POLITICAL LAW

2022 BAR QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

1. A police officer saw Harvey urinating in public. A local ordinance imposes a

Php 500.00 fine for urinating in public. The police officer shouted at Harvey:
“That is against the law!” Harvey sarcastically answered: “No, this is against the
wall!” Then and there, the police officer arrested him and brought him to the police
station. At the police station, Harvey was frisked and was found in possession of an
unlicensed .38 caliber revolver loaded with five live ammunition. He was
subsequently charged with Qualified Illegal Possession of Firearms. When the
prosecution offered in evidence the unlicensed firearm and ammunition, the
defense objected on the ground that the pieces of evidence are products of an
illegal search and seizure. The prosecution contended that the pieces of evidence
were lawfully seized after a valid warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest.

Was the search and seizure valid? Explain briefly. (5 points)

ANSWER:
No. The search and seizure is invalid.

In the case of US v F.Alexander, the right to arrest without a warrant for violation
of a municipal ordinance is given by statute to an officer.

Where the ordinance merely provides for a penalty such as in this case, an arrest
cannot be made thereby there is no valid warrantless search and seizure incidental
to a lawful arrest since the arrest in itself is invalid.

Hence, the search and seizure is invalid.

2. Pedro was the accused in a rape case. During the trial, the private complainant
testified that on the night of the incident, she was walking home when Pedro, who
was her neighbor, suddenly grabbed her and brought her to his house. There, Pedro
forcibly had carnal knowledge of her. After the prosecution rested its case, Pedro
testified that the sexual intercourse between him and the private complainant was
consensual. Eventually, the trial court acquitted Pedro on reasonable doubt and
found that the element of force was not established.

The People filed a Rule 65 petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA),
alleging that the trial court’s decision was rendered with grave abuse of discretion
because the private complainant's testimony clearly established that Pedro had
carnal knowledge of her through force and without her consent. In his comment,
Pedro sought to dismiss the petition on the ground of violation of his right against
double jeopardy.

As the CA, how would you rule on the petition? Explain briefly. (5 points)

ANSWER:
The petition has no merit.

frosty
As a general rule, a judgment of acquittal is final, unappealable, and immediately
executory upon its promulgation. Likewise, no person shall be twice put in
jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. Although, a judgment of acquittal
may be assailed by the People in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules
of Court without placing the accused in double jeopardy, however, in such case,
the People is burdened to establish that the court a quo, acted without jurisdiction
or grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction.

Here, the court a quo acquired jurisdiction over the case and made a judgment of
acquittal therewith, based on reasonable doubt. There is no grave abuse of
discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in this case for certiorari to
lie.

Hence, such petition violates the right of the accused against double jeopardy for
the state is not allowed to make repeated attempts to convict an individual after a
judgment of acquittal by a tribunal highlighting his right of repose.

3. A city ordinance was passed providing for the removal, at the owner’s expense,
of: (i) all outdoor advertising materials displayed or exposed to the public in
designated regulated areas such as residential zones, bridges, and along main city
streets; and (ii) billboards of substandard materials, or which obstruct road signs
and traffic signals. Failure to comply with said ordinance authorizes the mayor,
assisted by the police, to implement the removal of the non-compliant materials.
ABC Ad Agency, owner of the billboards removed by the city, filed a complaint
because, considering the nature of its business, the removal of its billboards
amounted to taking of private property without just compensation.

Will the complaint prosper? Explain briefly. (5 points)

ANSWER:
No, the complaint will not prosper.

In the case of Churchill vs Rafferty, although these billboards are located in private
property, the real and sole value of the billboard is its proximity to the public
thoroughfares.

Here, considering the nature of its business where the purpose of advertising is for
the public to see it, considerations such as the grounds imposed under the subject
ordinance is valid for it is for the general welfare of the public as this refers to
designated regulated areas and substandard materials. Regulation of billboard is
not so much a regulation of private property but a regulation of the streets and
other public thoroughfares.

