Political Law Bar Questions 2018 with answers

Juris Doctor (JD2023)

 Training & Convention Division
University of the Philippines Law Center

SUGGESTED ANSWERS
to the
2018 BAR EXAMINATIONS IN
POLITICAL AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

Congress enacted a law to provide Filipinos, especially the poor and the
marginalized, access and information to a full range of modern family planning
methods, including contraceptives, intrauterine devices, injectibles, non-
abortifacient hormonal contraceptives, and family planning products and
supplies, but expressly prohibited abortion. To ensure its objectives, the law
made it mandatory for health providers to provide information on the full range
of modern family planning methods, supplies and services, for schools to
provide reproductive health education, for non-governmental medical
practitioners to render mandatory 48 on hours pro bono reproductive health
services as a condition to Philhealth accreditation, and for couples desiring to
marry attend a family planning seminar prior to issuance to a marriage license. It
also punishes certain acts of refusal to carry out its mandates. The spouses
Aguiluz, both Roman Catholics, filed a petition to declare the law as
unconstitutional based on, among others, the following grounds:

(a) It violates the right to life, since it practically sanctions abortion.

Despite express terms prohibiting abortion, petitioners claim that the
family planning products and supplies oppose the initiation of life
which is fundamental human right, and the sanction of contraceptive
use contravenes natural law and as an affront to the dignity of man.
(b) It violates the constitutional prohibition against involuntary
servitude because it requires medical practitioners to render 48 hours
of pro bono reproductive health services which may be against their
will.

(c) It violates the Freedom of Religion, since petitioners’ religious

beliefs prevent them from using contraceptives, and that any State-
sponsored procurement of contraceptives, funded by taxes, violates
the guarantee of religious freedom.

Rule on each of the above objections. (2.5% each)

1
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(a) The law in question does not sanction abortion even in practical
terms. In the case of Imbong v. Ochoa (GR No. 204819, April 8,
2014), the law on its face expressly mentioned that abortion is
not permissible, and this was the determinative factor in making
the ruling. In the same case, the Court also found that the RH
law was replete with provisions that embody the policy of
protecting the unborn from the moment of fertilization.
In addition, the majority of the court believes that the
question of when life starts is a scientific and medical issue;
hence, the Court refused to make a ruling on this issue.
(b) Involuntary servitude denotes compulsion or coercion to do
something either through force, threats, intimidation or other
means. The accreditation with the PhilHealth, as ruled by the
Supreme Court in the case of Imbong v. Ochoa, should be
viewed as an incentive and not a punishment. These health
service providers also enjoy the liberty to choose which kind of
health service they wish to provide. Clearly, there is no
compulsion, force or threat upon them to render the pro bono
services against their will.
(c) What is prohibited in the Constitution is the establishment of a
state religion. While the establishment clause in the Constitution
restricts what the government can do with religion, it also limits
what religious sects can or cannot do with the government. They
can neither cause the government to adopt their particular
doctrine as policy for everyone, nor can they cause the
government to restrict other groups. To do so would cause the
State to adhere to a particular religion, and thus establish a state
religion (Imbong v. Ochoa, GR No. 204819, April 8, 2014).

2
 II

Agnes was allegedly picked up by a group of military men headed by Gen.

