagueness doct mts id doctrine is a concept which neecleee (B) any law which could not be _ that they do not really now what is recited or pro, bited, then the law.must be struck down | SUGGESTED ANSWER: (C) ita law is incom : (0) tata \preheasible to ordinary people such that they do. not really know f Fohibited, then the law must be etruck dewa | xi. In keeping with the modern age of instant and inces- sant information and transformation, Congress passed Cybercrime Prevention Act to regulate access to and use of the amenities of the cyberspace. While ostensibly the law is intended to protect the interests of society, some of its provisions were also seen as impermissibly invading and impairing widely cherished liberties of the people particu- larly the freedom of expression, Before the law could even bbe implemented, petitions were filed in the Supreme Court questioning said provisions by people who felt threatened, for themselves as well as for the benefit of others who may be similarly affected but not minded enough to challenge the law. The Solicitor General countered that there is no ‘basis for the exercise of the power of judicial review since there has yet been no violation of the law, and therefore, there is no actual case or controversy to speak of, aside from the fact that the petitioners have no locus standi since they do not ciaim to be Lu imminent danger of being. prosecuted under the law. Can the Court proceed to decide the case even if the law has not yet become effective? (476) SUGGESTED ANSWER: ‘The Supreme Court can proceed to decide the case even if the law has not yet become effective. Since the petitions filed sought to nullify the Cybercrime Prevention Act, because it violated several provisions of the Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court became duty- hound to settle the dispute (Taftada v. Angara, G.R. No. 118295, May 2, 1997, 272 SCRA 18). Since it is alleged that the Cybercrime Prevention Act violates various provisions of the Bill of Rights, including freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, the issues raised are of paramount public interest, of transcendental importance and with far-reaching constitutional impli- ‘cations, that justify dispensation with locus standi and exercise of the power of judicial review by the Supreme Court (Chavez v. Gonzates, GR. No. 168338, February18, 2008, 545 SCRA 4 . 41), Jat 15,2008, 545 SCRA 441), Jurisprudence provide locus stand ont rogue Shee oe sake sae Prevent a chilling effe action was filed to frees ot on the exercise freedom of expression and overbreadth, | ett x. ‘the Court had adopted the practiée of announcing its decision in important, controversial or interesting cases the foment the votes had been taken among the justices, even he the final printed decision and separate opinions are not Yet available to the public, In a greatly anticipated decision Yh a case of wide-ranging ramifications, the voting was close ing for the majority, while 7 were for the other side. After the Court had thus voted, it issued a press release announcing, the result, with the advice that the printed copy of the Gecision, together iwith the separate opinions, were to be fsoued subsequently. The following day, however, one of the jmembers of the Court died. The Court then announced that Ht would deliberate anew on the case since apparently the ‘one who died belonged. to the majority. Citizens for Trans parency, a group of eivc-spirited professionals and ordinary Riinene dedicated to transparency and accountability in the government, questioned the act of the Court. The petitioners Cruimed the decision had already been validly adopted and promulgated. Therefore, It Gvuld no longer be recalled hy the Court. At the same time, the group also asked the Court to disclose to the public the original decision and the sepa- rate opinions of the magistrates, together with what they had deliberated on just before they came up with the press release about the 8°7 decision. (674) (a) Was the announced 8-7 decision already validly promul- gated and thus not subject to recall? (G) IC the decision was not yet finalized at the time when the justice died, could it still be promulgated? (©) If the decision was still being finalized, should the Court release to the public the majority decision and the sepa- rate opinions as originally announced, together with their deliberations on the issues? SUGGESTED ANSWER: (A) ‘The decision cannot be deemed to have been promul- gated simply beoauso of the announcement of the Soting in a press release, because the decision has