re , I IIU \ M I ;\

(.t) \\ 11.,1 ,II\' lht· ,w·thPcl:: oj ra11H·11d1n1•, 111 1 : '

4
,11 ')t1 tqlinn'' L:1c
pl.tin hJ'idl) crw h mdltihl. ( ;,• ,i)

SlJGGES'I"ED ANS\VEH.

(a) Tiu• Constitution 1nay he arnendcd or revised by the

vote of at least H1n.'l\-fourths of all the Men1 bcrs of C:ongress, acting as a
Constituent Asscn1 bly, by way of a p1·oposal (Article XVII, Sec:itf) of the
J,s1'Coautitutnnr).
Any 'amendrnent or revision under this provision shall be valid
~on ratification by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall
be held not earlier than 60 days or later than 90 da s after the a roval of
the amendment or rev1s1on r 1c e VII, Sec. 4 of the 1987 Constitution).
The Constitution may also be amended or revised by a
Constitutional Convention. Congress may, by the vote of at least tY. 0- 1

thirds of all its .members, call a ~onstiS,tionai' Conyentwn, ~r by ~

majority vote of all its Members
........
subject t he electorate the calling of a
Constitutional ConxentiOJL.(Article XVII, Sec. 3 of the onstitution).
Any amendment or revision under this provision shall be valid in the same
manner as in Article XVI!, Sec. 1(1) of the 1987 Constitution.
Amendments to the Constitution may be directly proposed by the
people through initiative upon petition of at least 12?/o of the registered
voters, and at least 3% of the registered voters in every legislative district
must be represented (Article XVII, Sec. 2 of the 1987 Constitution).
 SUGGESTED ANSVVERS TO THE 2017 BAR EXAMINATION
QUESTIONS IN POLITICAL LAW
2

The people cannot propose revisions and may propose only

umendments. The petition must be signed by the required number of
people, and the full text of the proposed amendments must be embodied
in the petition (Lambino v. COMELEC, G.R. Nos. 174153 & 174299,
October 25, 2006, 503 SCRA t 650).
Any amendment under Article XVII, Sec. 2 of the 1987
Constitution, shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in
a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty days nor later than
ninety days after the certification by the Commission on Elections of the
sufficiency of the petition (Article XVII, Sec. 4 of the 1987 Constitution).

(b) Cite at least three provisions of the Constitution that need to be

amended or revised to effect the change from unitary to federal, and briefly
explain why? (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER

. (b) Examples of provisions that need to be amended

r~v,scd to effect the change from unitary to federal: or

1. Article X, Sec. 3 must be omitted b

will no longer define the scope of the f .eca use the legislature
powers o the government.

. 2. Article X, Sec. 4 will have t b .

will no longer have the power of sup . . o e omitted. The President
. erv1s1on over local governments.
J. Article X S
longer bea II owed to impose ec. 5f must be om·«
' limit t ed . Congress will no
governments· a ions on the power of tax a t·100 of local

I • •

[Note: The panel . h

for this question . w1s es to recommend lib
. of the Constituti~~ :nswers can be glCaned
' mong them Articl V
fr::hty
. .
m fa~or of the examinee
many articles and provisions
· es I, VII, and X].
 ~~l I~~- •I ,;r, l 'AN~\ V! ,1~ 1O 1111 !"O I 1 n,,111 XAMINAl ION 3
m,f s 1h 'N:~ rN r·o1 n ,r ,1 t.AW

11

A.
Uth k r th "· d,,l'lt ii h •
ur i11H1H111ity from sui t, thl· State cannot be SUCd
\\ illh.,ut its ~·,,n.:-l'llt Ihm 111;\y lht.· r'-lllSl.'llt hl' given by the State? Expbrn
0
\t''ll t',lll~\\l'l l' 1\)

SlJGl;t~STED ANS\\'EI{

Tiu.· State muy bt sued, with its consent, eHhcr expressly or im•
plkdl)'· Only Con~rrss l'lln ~ive a wriHen waiver of immunity from suit in
the form of a hll\' (U111te,J States•~ <Juit,to, G.R. Nos. 76607, 79470, 80018
4~ S01S8. Ft\hruary 26, 1990, 182 SCRA 664); Republic v. Felicia110, G.R.

No. L-...,0853, Mnrrh 12, 1987, 148 SCRA 424).

If a governnrcnt agency undertakes a proprietary function, it

waives its immunity from suit. When the Philippines Tourism Authority
entered into a contract for the construction of a golf course, it engaged
in a proprietary function (Pllilipplne Tourism Authority v. Philippit,e Golf
Develop111ent a11d Eq11ipme111, Im:., G.R. No. 176628, March 19, 2012, 668
SCRA 408).

B.