Altamirano, and was brought to several military camps where she was
interrogated, beaten, mauled, tortured, and threatened with death if she would not
confess her membership in the New People’s Army (NPA) and point to the
location of the NPA camps. She suffered for several days until she was released
after she signed a document saying that she was a surenderee, and was not
abducted or harmed by the military. After she was released, alleging that her
rights to life, liberty and security had been violated and continued to be
threatened by violation of such rights, she filed with the Supreme Court (the
Court) a Petition for the Writs of Amparo and Habeas Corpus with prayers for
Temporary Protection Orders, Inspection of Place and Production of Documents
and Personal Properties. The case was filed against President Amoyo (who was
the President of the Philippines when the abduction, beating, mauling and life
threats were committed), General Altamirano, and several military men whom
Agnes was able to recognize during her ordeal. The Court, after finding the
petition to be in order, issued the writ of amparo and the writ of habeas data and
directed the respondents to file a verified return on the writs, and directed the
Court of Appeals (CA) to hear the petition. The respondents duly filed their
return on the writs and produced the documents in their possession. After
hearing, the CA ruled that there was no more need to issue the temporary
protection orders since the writ of amparo had already been issued, and dismissed
the petition against President Amoyo on the ground the he was immune from suit
during his incumbency as president. Agnes appealed the CA ruling to the Court.
The appeal was lodged after President Amoyo’s terms had ended.
(a) Was the CA correct in saying that the writ of amparo rendered
unnecessary the issuance of the temporary protection order? (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) Yes. The writ of amparo is an extraordinary and independent
remedy that provides rapid judicial relief, as it partakes of a
summary proceeding and requires only substantial evidence to
make the appropriate interim and permanent reliefs to the
petitioner. It serves both preventive and curative reliefs in
addressing extrajudicial abduction and torture. Temporary
protection orders are merely intended to assist the Court before
it can arrive at a judicious determination of the amparo
petition. A temporary protection order, being an interim relief,
can only be granted before final adjudication on the amparo
case is made. The privilege of the writ of amparo, once granted,

3
 already entails the protection of the aggrieved party. Thus, since
the writ of amparo was already granted and issued, there is no
more need to issue a temporary protection order (Yano v.
Sanchez, G.R. No. 186640, Feb. 11, 2010; Rodriguez v.
Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. Nos. 191805 & 193160, Nov. 15, 2011).

(b) Will the president’s immunity from suit continue even after his term
has ended, considering that the events covered by the petition took
place during his terms? (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(b) No. The presidential immunity from suit exists only in

concurrence with the President’s incumbency. A non-sitting
President cannot claim immunity even if the acts complained of
were committed while he was still a sitting President. The reason
for this is that if the immunity is not granted while he is in office,
he might be spending all his time in attending to litigations.
After his term, he can already attend to them (Estrada v.
Desierto, G..R Nos. 146710-15, 146738, April 3, 2001;Rodriguez v.
Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. Nos. 191805 & 193160, Nov. 15, 2011).

III
What and whose vote is required for the following acts: (2% each)

(a) the repeal of a tax exemption law;

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(a) The Constitution is silent on the voting requirement for

repealing a tax exemption. However, it could be considered that
the voting requirement to grant is also the voting requirement
to repeal; hence, the required vote is the majority of all the
members of Congress.

ALTERNATIVE SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(a) The granting of tax exemptions requires the majority of all
members of the Congress, because granting such will impair the lifeblood of

4
the government. Repealing such tax exemption, however, is not inimical to
such lifeblood and a simple majority is needed instead of a qualified
majority.

(b) a declaration of the existence of a state of war;

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(b) Two-thirds of all members of Congress, voting separately

(Article VI, Section 23, 1).

(c ) The amendment of a constitutional provisions through a constituent

assembly;

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(c) The proposal for the amendment shall be valid, upon a vote of
three-fourths of all its Members (Article XVII, Section 1, 1). For
the effectivity of the amendment; however, the vote needed is
the majority of all those who voted (Article XVII, Section 4).
[Note: Any of these two answers should be acceptable as the
question is not clear on whether it is asking for the voting
requirement for the validity of the proposal or the effectivity of the
amendment].

(d) The resolution of a tie in a presidential election; and

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(d) A majority of all the members of both Houses of Congress,

voting separately (Article VII, Section 4).

(e) The extension of the period for the suspension of the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(e) The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all

its Members in regular or special session (Article VII, Section 18).

5
 IV

The Province of Amaya is one of the smallest province in the Philippines

with only one legislative district composed of four municipalities: Uno, Dos, Tres
and Cuatro.

Andres, a resident and registered voter of Cuatro municipality, ran and was
elected as member of Sangguniang Panlalawigan (SP) of Amaya in the 2010 and
2013 local elections.

While Andres was serving his second term as SP member, a law was
enacted re-apportioning the four towns of Amaya into two legislative districts:
Uno and Dos comprising the First District, and Tres and Cuatro comprising the
Second District.

In the 2016 local elections, Andres ran and was elected as member of the
SP of Amaya representing Second district.