Hence, removal of billboards does not amount to taking of private property without
just compensation. It is a mere regulation of the streets and other public
thoroughfares.

frosty
4. [This item has two questions.] As a reaction to China’s occupation of the Spratly
Islands, a rally was organized by various civil society aggrupations at a vacant
private lot. Before the event could even start, the police ordered the organizers not
to proceed with the program because of security reasons and the fact that the group
did not have a mayor’s permit. When the organizers still proceeded with the rally,
the police dispersed the crowd and arrested the leaders of the group.

(a) Did the actions of the police constitute a violation of the group’s
constitutional right to peacefully assemble? Explain briefly.

(b) Would your answer be the same if the rally was held at a freedom park?
Explain briefly.

(5 points)

ANSWER:
a. Yes. The action of the police is a violation of the group’s constitutional right
to peacefully assemble.

BP 880 provides that no permit shall be required if the public assembly shall
be done or made in a freedom park duly established by law or ordinance or
in private property, in which case only the consent of the owner or the one
entitled to its legal possession is required.

Here, mere statement for security reasons is insufficient to justify the act of
the police officers, and since mayor’s permit is unnecessary if the rally is
done in private property, the same may be dispensed with.

Thus, the police violated the people’s right to peacefully assemble as the
assembly was done within the bounds of law.

b. Yes. My answer would be the same.

As a general rule, a written permit shall be required for any person or

persons to organize and hold a public assembly in a public place. However,
no permit shall be required if the public assembly shall be done or made in a
freedom park duly established by law or ordinance.

In this case where it is done in a freedom park, a mayor’s permit would no

longer be necessary to peacefully assemble.

Thus, the act of the police officers is still a violation of the right to
peacefully assemble as the same was done within the bounds of law.

5. The K-12 Law was passed with the objective to enhance the Philippine
educational system by strengthening its curriculum and adding two years of high
school. Parents of students in a science high school sought to have the law declared
unconstitutional citing the equal protection clause of the Constitution. As well, the

frosty
parents averred that the law should not apply to their children because the latter
belong to a distinct class, being gifted and advanced for their age, with the
capability to learn better and faster compared to other high school students.

Is the contention of the parents tenable? Explain briefly. (5 points)

ANSWER:
No. The contention of the parents is not tenable.

The equal protection clause is directed principally against undue favor and
individual or class privilege. It merely requires that all persons shall be treated
alike, under like circumstances and conditions both as to privileges conferred and
liabilities enforced. A class may be treated differently from another where the
groupings are based on reasonable and real distinctions, germane to the purpose of
the law, concerns members of the same class and applies to present and future
conditions.

Apparently, the unjustified claims of the parents that their children are gifted just
because they are in a science high school and that they are to be treated beyond the
scope of the law is not a reasonable and real distinction. Likewise, it is not
germane to the purpose of the law, which is to treat children alike in like
circumstances and to avoid undue favor and individual or class privilege. Gifted
children if determined is treated differently but the law refers and applies to the
general public of which these children belongs.

Hence, the parent’s contention is not tenable.

6. President Hidalgo, who wanted the Philippines to be part of the International

Criminal Court once again, signed the Philippines' ratification of the Rome Statute.
A copy of the treaty, along with the ratification, was sent to the Senate for its
concurrence. Senator Dalisay filed a proposed “Resolution” for the Senate to
concur with the Philippines’ ratification. The proposed “Resolution” was read three
times on three separate days. Three days before the third reading, printed copies of
the proposed “Resolution” in its final form were distributed to all the Senators. The
Senators then unanimously approved the “Resolution”, and the Senate expressed its
concurrence with the treaty’s ratification. A civil society group filed a petition
before the Supreme Court questioning the validity of the Senate’s concurrence on
the ground that the “Resolution” was void because only a “bill” becomes a law.

Rule on the petition. Explain briefly. (5 points)

ANSWER:
The petition has no merit.

