Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Bar Questions in Administrative Law From 1989 DD
Bar Questions in Administrative Law From 1989 DD
Bar Questions in Administrative Law From 1989 DD
to harbor pilot positions shall be only for a term of one year from
law and that the said administrative order was issued without prior
notice and hearing. The PPA countered that the administrative order
function.
due process and substantive due process of law. Was there, or, was
Suggested Answer:
II
Give the two (2) requisites for the judicial review of administrative
judicial review?
Suggested Answer:
then filed suit to have the new MARINA rules and regulations declared
Suggested Answer:
The issuance of the new rules and regulations violated due process.
of Internal Revenue vs. Court of Appeals, 261 SCRA 236 (1996), it was
Alternative Answer:
II
Remedies)
Suggested Answer:
of the Philippines Board of Regents vs. Rasul, 200 SCRA 685 (1991)
17. The law provides for immediate resort to the court (Rullan
vs. Valdez, 12 SCRA 501 (1964).
process clause:
by the Mayor with Grave Misconduct and Violation of Law before the
Municipal Board. The Board investigated Gatdula but before the case
could be decided, the City charter was approved. The City Fiscal,
(CBI). Although the CBI did not conduct an investigation, the records
show that both the Municipal Board and the Fiscal's Office
Bank who were all under Fred Torre, sent a complaint to management
copy of the complaint, Torre denied the charges. Two days later, the
was tasked to look further into the matter. He met with the lawyers
Chairman wrote Torre to inform him that the bank had chosen the
services of Torre.
Questions: (a) Was Torre "constructively dismissed" before he filed
his complaint? (b) Given the multiple meetings held among the bank
officials, the lawyers and Torre, is it correct for him to say that
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A.
Tuvera, 146 SCRA 446, due process requires that the law be published.
2.) In State Prosecutors v. Muro, 236 SCRA 505, it was held that the
the judge who will decide a case violates procedural due process.
B.
Fiscal. In Mangubat v. de Castro, 163 SCRA 608, it was held that the
C.
b) Torre is correct in saying that he was not given the chance to be
Suppose the AFP fails to pay for delivered ponchos where must
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
in court. The Republic of the Philippines did not waive its immunity
In-United States vs. Ruiz, 136 SCRA 487,492, the Supreme Court held:
individual and can thus be deemed to have tacitly given its consent
base which is devoted to the defense of both the United States and
highest order: they are not utilized for nor dedicated to commerce or
business purposes"
The provision for venue in the contract does not constitute a waiver
In Republic vs. Purisima. 78 SCRA 470 474, the Supreme Court ruled:
case of a breach of contract between the parties and the suits that
from the State acting through a duly enacted statute as pointed out
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
II
courts
who received the second highest number of votes, filed a petition for
Quo Warranto against Ang. The petition was filed with the House of
The HRET ruled in favor of Ang. Bonto filed a petition for certiorari
in the Supreme Court. The following issues are raised:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Tribunal. 168 SCRA 391, 404, since judicial power includes the duty
17, 1973. Under Section (I), Article III of the 1973 Constitution,
III
follows:
"No employee of the Civil Service shall be excused from attending and
incriminate himself?
Constitution?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. No. Ong cannot refuse to answer the question on the ground that he
would incriminate himself, since the Jaw grants him immunity and
Supreme Court in Brown vs. Walker, 161 U.S.591, 597, what the
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
his guilt from his refusal to answer. Be was not dismissed because of
his involvement in the leakage in the medical examination but for his
In Lefkowitz vs. Turley, 414 U.S. 70,84, the United States Supreme
Court said:
the Fifth Amendment requires that the State have means at its
State may plainly insist that employees either answer questions under
employment."
3. Yes, Ong can argue that his dismissal was based on coerced
confession. In Garrity vs. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493, 500, the United
"We now hold the protection of the individual under the Fourteenth
IV
The police had suspicions that. Juan Samson, member of the subversive
intercept and open all mail addressed to and coming from Juan Samson
in the interest of the national security. Was the order of the Chief
of Police valid?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the order of the Chief of Police is not valid, because there is
except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order
IV
TOPIC: JURISDICITON
propaganda with the end in view of removing him from office. Will the
action prosper?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the action will not prosper. Under Section 8 Article Xl of the
I
Suggested Answer:
appears from the context, the various arms through which political
II
denied the request. The teachers, students and pupils concerned went
to the Court to have the memorandum circular declared null and void.
Suggested Answer:
The teachers and the students should be exempted from the flag
case? Explain.
Suggested Answer:
hear the case. As held in Rosario vs. Court of Appeals, 211 SCRA 384,
water sampling and found that the dumpsite would contaminate Laguna
de Bay and the surrounding areas of the Municipality. The LLDA also
discovered that no environmental clearance was secured by the
(DENR) and the LLDA as required by law. The LLDA therefore issued to
prevent its residents and the LLDA from interfering with the
2. Can the LLDA justify its order by asserting that the health
Suggested Answer:
Appeals, 231 SCRA 292, under Republic Act No. 4850, the LLDA is
2. Yes, the LLDA can justify its order. Since it has been
one (1) year starting 15 August 1991, over the objection of the oil
companies which claim that the period covered is too long to prejudge
and foresee.
Suggested Answer:
No, the resolution is not valid, since the Energy Regulatory Board
could not lawfully issue Executive Orders Nos. 1, 2, 14, which have
Congress. Decide.
executive orders on the ground that they are bills of attainder and,
Suggested Answer:
provided:
power."
Inc. vs. Tan, 163 SCRA 371, the Supreme Court ruled that the
(2) Executive Orders Nos. 1,2 and 14 are not bill of attainder. A
II
TOPIC: LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS
Suppose the loan had instead been granted before 2 February 1987, but
obligation?
such cases.
rights?
Suggested Answer:
the ruling in Mangubat vs. Osmeña, G.R. No. L-12837, April 30, 1959,
patently illegal.
correct? Explain.
Suggested Answer:
executive branch.
II
trial".
suspension on the ground that the criminal case against him involved
suspension?
Suggested Answer:
him involve acts committed during his term as OIC and not during his
and not necessarily to the one which he hold when he committed the
crime with which he is charged. This was the ruling in Deloso vs.
Deloso vs. Sandiganbayan, 173 SCRA 409, it was held that the
his services for an indefinite period, and his right to hold office