Constitutional Law II

Final Examination
INSTRUCTIONS.
INSTRUCTIONS: Read each question very carefully and write your answers in your Examination
Notebook in the same order the questions are posed.  A yes or no answer will not be given any credit.
GOOD LUCK!
I.

On May 10, 2014, respondent Philippine Postal Corporation (PhilPost) issued a stamp
commemorating Iglesia ni Cristo's (INC's) Centennial Celebration. The design of the stamp showed a
photo of INC founder, the late Felix Y. Manalo (Manalo) with the designation on the left side containing
the words "Felix Y. Manalo, 1886-1963 First Executive Minister of Iglesia ni Cristo", with the Central
Temple of the religious group at the background. At the right side of Manalo's photo is the INC's
centennial logo which contained a torch enclosed by a two concentric circles containing the words
"IGLESIA Nl CRISTO CENTENIAL 1914-2014.

On June 16, 2014, petitioner Renato V. Peralta (petitioner) filed a complaint for injunction with the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Br. 33 of Manila, assailing the constitutionality of the printing, issuance and
distribution of the INC commemorative centennial stamps, allegedly paid for by respondent Philpost using
public funds.

In his complaint, petitioner alleged that the printing and issuance of the INC commemorative stamp
involved disbursement of public funds, and violated. Section 29(2) of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution.
He argued that respondents' act of releasing the said stamps was unconstitutional because it was
tantamount to sponsorship of a religious activity; it violated the separation of the Church and the State;
and the non-establishment of religion clause. Thus, petitioner prayed that respondents be restrained from
issuing and distributing the INC commemorative stamps

Q. Decide the constitutionality of the issues raised by the Petitioner? What is meant by the “Lemon
Test”?

II.

Petitioner Ricky is a former Supervising Personnel Specialist of the CSC Regional Office No. IV
and also the Officer-in-Charge of the Public Assistance and Liaison Division (PALD) under the
“Mamamayan Muna Hindi Mamaya Na” program of the CSC.

In 2007, an unsigned letter-complaint was received by respondent CSC Chairperson Karina

Constantino-David informing her that a CSC’s employee in Region 4 Office was lawyering for a person
with a pending case in the CSC. The letter says:

As a concerned citizen of my beloved country, I would like to ask from you personally if it is just alright for
an employee of your agency to be a lawyer of an accused gov’t employee having a pending case in the
CSC. I honestly think this is a violation of law and unfair to others and your office. I have known that a
person have been lawyered by one of your attorney in the region 4 office. He is the chief of the
Mamamayan muna hindi mamaya na division. He has been helping many who have pending cases in the
CSC.

The next day, all the computers in the PALD were sealed and secured for the purpose of preserving
all the files stored therein. Several diskettes containing the back-up files sourced from the hard disk of
PALD and LSD computers were turned over to Chairperson David. It was found that most of the files in
the 17 diskettes containing files copied from the computer assigned to and being used by the petitioner,
numbering about 40 to 42 documents, were draft pleadings or letters in connection with administrative
cases in the CSC and other tribunals.

The CSC issued a Resolution against the petitioner and charging him with Dishonesty, Grave
Misconduct, Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and Violation of R.A. No. 6713 (Code
of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees).

Petitioner Ricky filed an Omnibus Motion (For Reconsideration, to Dismiss and/or to Defer) assailing
the formal charge as without basis having proceeded from an illegal search it having been copied from his
computer assigned to and being used by him which is beyond the authority of the CSC Chairman, such
power pertaining solely to the court. The CSC denied the omnibus motion.

Q. Whether the search was made against unreasonable searches and seizures under the
Constitution? What is a “scattered shot warrant”?

III.

Children who are members of a religious sect have been expelled from their respective public
schools for refusing, on account of their religious beliefs, to take part in the flag ceremony which includes
playing by a band or singing the national anthem, saluting the Philippine flag and reciting the patriotic
pledge. The students and their parents assail the expulsion on the ground that the school authorities
have acted in violation of their right to free public education, freedom of speech, and religious freedom
and worship. a) Was the expulsion of the students valid? What is meant by “benevolent neutrality rule”?

IV.

Case No. 3335 was filed in the Municipal Trial Court over the charge against Fama Jr. for slight
physical injuries only, because according to the certification of the attending physician, the injuries
suffered by the offended party Viajar, would require medical attendance from 5 to 9 days only "baring
complications." When the first complaint was filed on April 15, 1975, only three days had passed since the
incident in which the injuries were sustained took place, there were yet no indications of a graver injury or
consequence to be suffered by said offended party. After Case No. 3335 had already been filed and the
wound on the face of Viajar had already healed, an alleged deformity became apparent and so another
information was filed this time for serious physical injuries.

Q. Whether the accused was placed in double jeopardy upon the filing of the second information?
Why?

V.

 Beltran, as a defendant for the crime of Falsification, refused to write a sample of his handwriting
as ordered by the respondent Judge. The petitioner in this case contended that such order would be a
violation of his constitutional right against self-incrimination because such examination would give the
prosecution evidence against him, which the latter should have gotten in the first place. He also argued
that such an act will make him furnish evidence against himself. 

Q.  Whether or not the writing from the fiscal's dictation by the petitioner for the purpose of
comparing the latter's handwriting and determining whether he wrote certain documents supposed to be
falsified, constitutes evidence against himself within the scope and meaning of the constitutional provision
against self-incrimination? Reason out your answer. 
 VI.

Malandi was charged with the crime of adultery. The trial judge ordered Malandi to subject herself
into a DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) test to determine whether or not she was pregnant and to prove and
determine the crime of adultery being charged against her. Malandi refused to such
physical examination interposing the defense that such examination was a violation of her right against
self-incrimination. Q. Will the refusal of Malandi violate her right against self-incrimination? Discuss.

VII.

Accused-appellant Crisologo alias “Amang,” a deaf-mute, was charged of robbery with homicide.
He was allegedly informed of the charge against him through sign language by Special Policeman Munoz
a childhood acquaintance. Mr. Munoz subsequently entered a plea of guilty on behalf of the accused.
Upon objection of counsel, however, this plea was disregarded and arraignment was rescheduled until
the Court could avail of the services of an expert in the sign language from the school of the deaf and
dumb. Apparently, no sign language expert or representative ever arrived, the accused through a
counsel de oficio waived the reading of the information and pleaded not guilty. Trial proceeded without
any evidence being presented on his part. Finally, without the services of an expert in sign language ever
being utilized at any stage of the proceedings, the accused was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
robbery with homicide.

Q. Whether or not the right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation
was violated?

VIII.

In 1941, the California State Legislature  amended the charter of the city of Los Angeles so that
no person could obtain or retain public employment with the city if they advocated the violent overthrow of
either the state or federal government, belonged to any organization that did so advocate, or had
advocated or been a member of an organization which advocated such action in the last five years. In
1948, the city of Los Angeles passed local ordinance No, 94-004, which required all employees to take
the loyalty oath.
Fifteen employees with the Los Angeles Board of Public Works refused to execute the required
affidavit. At an administrative hearing on January 6, 1949, all 15 individuals were fired. They sued for
back pay and reinstatement in their jobs, claiming that the oath and the affidavit they were required to
execute constituted bill of attainder and an ex post facto law. 
Q. Rule on the contentions of the employees?