A simple resolution deals with matters entirely within the prerogative of one house
of Congress, such as adopting or receiving its own rules. A simple resolution is not
considered by the other chamber and is not sent to the President for his signature.
Like a concurrent resolution, it has no effect and force of a law. Simple resolutions

frosty
are used occasionally to express the opinion of a single house on a current issue.
Oftentimes, it is also used to call for a congressional action on an issue affecting
national interest.

Here, the Senate expressed their concurrence validly through the approval of the
subject resolution. It merely expressed the opinion of the single house, in this case
the senate, on the concurrence of the treaty’s ratification. It does not stand to
become a law requiring the members of the senate to concur to begin with which
would otherwise be mandatory in nature.

Hence, the petition should be dismissed.

7. After Martial Law was declared over Mindanao, police officers arrested Jose
Maria without any warrant while shopping for groceries at a supermarket in
Mindanao. Jose Maria questioned the validity of the arrest as he had no pending
case and was not committing any crime at the time of his arrest. The police officers
countered that the declaration of Martial Law suspended the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus, and as a result, they could effect warrantless arrests.

Is the contention of the police officers correct? Explain briefly. (5 points)

ANSWER:
No. The contention of the police officers is incorrect.

Martial law and suspension of habeas corpus does not suspend the operation of the
Constitution. Accordingly, the Bill of Rights remains effective under a state of
martial law. Its implementers must adhere to the principle that civilian authority is
supreme over the military and the armed forces is the protector of the people. They
must also abide by the State's policy to value the dignity of every human person
and guarantee full respect for human rights.

In this case, Jose Maria should not be arrested without a warrant of arrest and the
same does not fall within Rule 113 section 5 of the Rules of Court on warrantless
arrest because he is not caught in flagrante delicto committing a crime, it is not a
situation of hot pursuit and he is not an escapee.

Hence, the arrest is illegal.

8. A law was passed exempting the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) from the
payment of filing fees in collection cases on loans granted by LBP to its borrowers.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) of the Supreme Court issued a
Memorandum requiring all courts to continue to collect filing fees in collection
cases filed by LBP, stating that only the Supreme Court can decide on exemptions
from payment of filing fees. LBP assails the OCA Memorandum, arguing that the
exemption found in the law is within the plenary power of Congress to enact
legislation. Moreover, the law was approved by the President. Thus, LBP argues
that the act of the OCA violates the principle of separation of powers.

frosty
Is LBP correct? Explain briefly. (5 points)

ANSWER:

No. LBP is incorrect.

The separation of powers among the three co-equal branches of our government
has erected an impregnable wall that keeps the power to promulgate rules of
pleading, practice and procedure within the sole province of the Supreme Court.

In this case, the OCA Memorandum does not violate the principle of separation of
powers as the Congress could not have carved out an exemption to LBP from
payment of filing fees without transgressing another equally important institutional
safeguard of the Court’s independence i.e. fiscal autonomy.

Hence, LBP is incorrect.

9. During a press conference, President Acosta explained that the Executive

Department can temporarily take over the operation of any privately owned public
utility or business affected with public interest to address the shortage of hospital
beds occasioned by the COVID-19 pandemic. She invokes Article XII, Section 17
of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which provides that: “In times of national
emergency, when the public interest so requires, the State may, during the
emergency and under reasonable terms prescribed by it, temporarily take over or
direct the operation of any privately owned public utility or business affected with
public interest.”

Is President Acosta correct? Explain briefly. (5 points)

ANSWER:
No. President Acosta is incorrect.

Under the Constitution, the president could validly declare the existence of a state
of national emergency but the exercise of emergency powers, such as taking over
of privately owned public utility or business affected with public interest requires a
delegation from Congress.

In this case, the Executive Department cannot solely temporarily take over the said
operation since there is no delegation from Congress. Whether or not the President
may exercise such power is dependent on whether the Congress may delegate it to
him pursuant to a law prescribing the reasonable terms thereof.

