1.

The Philippines has become a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and resultantly
agreed that it "shall ensure the conformity of its laws, regulations and administrative procedures
with its obligations as provided in the annexed Agreements." This was assailed as
unconstitutional because this undertaking unduly limits, restricts and impairs Philippine
sovereignty and means among others that Congress could not pass legislation that will be good
for our national interest and general welfare if such legislation will not conform with the WTO
Agreements. Refute this argument.

2. Republic Act No. 111 was passed by Congress for the purpose of raising revenues from
softdrinks and other beverages. The law however caused the unemployment of thousands of
workers. One of them questioned the validity of the law. He wrote a letter to the President and
also filed a case in court seeking he invalidation of the law. The President saw the plight of many
severed employees and now asked the Bureau of Internal Revenue not to implement the law
anymore. The court on the other hand refused to rule on the matter since the court cannot
repeal a law because it will violate the principle of separation of power. Comment on the actions
of the President and the court.

3. Congress enacted a law that granted the President emergency powers to address the worsening
lack of potable water after severe drought. Senator Yellowtard vehemently opposed said law
contending that the president cannot be trusted. The senator immediately filed a petition
before the Supreme Court to question the validity of the said law. The Solicitor General moved
to dismiss the petition contending that the court should not assume jurisdiction over the case
because such assumption of jurisdiction would violate the Doctrine of Separation of Powers. Do
you agree with the Solictor General?

-do you agree with the solgen. No, this is not separation of powers but checks and balance.

4. The Philippine Coast Guard (PCG) spotted an unidentified vessel in the contiguous sea of the
Philippines. The vessel was apprehended by the PCG on the ground of intrusion and violation of
Philippine Laws because of its failure carry sufficient registration and failure to carry flag of
origin. The captain of the vessel argued that it is not subject to the jurisdiction of the Philippines.
Which one is correct in this case, PCG or the captain of the vessel? Explain.

-you should agree with the captain, there’s no jurisdiction on the vessel.

5. A Chinese vessel anchored in the territorial waters of the Philippines. The Philippine Coast Guard
(PCG) seized the vessel and arrested the crew. The lawyer hired by the arrested Chinese
narrated that the vessel was hit by lightning in the high seas and needed immediate repairs.
That is the reason why the vessel anchored in the territorial seas of the Philippines. The lawyer
thus argued that the vessel was exercising its right of innocent passage. PCG however countered
that there is no law nor regulation that recognizes the said right in the laws of the Philippines.
Hence, being a republic state, we are a government of laws and not of men. Which one is
correct in this case, PCG or the lawyer of the Chinese? Explain.
 -this right of innocent passage is an example of law of the land.
To topics were involved.

6. Congress enacted a law for the purpose of leading the country out of crisis brought about the
pandemic. The law consists of stimulus packages for the business sector and relief grant to all
who lost their job. Due to the anomaly in the procurement of covid-19 related items however,
Congress wanted to oversee the implementation of the law. Congress inserted in the law a
provision that would mandate the Department of Budget and Management and the Department
of Health to periodically report to Congress the details of how the money was disbursed. Bantay
Kurap, a cause-oriented group, filed a case in court to declare the portion of the law that
mandates the periodic report unconstitutional because it is a post-enactment measure that was
held unconstitutional in the Belgica case. Should the court invalidate the said portion? Explain.

-it is not a post enactment measure. Congress wanted to merely for the DBM to make a report,
and this is allowed under the rules.

7. KK Inc., a domestic corporation is a supplier of furniture and fixtures. A government agency

entered into a contract with KK Inc. for the supply of 1 Million pesos worth of office furniture.
There was a dispute regarding the specifications of the furniture delivered that caused the delay
in the payment. As a result, KK Inc. filed a case against the agency. The agency moved for the
dismissal of the case on the ground of lack of consent to be sued. Should the court dismiss the
case on the ground of lack of consent to be sued? Explain your answer.

-ang main rule, if the agency is incorporated, may consent nayan, if unincorporated, assumed na
may immunity yan. Wag mag jump sa conclusion, used the gen rule!!

8. A certain government agency, X Agency, entered into a commercial transaction with Mr. Roman. The
relation between X Agency and Mr. Roman turned sour because of non-payment of the government
agency. Good thing for Mr. Roman, the agency gave its consent to be sued. Another positive thing that
happened for Mr. Roman was that the judge gave a verdict in his favor holding that X Agency is liable to
pay him. Can Mr. Roman immediately seek enforcement of such court ruling in his favor? Explain.

- Consent to sued was given,iimplement yon, pede baa gad agad? No, waiver is necessary! Yung
kinukuwa natin sa commission in audit.

9. A certain government agency engaged a private corporation to supply needed materials for its
project. The agency however failed to pay on time as stated in the contract. Can the private corporation
file a case against the agency without securing first consent. Should the court immediately dismiss the
case for violation of the doctrine of immunity from suit? Explain fully.
- There’s no mention about the agency, not mention. As well as the contract that was entered
into. The question should the court immediately dismissed the case. Dapat pag aralan ng court
muna! And determine wehtehr the contract is in exercise of jure imperii or jure gestionis.

10. During the training of armies of the Philippines and the United States in accordance with the
Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA), arrangements were made to mimic the terrain of Ukraine in
preparation for a war with Russia and its allies. In the process, it resulted to some damage to the
environment. A cause-oriented group filed a petition for Writ of Kalikasan to seek redress. Both the
United States and Philippine authorities invoked the doctrine of State immunity from suit. The
petitioners however argued that there was a waiver of State Immunity under the VFA. Do you agree
with this contention of the petitioner? Explain your answer.