The doctrine of immunity from suit in favor of the State extends to

public officials in the performance of their official duties. May such officials
be sued nonetheless to prevent or to undo their oppressive or illegal acts, or to
compel them to act? Explain your answer. (3%) .

SUGGESTED ANSWER \

Public officials may be s~ed if the! acte~ oppressively or illegally ,

. h, ~ ance of their duties. A suat agamst a public officer wh
m t e per1orm . h tat (Ab o
acted iilegally is not a suit agamst t es e erca v. V~r, G.R. No. 69866,
April 15, 1988, 160 SCRA 590).
 QUESTIONS N
4

of man ...
A publi c official may be comp elle~ to act thro ugh a writ
h main objec tive of man dam us 1sd to comp el the perf orma nce or
T ffi . I h
damu s. e o c1a ; owe, ·er, the writ
. . terial duty on the part of the respo n · ent fd. ·
a mm1s
does not issue to contr ol or revie w the exerc ise o 1scre
taon or to comp el a
led of, as it is an
course of cond uct. The writ of proh ibitio n can also be avai
extra ordin ary writ whic h can be direc ted agai nst a publ
ic offic er orde r-
said proc eedin gs
ing said offic er to desis t from furth er proc eedin gs when
are acco mpa nied
are witho ut or in excess of said offic er's juris dicti on, or
of Cou rt).
with grav e abus e of discr etion (Rul e 65, Revi sed Rule s
ages in
Lastl y, a publ ic offic er is by law not imm une from dam
h, bein g outs ide
his/h er perso nal capa city for acts done in bad faith whic
the man tle of im-
the scope of his autho rity, are no long er prote cted by
muni ty for official actio ns (Vinzons-Chato v. Fort une Toba
cco Corp., G.R.
No. 141309, June 19, 2007, 525 SCR A 11).

C.

. Do gove rnme nt-ow ned or -cont rolle d corp orati ons a)so enjo
y the im ..
mumty of the.State from suit? Expl ain your answer. (3%)

SUG GES TED ANSWER

A gove rnme nt-ow ned or cont rolle d .

may be sued . A
s~i~ against it is not a suit agai nst the Stat e corp ora~ 10n
r,d,cal personality (Social Security S I , beca use it has a sepa rate ju-
L-41299, Febr uary 21, 1983, 120 sci:
e;,)•:· Court ofAppeals, G.R. No.

I11

8tate A and State B .

defense treaty A , two sovereign states ..
. fter five years Stat A fl 'ente r mto a I 0-year mutual
s:at:~
d'd
A
~o to the aid of State whe: it nds that the more progressive State B
State C.b tate B reasoned that it had to bwas t:reatened by its stron
g neighbor
ecause of ~heir existing trad e p~ ent and deliberate in reacting
to
e treat ies.

fe (a) . May State A .

nse treaty with State 8? E n~w un1lateral1y withdraw fr .
· Xpla1n your an om its mutual de-
. swe~ (2.5% )
 i1tl If HAI< r .X/\MIN/\1 lf>N
rn hj( H ~ d l nAN tW\/1 H~; I() I' II
Ulll !; I ION!1 IN I 101111 (" 1\1 I AW

Stuh· 1\ UlllJ uullnfrrally wW

1 uh uw Im m Uw muhu,1 ,k
(O)
h of Uu- lf\'1th hy tulllni~
tn~nty. ~tfnh· U t'omnuih:tl u UtUkrJul hn·1u· u <·,111v.-utluu m,
1

fNt~,, flu•
1t, ,,o (i) of 01«• Vk ou
fo ,·ouH' fo tlw ul&I of Sfoh· A (A
l'n nU••~, p. 220; Am,f, Modn·u
f'n1 u(Y
Low of Tn·nfil'M: l\olh1 Th,, Law of
1

Luw mul P1·ndic1•, pp. :l.\h 2J7).

iple; of p.it..l11 ~1111H

(h) Wl1111 in the dilll·n•ncr l11:lwr•1·11 llw JII irw
n·1111lirntrtl luw'? () .~%)
Ntirvum lu land n•h11s stt :11111,tihm, in i11lr

,
1
/ 11<'/ll ,\'11111 ,\'t'fJil11td11 wc·,rns fhuf
,·v,•ry f n·uty In for'••· lJ
(h)
upo n Hrn Stit h~~ wh o ore pnr Oc ~ fo Jf, amf Sin k• wu,t pt·,·torw
hludlu~ ·,mt
Uo u In goo d folf h (/J ,wt.w·l,,• /lmt" A<,' M1111Jl,1 llf1111d1 t'. I
tlwir obllRn ..4, 7tU
, No, 1Hli~~O, Auuiuf l J, 201
1

r of l11 term 1I ·ll,•J 1,,,uu, , (;.H

ml.\'.\'/011t'
SCRA 21(,), -
bll,\' ... tm, tlhw .· me nus fha f, 11 fu11dmm•11f ,tJ chuui.:•· ol drn uo
H,• ,'ii<: flu•
l •o thost.• nls Hu g sit tlw How of
stnuccs, which ott~u.-rcd with r·ug11n flw 1uu·tics nrny uof
wus nof fon·:o•Nt hy
tondmdon of n h'cuf•y mtd whll'I• •·m,sfj ..
cJ for wlth dl"nwln J4 from u tn· ufy uulc.'ls the ir ob ll'n cc
ht~ tuvol,c f~
f of fhr ruarfit:~ aud HH ir cm•,·•
1

