Training and Convention Division University of the Philippines College of Law SUGGESTED ANSWERS TO THE 2022 MOCK BAR EXAMINATIONS IN POLITICAL AND INTERNATIONAL LAW (Cycle 2) 1 Based on a tip from a confidential informant, the police were looking for a GrabPanda rider delivering, illegal drugs in a hidden compartment in the insulated bag at the back of a motorcycle. The police flagged down Rodrigo, a GrabPanda rider, who was traversing Rizal Street in Makati City. Without saying anything, Rodrigo stepped aside and watched as the police officers opened the insulated bag, and found a hidden compartment filled with several packets of shabu. Finding probable cause, the police immediately arrested Rodrigo who was subsequently charged with transporting illegal drugs. During trial, Rodrigo’s lawyer argued that the illegal drugs found by the police are inadmissible as evidence, since it was seized during an illegal warrantless search of Rodrigo's motorcycle. The prosecution countered that Rodrigo’s silence and acquiescence during the search was an implied consent to the search, and that the “hidden” compartment was clearly visible upon opening the insulated bag. Are the seized drugs admissible as evidence in Rodrigo’s trial? (5 points) ANSWER: The seized drugs are inadmissible. The Court has already held with unequivocal clarity that in situations involving warrantless searches and seizures, "law enforcers cannot act solely on the ‘basis of confidential or tipped information. A tip is still hearsay no matter how reliable it may be. It is not sufficient to constitute probable cause in the absence of any other circumstance that will arouse suspicion”. The police conducted an extensive search of Rodrigo’s motorcycle and insulated bag without his consent. Since the extensive warrantless search was based solely on confidential information, the search violated the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures. Consequently, the illegal drugs seized are inadmissible since they are considered “fruit of the poisonous tree”. (People vs. Jerry Sapla, G.R. No. 244045, June 16, 2020) 0 In order to generate more funds in battling an epidemic currently ravaging the country, Congress enacted a law mandating that all taxes collected by the national and local government in the manufacture, production, sale and distribution of face masks and other personal protective equipment (PPR) shall be remitted to the Department of Health (DOH), which shall then be placed in a trust fund for the exclusive use of the DOH during the epidemic. Asa tax law and constitutional law expert, you were asked by the League of Cities of the Philippines to drait a petition challenging the constitutionality of the said law. What argument/s, if any, will you raise in your petition and why? (5 points) UP LAW TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION | REVIEWEE COPY Page 1 of 13ANSWER: I will argue in my petition that the provision of the law mandating the remittance to the DOH of taxes collected by the local government is unconstitutional. Section 5, Article X of the 1987 Constitution states that “Each local government unit shall have the power to create its own sources of reventies and to levy taxes, fees, and charges subject to such guidelines and limitations as the Congress may provide, consistent with the basic policy of local autonomy. Such taxes, fees, and charges shall accrue exclusively to the local governments.” Therefore, taxes that may be imposed and collected by local governments from the manufacture, production, sale and distribution of face masks and other PPE must accrue exclusively to the local governments, and Congress may not mandate the remittance of such taxes to the national government without violating the Constitution. Thus, the said provision must be declared unconstitutional. (Film Development Council of The Philippines vs. Colon Heritage Realty Corporation, G.R. No. 203754, June 16, 2015) mL ‘An impeachment complaint was filed by a citizen against the Chairperson of the Commission on Audit (COA) for acts constituting betrayal of public trust. Five (5) days later, another impeachment complaint for the same ground was filed against the COA Chairperson, this time filed by a member of the House of Representatives. Both complaints were simultaneously referred to the Committee on Justice on the same day. The Committee thereafter began the impeachment proceedings the following day The COA Chairperson filed a petition for certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to ack or excess af jurisdiction on the part af the House of Representatives and the Committee on Justice. He alleged that the second complaint violates the one-year bar rule, having been filed and referred to the Committee a mere five (5) days after the first complaint was filed against him. a. What are the requirements for a citizen to file an impeachment complaint against an impeachable officer for culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust? (2.5 points) b. Should the petition be granted? (2.5 points) ANSWER: a. Under Section 3(2) Article XT of the 1987 Constitution, an impeachment complaint filed by any citizen must be (1) verified and (2) accompanied by a resolution of endorsement by any Member of the House of Representatives. b. The petition should be dismissed. In the case of Francisco, [r. vs. House of Representatives (460 Phil. $30), the Court ruled that “initiation [of an impeachment proceeding] takes place by the act of filing of the impeachment complaint and referral to the House Committee on Justice.” While both complaints were filed on different days, they were simultaneously referred to the Committee on Justice. The impeachment proceeding