Hence, President Acosta is incorrect.

10. Lemuel was born in 1988 to a Filipino mother and an American father, as
shown in his birth certificate. His parents, however, were not married to each other.
Subsequently, his father petitioned for him, as a result of which Lemuel received a

frosty
certificate of American citizenship and an American passport. In 2022, Lemuel
filed a certificate of candidacy to run as Representative of the lone district of
Batanes. Ayla, a Filipino citizen and resident of Batanes, filed a petition for
disqualification with the Commission on Elections alleging that Lemuel is
ineligible to run for public office in the Philippines as Lemuel is an American
citizen.

Is Ayla correct? Explain briefly. (5 points)

ANSWER:
No. Ayla is incorrect.

A certificate of citizenship does not grant citizenship. It only recognizes and

confirms the citizenship-status already obtained by the applicant. Further, in the
case of Maquiling vs COMELEC, the use of the foreign passport is the positive
and voluntary act of representation as to one’s nationality and citizenship.

In this case, Lemuel is still a Filipino citizen. A mere grant of certificate of

American citizenship does not ipso facto alter his citizenship and obtaining a
foreign passport without its use does not alter one’s nationality and citizenship as
well.

Thus, Lemuel is still eligible to run for public office in the Philippines as he
remains a Filipino citizen.

11. The Commission on Higher Education (CHED) directed higher education

institutions to remove materials “that contain pervasive ideologies of Communist
Terrorist Groups” from their libraries. According to the CHED, the materials need
to be removed because these would radicalize students against the government.

Is the CHED directive a violation of the institutions’ academic freedom?

Explain briefly. (5 points)

ANSWER:
Yes. The CHED directive is a violation of the institutions’ academic freedom.

Article XIV of the Constitution guarantees academic freedom which includes the
right of the school or college to decide for itself, its aims, and objectives, and how
best to attain them free from outside coercion or interference save possibly when
the overriding public welfare calls for some restraint.

Here, it is merely presumptive that materials containing pervasive ideologies of

Communist Terrorist Groups will radicalize students against the government.
There is no cogent proof that it will override public welfare that would call such
restraint.

Thus, it is a violation to the institution’s academic freedom.

frosty
12. The Congress passed a law prohibiting the sale and distribution of alcoholic
drinks within 100 meters from religious and educational institutions. A city enacted
an ordinance increasing the coverage of the prohibition to 150 meters from any
religious and educational institution.

Is the city ordinance valid? Explain briefly. (5 points)

ANSWER:
Yes. The city ordinance is valid as it is regulatory in nature.

In SJS vs Atienza, for an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the
corporate powers of the LGU to enact and be passed according to the procedure
prescribed by law, it must also conform to the following substantive requirements
that it must not contravene the Constitution or any statute, must not be unfair or
oppressive, must not be partial or discriminatory, must not prohibit but may
regulate trade, must be general and consistent with public policy and must not be
unreasonable.

It cannot be said that the prohibition is unfair or oppressive to the sellers since they
are still allowed to sell beyond the 150-meter limit and the ordinance did not
prohibit trade since it is mere regulatory in nature in respect for religious and
educational institutions. All others are complied with.

Hence, the ordinance is valid.

13. Pursuant to a law ordering the fixing of “just and reasonable standards,
classifications, regulations, practices, or services to be furnished, observed and
imposed by operators of public utility vehicles,” the Land Transportation Franchise
and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) promulgated and published a regulation that “no
car beyond six years shall be operated as a taxi.” Taxi operators assailed the
validity of the regulation contending that procedural due process was violated
because position papers were not asked of them and no notice was given to them
prior to the issuance of the regulation.

Were the taxi operators denied procedural due process? Explain briefly. (5
points)

ANSWER:
No. The taxi drivers were not deprived of procedural due process. Rather, they
were denied substantive due process.