(mtlnl hns lN of f·hc con scu

tutcd ,rn cNs for 'm( •tf
lt~nlly trnn~ form the t•xf rut of tlw ohll~ntion~ .1 tilf f<• he pcr
to rttd
Lnw of 'th\itlics).
(Artlcfo t,2 of the VJcmrn Couv(•utlou on lhc

•<1tula ;trid rehm· sir.

(c) Arn tho prlnciplos of ,,a<.:la s11111 .,·N1 Whnt
,v r<.,lt.,vant in lh~ lreafy rt.,lalJ011~ bclwccn State/\ ;md ~lu te 13'1
stant/bu swcr.
le B at1d State ( ''! Expf,du your a11
ubout i11 the treaty rcJnl lous bctwc<.111 Sta
(2.5'¾•)

SlJGca:STED AN SW RI(
d hound Sta k A und Sta te IJ
(c) Veit. l'acta ,Yunt .-.,~rvrmtl" was wfu pftc
er their mutual dcfcn~c trc;,ty, dc~
to c,,mply with their obligations und
Sh•te Hand State C. Article 62 of the
the e"l~ting trad-., agreement!, hctw~~n tics wbJch en,,, .·• t h d
res. ' - - tc.:ra c~ t c -octrinc
Vieona Conve1itlon on the Law off -
ot,hcr har,d _c~n h • f kcd by
of rel,u,v sit! .,,ant/bu.,, on the ' c nvo State H a!
 VVERS TO THE 2017 BAR EXAMINATION
SUGGESTED ANS QUESTIONS IN POLITICAL LAW
6

·tt its mutual defense treaty-a treaty

the rea Son why it did not
. comply
red
1 conwdi·t~on
1 1 that it is intended to be binding
. con eluded with the. imp vital
1s O0
• ch ang e in the circumstances.
. To State B,
ly as Jong as there is Id . opardize its vital trade deve 1opment.
on plr·ance with the treaty wou JCf . um stances combined with State
com hange o c1rc . .
Because of this unforeseen c bl" t·ons under the treaty in good faith,
• ·th its o iga I t
B's non--comphance w1 . II withdraw from the trea y.
State A may now opt to unllatera y

IV

A.

What is the pardoning power of the Prest'd ent un de rArt . VIII ' Sec. 19
of the Constitution? Is the exercise of the power absolute? (4%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER

Except in cases of impeachment, or as otherwise provided in this

Constitution, the President may grant reprieves, commutations and par-
dons, and remit fines and forfeitures, after conviction by final judgment.
He shall also have the power to grant amnesty with the concurrence of a
majority of all the Members of the Congress (Article VI I, Sec. 19 of the
1987 Constitution).

No pardon, amnesty, parole, or suspension of sentenCe for viola-

dent without the favorable reComm.endation of the Commission

IX-C, Sec. S of the 1987 Constitution). .
(A~~::e
tion of election laws, rules, and regulations shall be granted by the p ·•

The only instances in which th p 'd

remain to be in· (I) im h e res1 ent may not extend pardon
. · peac ment cases· (2) ca th th
d'" a final conviction; and (J c . ' . se~ a ave not yet result-
uJe~ and regulations in Whic~ t:::s involvmg violations of election laws,
ommg from the COMELEC e was no favorable recommendation
ot operate to delimit the /n! act of Congress by way of statute can-
C0/1,fELEC, G.R. No. 2::~6onJrng power of the President (Risos-Vidal
' anuary 21, 2015).
Distinguish pardon from amnesty. (4%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER

1. Pardon can be given only after final conviction; amnesty can be

given any time and even before the filing of a criminal case.

2. Pardon looks forward; amnesty looks backward, as if the accused

never committed a crime.

3. Pardon is given to individuals. Amnesty is given to a class of

persons.

4. Pardon is given for all criminal offenses. Amnesty is given for

political offens es.

5. Pardon does not require the concurrence of Congress. Amnesty

requires the concurrence of Congress.

6. · Pardon must be proven, because it is a private act; amnesty

need not be proven, because it is a public act (Barrioquinto v.
Fernandez, G.R. No. L-1278, January 21, 1949, 82 Phils. 642).

V.

