1. A. Warlito, is a natural born citizen.

The Philippine Constitution provides that when a natural

born Filipino who has lost his citizenship, can regain his previous status which is a natural born
citizen. Hence, Warilto is a natural born citizen

B. No, Shirley will not automaticallt become a Filipino citizen. The Philippine Constitution
provides that when a Filipino husband who married an alien spouse, his wife shall acquire his
status provided that she will have her oath and not disqualified. ( Yes automatic Moya case, tas
dapat not Disqualified and renounce alien citizenship)

C. Only Luisa can become a Filipino Citizen. The Philippines constitution provides that a person
who’s father is a Filipino citizen before reaching the age of majority is a Filipino citizen. Since
Luisa was only 17 years old when his father reacquired his previous status. Hence only her can
become a Filipino citizen.

2. A. No, William is not correct. The constitution provides that international law shall form part of
the law of the land. Since US is a signatory of a treaty in the Philippines, the Philippine court has
a jurisdiction over the case. Hence William shall be held liable. ( wrong legal basis the lawfulness
shall be determined by the sovereign and kahit na US embassy di naman yon US based talaga)

B. No, William was not denied of his Miranda rights. Under the Bill of rights, a person who is
under custodial investigation may have a counsel of his choice or if it is not available, the court
shall provide him one. In this case, the court provided a counsel to William but he refused to
have one hence he waived such right. The bill of rights provides also that the rights of a person
shall start when he is under the custody. Hence the contention of William that he should be
informed of his rights when he was still not under the custody of the police is not valid.

C. No, William cannot be granted bail as a matter of right. The Bill of rights provides that a bail is
a matter of right to crimes before or after conviction to MTC and such crimes must not be
punishable by reclusion perpetua. Since what was imposed to him is a capital punishment,
therefore his bail is not a matter of right but a matter of dicretion by the court.

3. A. Yes, the act of MTRCB constituting prior restraint violates freedom of speech. The Bill of
rights provides that any act that restricts the press violated freedom of speech. In this case
since the MTRCB prohibited the KKK, hence they violated their right. ( Tama pero kulang There is
no showing that there is a clear and present danger rule)

B. The Memorandum is not valid. The Administrative law provides that in order for a
memorandum to be valid, it must be published 3 times for three consecutive weeks in the
newspaper for general circulation and a copy must be filed in the Office of National Register if
University of the Philippines. Hence absence of one of the requirements, will render the
Memorandum invalid.

4. A. No, the conditions imposed by the Court of Appeals is not violative of his liberty of abode and
right to travel. The Bill of rights provides that liberty of abode and right to travel cannot be
 imparted except when there is a lawful order or when public safety requires. There was a lawful
order by the court that Mr. Violet must remain in such area for his bail to be granted. Hence he
cannot say that his rights were violated.( Dapat doon lang kais siya kasi may pending case siya.
Additional okay naman ang bail sa kanya)
B. No, liberty of abode and right to travel where not absolute rights. The bill of rights provides
that it is the right of every person to travel and to have a liberty of abode except when there is a
lawful order or when the public safety requires.

5. A. Yes, the verbal agreement via telephone call is valid. Under Philippine constitution, it is one of
the powers of the president to negotiate with international agreements without need on votes
provided that he consented it and such consent was not vitiated.

6. B. No it is not a treaty. The Philippine Constitution provides that in order for a treaty to be valid,
it must be in writing and there must be a 2/3 votes of the members of the senate. The president
entered a verbal agreement and without any votes from the senate. Hence, it is only a mere
agreement. ( Okay na ung writing wala na 2/3 wag pabida)

1. A. No, H’s filling of COC is not sufficient to renounce foreign citizenship. The Philippine
Constitution provides that in order to validly renounce the former citizenship there must be
an oath and a declaration that he is renouncing his foreign citizenship. H only filed his COC
and did not had an oath that he renounce his foreign citizenship, hence he is not considered
as a Filipino Citizen. ( yes tama pero ma sworn

B.No, H’s filling of Citizenship is not sufficient to renounce his foreign citizenship. The Law on
Citizenship under the there must be an oath and a declaration that he is renouncing his former
foreign status. Even if H is a dual citizen, there must be an oath and a declaration that he
renounces his foreign status. Therefore, his filling of COC is not sufficient. ( Mercado vs
Manzano pwede daw k bye)

2. A. The Philippine constitution provides that natural born citizens are those citizen at the time
of the adoption of the 1987 constitution, those who’s mother and father are Filipino Citizens,
those who mother became a Filipino citizen before January 1973. A person made an act to
become a natural born citizen are naturalized citizen since they acquired their foreign status by
birth since one of their parents and alien or a former Filipino citizen who married an alien.
( tama to)

B. Yes, X is qualified to run to Congress. The Philippine Constitution provides that only na natural
born citizen can run to the Congress and a naturalized citizen can ne considered as a natural
born provided that he is not disqualified, an oath was made and he validly renounce his foreign
citizenship.. Since X is a naturalized citizen, hence is in qualified to run in the Congress. ( dapat di
mo na pinalitan, ah NATURAL BORN na tigas mo )

3. Yes, B’s contention is correct, the law on Philippine constitution provides that any
appointments made during recess or not in session are ad interim appointment which is valid
until recinded by the Congress. In this case, since A was a appointed while the congress is not in
session, such appointment is temporary only. Hence, the Contention of Atty. B that is subject to
the confirmation of the commission is true.

B. Yes , If the Commission on Appointment by passed the confirmation of A, he can still be

appointed by the president. Under the law on Philippine Constitution, an appointment made
during recess can be by passed and the president has the discretion whether he shall make an
appointment or not. Hence, A can still be appointed by the president. ( No, ad interim
permanent yan hahaha tanga ka ah)

4. No, the contention of T is not correct. The Philippine Constitution provides that upon the
death of the vice mayor, the one who will succeed is the councilor whi had the highest votes and
it shall last until next election. Hence B will become the Vice Mayor until the next election.
Hence the contention of T is no correct. ( tama to)

B. No, R can no longer run under the Local Government code. The law provides that the
Councior can serve only for 3 consecutive terms. In this case, R already had his 3 terms, hence
he can no longer run as a councilor. ( can run again, unexpired portion is not a full term)

5. It is only an amendment. Under the Philippine Constitution, in case the changes are
piecemeal only and will not change the entire context, it is only an amendment. What is
changed in this case are “ emenated from them” to emenates from it” hence it is only an
amendment. ( revision since it alters the basic principle of sepeation of powers)

B. The process on revise under the constitution, is first there must be a 2/3 majoity votes and
there must be an approval for 60- 90 days before the revision can be validly made.