was therefore deemed initiated on that day and consequently, it is on that date that the one-year bar began to run. (Gutierrez vs. House Committee on Justice, 658 Phil. 322, G.R. No. 193459, February 15, 2011) UP LAW TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION | REVIEWEE COPY Page 2 of 13Iv The Autonomous Region of the Cordillera (ARC) was established pursuant to a law passed by Congress. The ARC consists of the provinces of Abra, Apayao, Benguet, Ifugao, Kalinga, Mountain Province, and the chartered City of Baguio. Under the ARC Organic Law passed by Congress, the Regional Assembly was granted power to enact revenue measures applicable within its teritorial jurisdiction. Pursuant to this power, the Regional Assembly passed legislation with a provision that grants tax exemptions to accredited tourist organizations and hotel groups operating in the region in order to boost tourism. A Senator challenged the constitutionality of the said law passed by the Regional Assembly, claiming that the power to grant tax exemptions is an exclusive power granted to Congress by the Constitution. The members of the ARC Regional Assembly countered that the Constitution explicitly grants autonomous regions the power to create its own sources of revenue, which was also explicitly granted to the ARC by the Organic Law. Is the Senator's argument valid? Explain. (5 points) ANSWER: The Senator's argumentiis valid. Section 28(4), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution is clear that “No law granting any tax exemption shall be passed without the concurrence of a majority of all the Members of the Congress.” When the ARC passed legislation granting tax exemptions, it exceeded the delegated power granted to it by the Constitution and by Congress which was limited only to creating its own sources of revenue. Thus, the provision granting tax exemptions to tourist organizations and hotel groups is unconstitutional v In August 2021, the militant group Suliban was able to retake control of the government and territory of Velarion, a country that has been under civil war for more than two decades, The Suliban is known for its cruel and violent anthoritarian rule, for imposing capital punishment for offenses against the government, and for oppressing the rights of women, Fearing for her life and freedom after the Suliban takeover, Daneris ~ a Velarion journalist and outspoken critic of the Suliban — fled to the Philippines and sought asylum. The Philippines accepted Daneris as a refugee owing to her well-founded fear of Suliban persecution by reason of her gender and political beliefs, Having learned of the flight of Daneris, the Suliban immediately sought her extradition through the proper diplomatic channels. In its extradition request, the Suliban attached photos, news clippings and other documentary evidence showing Daneris to be an active resistance fighter, and claimed that she was responsible for the deaths of several Suliban soldiers during the civil war. Explain the principle of non-refoulement and how it would apply (or not apply) to the case of Daneris. ( points) UP LAW TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION | REVIEWEE COPY Page 3 of 13ANSWER: Non-refoulement is a principle of international humanitarian law that guarantees that no person granted refugee status shall be expelled or returned to a country where there are valid reasons to believe that the refugee’s life or freedom would be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion (Article 33, 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees). In the case of Daneris, she was granted refugee status due to her well-founded fear of persecution by reason of her gender and political beliefs, pursuant to Article 1(A2) of the 1951 Convention. The extradition of Daneris to Velarion would put her at risk of irreparable harm upon her return, considering the reputation of the Suliban in imposing capital punishment Jor offenses against the government, and the gravity of the crimes charged against her for which she is undergoing trial in absentia, Having been granted refugee status by the Philippines, Article 33 of the 1951 Convention applies to Daneris. The Philippines may therefore refuse the extradition request pursuant to Article 33 of the Convention. VI In order to address the perennial problem of clogged court dockets, Congress enacted a law entitled ” An Act Rationalizing the Jurisdiction of Trial Courts in Civil Cases”. The following provisions of the said law were challenged before the Supreme Court for being unconstitutional: (1) Section 1 which provides that all money claims in civil cases have to be filed before the Municipal Trial Courts (MTC)/Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTO)/Municipal Trial Courts in Cities (MTCC)/Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTC), regardless of the amount of demand; and @) Section 2 which provides that decisions involving amounts less than P1 Million shall be immediately final, executory, and unappealable. Asan expert in constitutional law, discuss the constitutional validity of the said provisions. (6 points) ANSWER: Section 1 is valid. Congress has the power to define, prescribe and apportion the jurisdiction of various courts. (Section 2, Article VIII, 1987 Constitution) Section 2 is unconstitutional. While Congress has the power to define, prescribe and apportion the jurisdiction of various courts, it may not deprive the Supreme Court of its appellate jurisdiction over final judgments and orders of lower courts in all cases (1) where the jurisdiction of any lower court is, in issue, or (2) where only an error or question of law is involved. The challenged provides provides