(a) What is the right of legation, and how is it undertaken between

states? Explain your answer. (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER

(a) The right of legation is the right accorded to a State to

be represented by an ambassador or diplomatic agent.- in another
State (Coquia and Defensor-Santiago, International Law and World
Organizations, p. 289).
 RS TO THE 2017 BAR EXAMINATION
SUGGESTED ANS\NE QUESTIONS IN POLITICAL LAW
8
like Malaysia insist that the
. . ht may a cou ntry
(b) Under this ng , . bah to look after the welfare of the
Philippines establishes a consulat~ !n Saur answer. (2%)
Filipino migrants in the area? Explain yo

SUGGESTED ANSWER . . at the Philippines establish a

(b) Malaysia cannot m~1st th f Convention provides: "(t)
consulate in Sabah. Article 2 of th e Diploma ic I by mutual consent".
. • · ·on takes p ace
he establishment of diplomatic m~ssi . "th another State without
A State may conduct its diplomatic relations WI F d mentals of Public
establishing a diplomatic mission (Magallona, un a
lnternational Law, p. 91 ).

VI

A.

The President appoints the Vice President as his Administrati0n 's

Housing Czar, a position that requires the appointee to sit in the Cabinet. Al-
though the appointment of the members of t_he Cabinet requires confinnation
by the Commission on Appointment (CA), the Office of the President does not
submit the appointment to the CA. May the Vice President validly sit in the
Cabine!? (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER

The Vice President may validl 81•t . th .

not confirmed by the Com . . Y m e Cabmet even if he was
m1ss1on on Appo · t
Sec. 3 of the Constitution th . m ments. Under Article VII
net member requires no 'co:,tppottment of the Vice President as cabi~
209287, July J, 2014, 728 sea:~)~ ion (Arau/lo v. Aquino Ill, G.R. No.
 SUGGESTED ANS\NfRS TO TH 2
QUESTIONS IN POLITICAL LAWE 017 BAR EXAMINATION 9

n.
. T~e ~xecutive Depaitment has accumulated substantial savings from
tts appropnati?ns. Needing P3,000,000.00 for the conduct of a plebiscite for
the creation of a new city but has no funds appropriated soon by the Congress
for the ~urpose, the COMELEC requests the President to transfer funds from
the ~avmgs of the Executive Department in order to avoid a delay in the
holding of the plebiscite.

. . May the President validly exercise his power under the 1987 Con-
stitution to transfer funds from the savings of the Executive Department, and
make a cross-border transfer of P3,000,000.00 to the COMELEC by way of
augmentation? Is your answer the same if the transfer is treated as aid to the
COMELEC? Explain your answer. (4%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER ·

The President may not transfer savings to the Commission on

Elections as aid. The constitutional prohibition against the transfer of ap-
propriations to other branches of government or Constitutional Commis-
sion applies for whatever reason (Arau/lo v. Aquino Ill, G.R. No. 209287,
July 1, 2014, 728 SCRA 1).

VII

Give the limitations on the power of the Congress to enact the Gen-
eral Appropriations Act? Explain your answer. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER

Secti~ns 24 and 25 of Article VI provide the limitations on the

power of Congress to enact General Appropriations Acts. . . .
All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills ~uthori~mg m-
crease of the public debt, bills of local application, and private balls shall
 SUGGL!:i rLD AN~>WI H~'i JO fHf': ;.>01 I JAH r XPM1NATfON
OUES nONS IN P()LI rtCAL LAW
10

ol'fglnull' cu::lu~ivcly in 11,.. }Ions•· ofl{cprc•scnlativcs, but the Senate ma_y

~j ~tc ·y 1 Sec 24 of the 1987 <·
propusc or con,·ur with .u11c111Jr11cnts (A r, c ,• • · · - 011.
\f Hu ffon). • •
Th<' C'o11Mrcss may not Increase the appropriations recorn_rnend.
<'d by the President for the operation of the Government as specified in
the budget. Th<' form, conlent, and manner of preparation of the budget
shall be 11rcscrihcd by law. No provision or enactment shall be embraced
in the general appropriatious bill unless it relates specifically to some par.
ticular appropriation therein. Any such provision or enactment shall be
limited in ii~ operation to the appropriation to which it relates. The pro.
cedure in approving appropriations for the Congress shall strictly follow
lhe procedure for approving appropriations for other departments and
agencies. A special appropriations bill shaJI specify the purpose for which
it is intended, and shall be supported by funds actually' available as certi-
fied by the National Treasurer, or to be raised by a corresponding revenue
proposed therein (Article VI, Sec. 25 of the 1987 Constitution).
. No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropri
hons; however, the President, the President of-the Senate, the S eak a-
of the House of Representatives, the Chief Justice of the Sup PC er
and the heads of Constitutional Commiss· reme ourt,
to augment any item in the general a . r~on~ ~ay, by law, be authorized
tive _offices from savings in other item::, t:"'.at1ons la~ for their respec-
(Art,cle VI, Sec. 25 of the 1987 Constit t· )e1r respective appropriations
. t· U 100 • .
. D ,sere ionary funds a ro . .
be disbursed only for public p~p priated for particular officials shall
voJJchers and b. rposes to be supp t d
Jf, by the end :~ 1ect to such guidelines as ma bor e by. appropriate
the general a an.y ~seal year, the Con r y e prescribed by law.
. propriations;:;o,:~•;:1ons bill ~or the ensu~n;~::;,u have failed to pass
:~nd ~~hall remain . r. e preceding fiscal yea h year, the general ap-
'" •orce and effect until ther s. a IJ be deemed reenacted
,s passed by the Con
gress (Article VI, Sec. 25 :;:;ral appropriations bill
e 1987 Constitution).
 SUGGESTED ANS\\'LRS TO THE 2017 BAR EXAMINATION
QUES TiONS IN POUTICAL LAW 11