Procedural due process consists of two basic rights of notice and hearing, as well
as the guarantee of being heard by an impartial and competent tribunal while
substantive due process requires the intrinsic validity of the law interfering with
the rights of the person to life, liberty or property.

frosty
Firstly, in this case, there was publication of the law which is a sufficient notice to
the public. Secondly, position papers are not necessary since this is not a pending
case before judgment is to be rendered. Rather, substantive due process has been
violated, since the law interferes with the right of the people to life, liberty and
property – that is their livelihood.

Hence, the taxi drivers were not deprived of procedural process but of substantive
due process instead.

14. A foreign commercial ship was spotted by the Philippine Coast Guard dumping
garbage and toxic waste 20 nautical miles from Nasugbu, Batangas, the nearest
coastline of the Philippines. The officers of the ship were arrested and charged in
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Batangas for violation of environmental laws of
the Philippines. The officers of the ship filed a motion to dismiss the case on the
ground that Philippine courts do not have territorial jurisdiction over the case since
the vessel was sailing outside the territorial sea of the Philippines when the arrest
was made.

Is the ground to dismiss correct? Explain briefly. (5 points)

ANSWER:
No. The ground to dismiss is incorrect.

In contiguous zone, the coastal state may exercise the control necessary to prevent
infringement of its laws, among others, sanitary laws and regulations within its
territory or territorial sea. The contiguous zone may not extend beyond 24 nautical
miles from the baseline.

Clearly, the dumping of the garbage and toxic waste was 20 nautical miles from
the baseline therefore, although it is outside the territorial sea, it is within the
contiguous zone wherein, the coastal state may exercise control and that is to arrest
the responsible officers of the said act for violation of the coastal state’s
environmental laws.

Hence, the ground to dismiss is incorrect.

15. [This item has two questions.] Philippine Medical Center (PMC) is a
government hospital created by law to provide healthcare to the general public,
especially the less fortunate. To enable PMC to perform its mandate, the national
government provided the initial capital, land, buildings, and equipment to PMC.
PMC’s charter also authorized it, acting through its Board of Trustees: to acquire
property; to enter into contracts; to mortgage, encumber, lease, sell, convey, or
dispose of its properties; and to do other acts necessary to accomplish its purposes
and objectives.

frosty
Among the properties of PMC are five lands and buildings located in Quezon City.
The Quezon City assessor issued notices of assessment for real property taxes
(RPT) against PMC’s properties that are being leased to private concessionaires.
According to the city assessor, PMC’s properties leased to private entities are
subject to RPT because these properties are not being exclusively used for
charitable purposes. PMC, on the other hand, claims that, as a government
instrumentality imbued with corporate powers, it is exempt from RPT.

(a) Is PMC liable for the assessed RPT over the leased properties? Explain
briefly.

(b) Supposing PMC is correct that it is not liable for RPT, may the city
assessor assess the lessees for the RPT due on PMC’s leased properties?
Explain briefly.

(5 points)

ANSWER:
a. PMC is not liable for assessed RPT over the leased properties as it is a
government instrumentality exempt from real property tax.

As a general rule, government instrumentalities are exempt from real

property tax. In the case of PHC vs Quezon City, it was held that the
Republic and its instrumentalities retain their exempt status despite leasing
out their properties to private individuals. The properties only lost the
exemption from being taxed, but they did not lose their exemption from the
means to collect such taxes.

Here, PMC cannot be held liable for the assessed RPT as it remained a
government instrumentality despite leasing the said properties to private
individuals.

Hence, PMC is not liable.

b. Yes. The city assessor may assess the lessees for the RPT due on PMC’s
leased properties.

In the same case of PHC vs Quezon, it was held that the exemption does not
extend to taxable private entities to whom the beneficial use of the
government instrumentality’s properties has been vested.

This leaves the city assessor to assess private individuals with beneficial use
of PMC’s properties for real property taxes.

Thus, the city assessor may assess the lessees for RPT due on PMC’s leased
properties.

frosty