Andres seeks your legal advice regarding his intention to run as a member
of the SP of Amaya for the Second District in the next local election in 2019.
What will you advise Andres? (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

My advise is for him not to run for SP member, because doing so

violates the limitation of three consecutive terms upon local elective officials.
In the cases of Latasa v. COMELEC (G.R. 154289, December 10, 2003) and
Naval v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 207851, July 8, 2014]), the Court ruled that
the three-term limit applies notwithstanding any reapportionment,
renaming, or reclassification of any local government unit. The clear intent
of the framers of the Constitution was to limit the term to three consecutive
elections to the same position.

State whether or not the following acts are constitutional: (2% each)
(a) A law prescribing as qualifications for appointment to any court
lower than the Supreme Court, Philippine citizenship, whether
natural born or naturalized, 35 years of age on the date of
appointment, and at least eight years as a member of the Philippine
Bar.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(a) The law prescribing as a qualification for appointment to any

lower court mere Philippine citizenship, whether natural-born

6
 or naturalized, would be unconstitutional with respect to
appointments to collegiate courts (CA, CTA, Sandiganbayan)
because all appointees to these courts must be natural-born
citizens (Article VIII, Section 7).

(b) A law requiring all candidates for national or local elective offices to
be college degree holders;

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(b) The law requiring all candidates for national or local elective
offices to be college degree holders should be considered as
unconstitutional with respect to national elective offices, because
it is not one of the qualifications specifically required for these
offices. The qualifications for these positions under the
Constitution are exclusive in character and the Congress would
be incompetent to prescribe this requirement as an additional
qualification for candidates for national elective office. This
additional requirement would, however, be valid with respect to
candidates for local elective posts (Social Justice Society v.
Dangerous Drugs Board, 570 SCRA 410).

(c ) The designation by the president of an acting Associate

Commissioner of the Civil Service Commission;

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(c) Such designation is unconstitutional because the Constitution

provides that no person shall be appointed or designated in any
of the constitutional commissions in a temporary or acting
capacity (Articles IX-B, Section 1(2), IX-C, Section 2 and IX-D,
Section 2).

(d) The appointment by the President as Deputy Ombudsman of a

lawyer who has been engaged in the practice of law for five years;
and

7
 promulgate. The law therefore is an encroachment of the
Court's rule-making power (Carpio-Morales v CA, GR 217126-
27, 10 Nov 2015).

(c ) A law prohibiting any appeal from the decision or final order of the
Ombudsman in an administrative proceeding, except through a
petition for review on certiorari filed before the Supreme Court.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(c) The law is unconstitutional. In Fabian v. Desierto (G.R. No.

129742, 16 September 1998), the Court invalidated Section 27 of
R.A. No. 6770 insofar as it provided for appeal by certiorari
under Rule 45 from the decisions or orders of the Ombudsman
in administrative cases. Section 27 of R.A. No. 6770 had the
effect, not only of increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court without its advice and concurrence in violation
of Section 30, Article VI of the Constitution; it is also
inconsistent with Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court which
provides that a petition for review on certiorari shall apply only
to a review of "judgments or final orders of the Court of
Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Court of Tax Appeals, the
Regional Trial Court, or other courts authorized by law." In the
absence of concurrence by the Supreme Court, such a law would
be unconstitutional.

XI
Under Section 6 of Article V (on Criminal Jurisdiction) of the Visiting
Forces Agreement, (VFA), the custody of a United States (US) personnel who
becomes subject to criminal prosecution before a Philippine court shall be with
the US military authorities, if the latter so requests. The custody shall begin from
the commission of the offense until the completion of all judicial proceedings.
When requested, the US military authorities, however, shall make the US
personnel available to Philippine authorities for any investigative or judicial
proceedings relating to the offense which the person has been charged. In the
event that the Philippine judicial proceedings are not completed with one year,
the US shall be relieved of any obligation under Section 6.

14

The constitutionality of Section 6, Article V of the VFA is challenged on

two grounds: (1) it nullifies the exclusive power of the Supreme Court to adopt
rules of procedure for all courts in the Philippines; and (2) it violates the equal
protection clause to the extent that it allows the transfer of the custody of an