VIII

A b~1nk acquired a large tract of land as the highest bidder in the

fl)ft'closure sale of the n1ortgaged assets of its borro\\'er. It appears that
th(· hmd has been originally registered under the Torrens system in 1922
pur~unnt to the provisions of the Philippine Bill of 1902, the organic act of
th~ Philiprine ls lands as a colony of the USA. Sec. 21 of the Philippine Bill
1

<.1f 1\)0~ provided that ~-au valuable mineral deposits in public lands in
the
Philippine Islands. both surveyed and unsurveyed, are hereby declared to be¥
free and open to exploration, occupation and purchase, and the land in which
th('y are t\1und to occupation and purchase, by citizens of the United States; or
of said lslands:~ Sec. 27 of the law declared that a holder of the mineral claim
SL' located was entitled to all the minerals that lie within his
claim, but he could
not tnine outside the boundary lines of his claim.
The 1935 Constituti?n expressly prohibited the alienation of natural
resources except agricultural lands. Sec. 2, Art. XII of the 1987 Constitution
contains a similar prohibition, and proclaims that all lands of the public
domain, ,vaters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces
of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber: wildlife, flora and fauna, and
other natural resources are owned by the State. This provision enunciates the
Regalian Doctrine.

~1ay the Government, on the basis of the Regalian Doct rine

enunciated in the constitutional provisions, deny the bank its right as owner
to the mineral resources underneath the surface of its property as recog nized
under the Philippine Bill of 1902? Explain your answer. (5%) •

SUG GES TED ANSW ER

The government cannot deny the bank its right as owne r of the
mineral resources underneath. the surface of the prop erty Th . .
· s acqu · d
right ire un der Ph 1·1·1pp1n
· e BIii
· of t 902 · e m
befor e the r~ t· .
1n1ng
. .
the 1935 Constttuhon were· vested rights that cann t b e. 1ec .1v1ty of
. .. .
the Gove rnme nt <Ylnhu B1col M,n,ng Corporation o e impa .•
ired by
•
Energy Development Corporation, G.R. No. ;· .11rans--As,a 01I and
SCRA 154). 207942
' anuary 12, 2015, 745
 . c f() "Hf 20~ 7 BAR EXA!v11NATION
12 SUGG£".. rro ANSWERv CiUES Ti'JNS IN POL'TICAL LAI/I/

I X.

A.

Ambassador Robert of. State h . mm 1.tte d a very serious

.
r crirne
the aPh1hppmcs.
. . Alp c~,. . ls he subJCCt to arrest
. i m1ss10n in
while he headed h,s !~r\~ lain your answer. (3 0¾)
by Philippine authont1es. xp

SUGGESTED ANSWER . the Protection and

d e with the Convention on t d Persons Including
Punishm~ntAof
Diplomatic gen '
c:~~:
In accor anc . t International Protec e . h extradite or
~:~:;~ines has the obligMatio~
R bert of State Alpha ( aga
prosecute Ambassador o 68.
'
111:::
;:ndamentals

of Public International Law, p. ).

8.

suant to a treaty between two State par-

Extradition is the process pudr State to the custody of the requesting
.. d
. h derby the requeste
st,es fortf efugitive . . 'd
surr_en cnmma res, mg m
1 ' . the former. However, . d he-
extrad1t1on
. . of two ~rmc,p
. late oon athe appltcatwn
pends . . Ies --- . principle of specialty an t e
. the
dual criminality principle. Exp lam these principles. (40¼)

SUGGESTED ANSWER

The principle of specialty means that the State requesting

extradition from another State is required to specify the crime as provided
in the extradition treaty for which the fugitive or the accused is to be
extradited and to be tried only for the offense specified in the extradition
treaty (Magallona, Fundamentals of Public International Law, p. 572).