that all decisions involving money claims amounting to less than P1 Million shall be unappealable, which precludes the exercise of the Supreme Court of its appellate jurisdiction in such cases should the jurisdiction of the courts be questioned or if the aggrieved party raises an error or question of law. ection 2 in relation to Section 5, Article VIII, 1987 Constitution) UP LAW TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION | REVIEWEE COPY Page 4 of 13va A bill was filed in the Senate entitled “An Act Creating a Comprehensive Legal Aid Program, Rationalizing Standards for the Underprivileged and Unserved, and Appropriating Funds Therefor”. ‘The proposed measure contains two (2) provisions: 1L Private and public law schools across the country are required to establish a Legal Aid Program. that shall include a course on clinical legal education which law students are required to pass before they may be allowed to graduate and take the bar exams. 2, New lawyers are also required to render free legal service to a legal aid clinic for the first 3 years after signing the roll of attorneys. Such service shall be equivalent to full compliance with the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education for the current compliance period, subject to verification and monitoring by the MCLE division of the Supreme Court. ‘Should the Senate Bill become a law, whatare the possible constitutional challenges that may be made against the two provisions mentioned? (5 points) ANSWER: The requirement laid down in the bill for law students to pass a clinical legal education course before they may take the bar exams unduly interferes with the Supreme Court's exclusive power to promulgate rules concerning admission to the practice of law (Section 5(6), Article VII, 1987 Constitution). The jurisdiction to determine whether an applicant may be allowed to take the bar examinations belongs to the Supreme Court. This requirement proposed to be imposed by law is a direct encroachment upon the Court's exclusive authority to promulgate rules concerning admission to the bar and should, therefore, be struck down as unconstitutional (Pimentel vs. Legal Education Board, GR. No. 230642, September 10, 2019). In similar vein, the proposed requirement for new lawyers to render free legal service to a legal aid clinic for the first three years and providing for its equivalence to full compliance with MCLE is also a direct encroachment on the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over the practice of law and the Integrated Bar (Section 5(5), Article VIII, 1987 Constitution). This requirement is constitutionally infirm since the ‘Supreme Court has the exclusive authority to promulgate rules concerning the Integrated Bar and the practice of law. (Pimentel vs. Legal Education Board, G.R. No. 230642, September 10, 2019). vit Romy, a security guard in a high-tise condominium, was invited by the police to Police Station 9. Upon arriving at the station, Romy was asked to stand side-by-sicle with four (4) othersecurity guards ina police line-up. They were informed that the police were looking fora certain security guard who was seen on CCTV footage selling drugs in the parking lot of the condominium building where they ‘work. They were also asked to submit urine samples for drug testing. No questions were asked from the security guards. Romy demanded that his lawyer be present during the line-up. He also objected to giving his urine sample, After several hours, a police officer was able to convince Romy to join the line-up and to give his urine sample, saying that if he was innocent, he does not need a lawyer present. UP LAW TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION | REVIEWEE COPY Page 5 of 13Is Romy entitled to a lawyer during the police lineup? Explain. (6 points) ANSWER: Romy is not entitled to demand a lawyer since police line-up is not part of custodial investigation. This is because during a police line-up, the process has not yet shifted from the investigatory to the accusatory and it is usually the witness or the complainant who is interrogated and who gives a statement in the course of the line-up, The right to counsel is deemed to have arisen at the precise moment custodial investigation begins and being made to stand in a police line-up is not the starting point or a part of custodial investigation (People vs. Lara, G.R. No. 199877, August 13, 2012). In this case, the security guards, including Romy, were merely asked to stand side-by-side, and no questions were asked. Thus, the line-up cannot be considered part of custodial investigation, and the Tight to be assisted by counsel during custodial investigation cannot yet be invoked at that stage. x Discuss the similarities and differences between “international human rights law” and “intemational humanitarian law”, (5 points) ANSWER: International human rights law (IHRL) and international humanitarian law (HL) are two distinct but complementary bodies of law. They are both concerned with the protection of the life, health and dignity of individuals. Both IHRL and IHL lay down obligations which states are bound to respect. States have a legal duty to respect and implement both THRL and IHL. The main difference between IHRL and JHL isin its application. IHRL applies at all times, Le. in times of peace and in times of war, while IHL applies in armed conflicts. The main global legal instrument for IHRL is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948. Other global treaties include the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) as well as treaties on the prevention and punishment of torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (such as UNCAT), on the elimination of racial discrimination and discrimination against women (such as CEDAW), and on the rights of the child (such as the UNCRO). On the other hand, IHL is based on the Geneva and Hague Conventions, its Additional Protocols, and a series of treaties governing means and methods of waging war such as those banning blinding, laser weapons, landmines and chemical and biological weapons, as well as customary law. In situations of armed conflict, international human rights law complements and reinforces the protection afforded by International Humanitarian Law, UP LAW TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION | REVIEWEE COPY Page 6 of 13x Differentiate the “power of judicial review” from “judicial legislation”. (6 points) ANSWER: The power of judicial review is defined in the second paragraph of Sec. 