The principle of dual criminality requires that the crime for

which extradition is sought must be recognized as a crime by both the
requiring State and the State to Which the fugitives or the accused has fled
(Magallona, Fundamentals of Public International Law, p. 578).
- -o..-...ur::tn 1' 1f"''O m-l""Ol:rl lr:ru :- t "
JWV "t

L.
'I he l'rc·•ddcot •aprJ', nu 1'.11,.-,. ,. n • t ' Jl l ·
, • . ·,_ r.1 ,.,..,r tr1 WhT1 1IJ 1, <; 1 )1 ..wt<;rp,u1 •tn ar;<,thcr
c~)~ntr~ mV<:lvm~ ~cc 1.rn ~,city in t~u; lre, tfm
ent of' tad i <.huntry':; n<1.ti(,na.l·., rc-
:;Hh n.g m th~ oth er ~ tcrn tory I lowcvc;r,
hi; d<,c t, not 'HJDm it tti,; <:1gr,.;crncnt H,
the Senate for con cur ren ce ,
. Sec. 21, Art. Vlf of the Cow;titution pr<Jvi<lc'1
that n,, treaty
<)r in-
tcn1atronal agreement shall ht valid 11nd ef foct
ivc with<)ut 'iuch c<mcurrence.

Is the agrc.;cmcnt 5igncd by the Prc~idcnt effective

de<-;pite the lack of
Senate concurren ce? Explain you r answer. (4% )

suc;c;ESTED ANSWER

The agreement signed by the President is effe

ctive even if the
Senate did not concur in it. The agreement is in
the nature of an executive
agrecmen t and need not be submitted to the Senate
for concurrence in it~
ratification (Saguisag v. Ochoa, Jr., C.R. Nos. 212
426 & 212444, January
12. 2016, 779 SCRA 241).

. A.
Under the enrQlled bill doctrine, the signing of a
bill by both the
Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Pre
sident of the Senate and
the certification by the secretaries of both Houses of Con
gress that the bill was
passed on a certain date are conclusive on the bill's due
enactment. Assuming
there is a conflict between the enrolled bill and the le
~v e journal, to the
effect that the enrolled bill signed by the Senate Preside
nt and eve1JtualJ.y ap-
proved by the Ptesictent turned out1o be different from
what the Senate actu-
ally passed as reflected in the legislative journal.

(a) May the Senate President disregard the enrolled

bill doctrine and
consider his signature as invalid and of no effect? (2.5
%)
 QUE5 ( IOr''h.7 jl .. I ....

14

SUGGESTED ANSWER . t may withdraw hised signature fri:m1

by Congress,
Pres1den s approv R N'
(a) .
The Senate
ot actually the
bill that wa
f (Astorga v. Villegas, G. . o.
the bill since it was n lled bill to speak o
so there was no enr;4 56 SCRA 714).
475 April 30, 19 ' ,,, E.,
L-23 , his signature. x-
'd t therea fte r withdraw
, (b) May the PresJ en
plain your answer. (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER . 'thdrawal of the sig-

(b) Of the pnor w1
f Se Yes he can because d~ngJv there could be. no
' S ker accor I .,,
t:6
• ,,
nature o nate President andb . peavalidly . oved (Astorga v. Vtl,egas,
' appr
"enrolled bill" that co~ld have SCRA 7J 4).
G.R. No. L-23475, Aprd 30, 197 '

B.

that no bill passed

Sec. 26(2), Art. VI of the Constitution provides
by either House of Congress shall become a Jaw unless it has passed three
readings on separate days and printed copies of it in its final fonn have been
distributed to the Members of the House three days before its passage.

Is there an exception to the provision? Explain your answer. (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER

The exception to this rovi . . .

to the necessity of its in11ned' / . s1on ts When the PrEsident certifies
necessity (Artiete VJ, Sec. 27t) e ;n:ctment to hleet a PUbUc calamity or
}:};~lno "· of
Secretary Pina~c~ ~.: 1;s1 Philippine Constitution; and
: 630). • o. 11S4SS, August 2S, 1994, 235
SUGGESTED ANS\NERS rO T~ IE 2017 BAR EXAMINATION 15
QUFSTIONS IN POLITICAL LAW

Xl

Sec. 17~ Art. Yl of the Constitution establishes an Electoral Tribunal

for each of the Houses of Congress, and makes each Electoral Tribu;,al "the
sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of
their respective Members." On the. other hand, Sec. 2(1), C (Commission on
Elections), Art. IX of the Constitution grants to the COMELEC the power to
enforce and administer all laws and regulations "relative to the conduct of an
election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and recall."

Considering that there is no concurrence of jurisdiction between the

Electoral Tribunals and the COMELEC, state when the jurisdiction of the
Electoral Tribunals begins, and the COMELEC's jurisdiction ends. Explain
your answer. (4%) ;

SUGGESTED ANSWER

To be considered a Member of the House of -Representatives,

there must be a concurrence of the following requisites: (I) a valid
proclamation, (2) a p1·oper oath, and (3) assumption of office (Reyes v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 207264, October 22, 2013, 699 SCRA 522). Once a
winning candidate has been proclaimed and taken his oath, and assumed
office as a Member of the House of Representatives, the j~risdiction
of the Commission on Elections -over the election contest ends, and the
jurisdiction of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal begins
(Vinzons-Chato v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 172131, April 2, 2007).

XII

The Congress establishes by law Philippine Funds, Inc., a private

corporation, to r~~eive for~ign donations 9oming from abroad during national
and local calam1t1es and d1s~sters, and to enable the unhampered and speedy
disbursements of the don~t1ons through the mere action of its Board of
Directors. Thereby, ?elays m the release of the donated funds occasioned by
the stringent rules of procurement would be avoided Also ti
h · · d' -· . · , 1e re 1eases would
not come undert eJuns tct1on of the Commission on Audit (COA).
 S TO THE 2017 BAR EXAMINATION
16 SUGGESTED ANSWER QUESTIONS IN POLITICAL LAVv

. . • Funds Inc. constitutional?

· · Ph1J1ppme
(a) Is the law estabhshmg ' ·
Explain your answer. (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER . .
h1T ine Funds, Inc. is vahd. It
(a) The establishment of p •PPt of donations for calarni ..
dy disbursemen s d. .
was rreated to enable the spee . er restricted to tra 1hona1
1
ties and disasters. Pu bl ic purpose is no .ong . S
.
t· n v. Execullve ecretary
· ·
government functions (Pelltwne - . r Organ1za 10 ·
269 SCRA 49). ,

G.R. Nos. 147036-37 & 14781 I, Ap rJI l 0' 2012'

(b) Can the Congress pass the Jaw. that would exempt
(Jo/c)the foreign
. . . . ofth e CQA?· Explam your answer.
grants from the Junsd1ct1on 0

.- SUGGESTED ANSWER
;

(b) Congress cannot exempt the foreign grants from the

jurisdiction of the Commission on Audit. Its jurisdiction extends to all
government-owned or controlJed corporations, including those funded by
donations through the Government (Art. IX-D, Sec. 3 of the 1987 Philip-
pine Constitution; and Petitioner-Corporation v. Executive Secretary, G.R.
Nos. 147036-37 & 147811, April 10, 2012, 269 SCRA 49).

XIII
. Command responsibility pertains to the r ..• .
ers for crimes committed bys b d' espon~1b1 IJty of command-
u or mate members 0 fth
persons subject to their control ,·n . t . e armed forces or other
d . m ernational wa d .
octrme has now found appJ· t· . .
d. ica JOn in civil f rs or
~
omest1c conflicts . The
an m proceedings seeking the p . ·1 ac ions ior human rights abuses
nv1 ege of the writ of amparo. ,
(a) What a h
hold the · re t e elements to b .
. .s_upe~1or or commander 1· bl e established in order to
respons1bJ11ty? (4%) Ia e under the doctri·n f d
e o comman
SUGGESTED J.. "4S','fEp r; fO - ..:c z~ ~ 7 BAR E:XJ-ll'lt..t.Jl'JN
O'JESTtONS IN POUTl":;.tJ_ LP :1
~,
SLGGE STED ANS\V ER

(a) The doctrin e of comma nd respons ibilit) can be i:n\ oke<l

to determ ine the author ~"·ho ,~ accoun table for\ and has the du~ to
address the disapp earanc e and harassm ent compla i:ned of to enable
the courts to devise remedi al measur es that may be approp riate under
the premise s to protect their rights covered b) the ~~rit of amparo . To
hold someon e liable- under th~ doctrin e of comma nd respon sibili~. the
following elemen ts m ust obtain:

(1) the existen ce of a supe rior-su bordin ate rel a tionshi p be-
tween the accused as superio r and the perpet rator of the
crime as his subord inate;

(2) the superio r knew or had reason to know that the crin1e
was about to be or bad been commi tted; and

(3) the superio r failed to take the necessary and reason able
measures to preven t the crimin al acts or punlsh the per-
petrato rs thereof (Rodriguez v. 1'-lacapagal-i frroyo, C.R.
No. 191805, November I 5, 201 I~ 660 SCRA 843).

(b) May the doctrine of command responsibilit) nppl)• tt.,• th~

President for the abuses of the armed forces {AFP a."ld PNP) given his uniqu~
role as the comma nder-in -chief of all the anned forc~s? Explain )Our answer.
(4%) "l •

SUGG ESTED ANSW ER

(b) The president, being the eommander-in..chicf of all

. possess
es control 'over the military th a t qua 1·1-
• rily
armed. forces, necessa .
• .
fi es h 1m as a super10r w1th1n the purview of the comma
. · nd respon stbllity
d octri ne. Tb e Incumbent Preside nt is immune fro · d
. . m suit urint1~ his, in-
cum b ency. The immunity, however, exists onl du . .
the Preside nt. Once his or her term has ende: ring the incumbency of
counta ble under this doctrin e (Rodrl u . ' he or she 1nay be held nc . .
191805, November 15, 2011, ~ SCR~ :~;)_Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. No.
- - - - - - - - - - - -~~ru;sn~ ~3\A
VVERS TU
SUGGESTED ANS
Int=
auESTtO
,t;.V N.SfN POUTlCAL LAW
18

XIV
. a far-flung area
folk in .
· . e to the poor Ro·
y
Pastor monthly
' to devote
· his
Tu fu lfi JI a campa1gn prom1s
. d his frjend, stipend of
. Mindanao the President requesteld pay Pastor Roy a ect a modest house
in , President wou ould also er
ministry to them. The . a fund, and w ice
o50
,. , 000 .00 from his discretion ry
. . an area of the latter's cho . .
of worship in the Jocahty m . . ns of the Const1tu...
Does the President there y violate any
b Prov1s10
tion? Explain your answer. (3%)

STED ANSWER . .
SUGGE . J VI of the Const1tut1on.
2 9 (2) Artie e .
The President violated Sec. ' when he is assigned to
• t Pastor Roy on 1Y I
Public money can be g1v~n _o . or overnment orphanage or epro--
the armed forces, a penal mst1tut1_on, r. g the benefit of the church for the
, . m. No public money can be given or
.sar,u h. .
construction of a house of wors ,p. .

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER

The President violated Sec. 5 of Article III of the Constitution,

also known as the non-establishment clause, which states that no law shall
be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof, and that the free exercise and enjoyment of religious pro-
fession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever
be allowed. Such payment of a monthly stipend and the erection of the
house is a preference which falls under this prohibition.
 SUGGESTED ANSVvERS TO THE 2017 BAR EXA~INATION
QUESTIONS JN POLITICAL l:AW 19

xv
A.
Accor ding to Sec. 3, Art. Vlll of the Constitution, the Judiciary shall
enjoy fiscal autonomy. What does the tenn fiscal autonomy signify? Explain
your ans\ver. (3%) ·

SUGG ESTE D ANSW ER

The fiscal auton omy of the Judici ary means that the appro pria-
tion for the Judic iary may not be reduce d by Congr ess below the amou nt
-appro priate d for the previo us year, and after appro val, shall be autom ati-
cally and regul arly releas ed (Artic le VIII, Sec. 3 of the 1987 Constitution)~

Fisca l auton omy authorizes the Supre me Court to levy, assess

and collect fees, and to determ ine how its funds should be utilized (Be11g-
zon v. Drilon,_ G.R. No.10 3524, April 15, 1992, 208 SCRA 133).

B.

May a compl aint for disbarment against the Ombu dsman prospe r
during her incum bency ? Explain your answer. (3%)

SUGG ESTE D ANSWER

A comp laint for disba rment cannot be filed again st the Om buds-
. - man durin g her incum bency . Article XI, Sec. 8 of the 1987 Philip pine
Const itutio n impos es memb ership of the Philip pine Bar as a qualif icatio n
to be an Ombu dsma' !· The Oµibu dsman is remov able only by impea ch-
ment. If the Ombu dsman were to be disbar red, he would be remov ed
from office witho ut under going impea chmen t (Artic le XI, Section 2 of the
1987 Philip pine Const itution ).
 r111 8/1 p F/I J"11NA1 /;~,
• ,.1
R,._ ro rHf E tr1r-"
_,\L ·.. , \ IJ
SUGGE STE DANSVV'E .,") ours rtONS IN f.l(JI
20

C.
. h· "fnjo irnpcachment pr<J-
. · n states t a1 · h·
3 Art. XI of the Consuwt10
Sec. , ffi ·,, J rnorc than once wit 1n a
. the same o 1c1a
ceedmgs shall be initiated against
pcnod of one year.'' .
.
\Vhat constitutes initiation of impeac hme nt proceedings under the
pro, 1sion? (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER

Initiation of impeachment proceedings under Article XI, Sec. 3

of the Constifufion sturts with the filing of the com plaint. The initiation
of impeachment proceedings starts with the filing of the complaint, and
rhe,oteofone-third of the House in a resolution of impeachment does not
lnuiate the impeachment proceedings which was already initiated by the
filing of a verified complaint under Section 3, paragraph (2), Article XI of
the Constitution (Francitco v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261,
No, ern btr IO, 2003. 415 SCRA 44).

-ooOoo-