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, which states: “Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government.” When the judiciary mediates to allocate constitutional boundaries, it does not assert any superiority over the other departments; it does not in reality nullify or invalidate an act of the legislature, but only asserts the solemn and sacred obligation assigned to it by the Constitution to determine conflicting claims of authority under the Constitution and to establish for the parties in an actual controversy the rights which that instrument secures and guarantees to them, On the other hand, judicial legislation refers to an act of a court that steps in to craft missing parts or to fill in the gaps in laws, or when it oversteps its discretional boundaries and goes beyond interpreting or applying the law to create doctrines or principles which are not previously established. Judicial legislation violates the constitutional principle of separation of powers, since legislative power is vested in the Congress of the Philippines (Section 1, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution). XI Republic Act No. 10575, otherwise known as “The Bureau of Corrections Act of 2013”, contains the following provision: “Section 6. Lands of the Bureau of Corrections. - As a way to maximize its assets’ value for the effective and extensive reformation (corrections) programs for national inmates, the BuCor shall have the absolute authority to design, formulate and implement land-use development plans and policies.” The BuCor promulgated its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) to effectively implement the provisions of RA 10575. Section 6 of the IRR reads: “Section 6. Tax Exemption. As a way to maximize its assets’ value for the effective and extensive reformation programs for national inmates, all revenues derived from the use of the BuCor lands shall not be taxed by the government.” Asa tax and constitutional law expert, you were tasked to challenge the constitutionality of Section 6 of the IRR, What arguments will you raise in your petition and why? (5 points) ANSWER: Section 6 of the IRR is unconstitutional for encroaching on the exclusive power of Congress to enact revenue laws. The State's inherent power to tax is vested exclusively in the Legislature, and the Supreme Court has held that the power to tax includes the power to grant tax exemptions. Thus, the imposition of taxes, as well as the grant and withdrawal of tax exemptions, shall only be valid pursuant to a legislative enactment. Section 6 of RA No. 10575 simply recognizes the BuCor’s absolute authority to design, formulate and implement land-use development plans and UP LAW TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION | REVIEWEE COPY Page 7 of 13policies. Nowhere in the said provision does it grant tax exemption over revenues derived from the use of BuCor lands, Section 6 of the IRR effectively amends the law it implements, granting a tax exemption where the law gives none, Section 6 of the IRR is, therefore, unconstitutional. (Purisima vs, Lazatin, GR, No. 210588, November 29, 2016). Xi A new law creating the Nuclear Energy Commission was passed by Congress. The Commission is tasked to look for an ideal site for a nuclear power plant that would help alleviate the woes of the country’s power supply, and to enter into contracts for the construction and operation of the nuclear power plant. The law also created a Joint Congressional Oversight Committee (COC) with the following powers: (@) Require the Commission to submit quarterly reports on the progress of the site location and construction of the nuclear power plant; and (b) Review and approve the contracts the Commission may enter into in relation to the construction of the nuclear power plant. Rule on the constitutionality of the two (2) powers given by Congress to the JCOC. (5 points) ANSWER: The power of the JCOC to require the submission of quarterly reports is a valid exercise of the oversight power of Congress in ensuring that the objectives of the law are being mat It is integral to the checks and balances inherent in a democratic system of government However, the power to review and approve contracts that the Commission may enter into is an undue encroachment upon the executive prerogatives and undermines the separation of powers guaranteed by the Constitution. By being actively involved in the review and approval of contracts entered into by the Commission, the JCOC is exercising executive functions which violates the principle of separation of powers. xu Pursuant to Section 6, Article X the 1987 Constitution, which reads: “Section 6, Local government units shall have a just share, as determined by law, in the national taxes which shall be automatically released to them.” The Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional the provisions in the Local Government Code that limited local government units’ shares to those coming from “national internal revenue taxes”, thereby broadening the tax base from which local government units can compute their “just share” in the national taxes. Following the finality of the Supreme Court decision, the League of Provinces of the Philippines filed a petition for mandamus before the Supreme Court praying that the national government be UP LAW TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION | REVIEWEE COPY Page 8 of 13compelled to pay to the respective provinces the arrears in the latter's just share in the national taxes that were previously excluded, Should the petition be granted? Why or why not? ( points) ANSWER: The petition should be dismissed. Under the doctrine of operative fact, prior to a legislative or executive act being nullified, its existence as a fact must be reckoned with. The doctrine recognizes the existence of the law or executive act prior to the determination of its unconstitutionality as an operative fact that produced consequences that cannot always be erased, ignored or disregarded. In short, it nullifies the void law or executive act but sustains its effects. It provides an exception to the general rule that a void or unconstitutional law produces no effect. But its use must be subjected to great scrutiny and circumspection, and it cannot be invoked to validate an unconstitutional law or executive act, but is resorted to only as a matter of equity and fair play. It applies only to cases where extraordinary circumstances exist, and only when the extraordinary circumstances have met the stringent conditions that will permit its application. (Mandanas vs. Ochoa, G.R. No. 199802, July 03, 2018, citing Araullo v. Aquino III, G.R. No. 209287, July 1, 2014) XIV Rita, a member of the local rebel group Makabayang Kilusan (MAKD, was being tried before the RTC for murdering a local police officer during an alleged ambush by the MAKL While the tial was undergoing, the President issued Proclamation No. 1071 granting amnesty to qualified members of the MAKI, subject to the approval of the Amnesty Commision. Rita filed her amnesty application and moved for the suspension of her trial pending the resolution of her application for amnesty for the same offense. The court granted her motion. The Amnesty Commission denied Rita's application for amnesty. Thus, trial in her murder case resumed and the RTC convicted Rita for the crime of murder, citing Rita's application for amnesty which was construed as an implied admission of guilt. On appeal, Rita argued that when an application for amnesty is denied, any express or implied admission of guilt is nullified. 1s Rita’s argument correct? Explain. (5 points) ANSWER: Rita's argument is incorrect. The act of filing an application for amnesty constitutes an implied admission of guilt. The Supreme Court has ruled that amnesty presupposes the conunission of a crime, and when an accused maintains that she has not committed a crime, she cannot have any use for amnesty. The invocation of amnesty is in the nature of a plea of confession which means that the pleader admits the allegations against her. (People vs. Paculba, G.R. Nos. L-37366-67, August 31, 1983) xv Ricardo was a first-year college student in Makahiya State College in Northern Samar when, after only a few months as a freshman, he informed his parents that he joined the group PilipinoYouth, a progressive group that advocates the ideals of “social media democracy” or “socmed democracy”. UP LAW TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION | REVIEWEE COPY Page 9 of 13The group has been known to recruit first-year students and entice them to leave their homes to engage full-time in the group's advocacy across the country. In December of that year, Ricardo did not return home and has been missing for more than three (3) months. In April of the following year, Ricardo’s parents were surprised when they received a video call from Ricardo. Ricardo assured his parents that he is safe, and that he voluntarily joined his comrades to help propagate the principles of socmed democracy. He also informed his parents that he will not be returning home anytime soon. Following this revelation, Ricardo’s parents filed a petition for a writ of amparo against the officers, and members of PilipinoYouth. In their petition, they stated that although Ricardos already 18 years old, he was “radicalized” early when he was still a minor upon entering college, and this indoctrination at such a young age hindered his ability to give his consent, and therefore could not be considered as having voluntarily joined the PilipinoYouth Group. Will the petition for writ of amparo prosper? Explain. (5 points) ANSWER: The petition will not prosper. The remedy of amparo, in its present formulation, is confined merely to instances of *extralegal killings’ or "enforced disappearances" and to threats thereof. “"Extralegal killings" are killings committed without due process of law, i.e,, without legal safeguards or judicial proceedings. On the other hand, enforced disappearances are attended by the following characteristics: an arrest, detention or abduction of a person by a government official or organized groups or private individuals acting with the direct or indirect acquiescence of the government; the refusal of the State to disclose the fate or whereabouts of the person concerned or a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty which places such persons outside the protection of law. In this case, Ricardo’s situation does not qualify either as an actual or threatened enforced disappearance or extralegal Killing, He is not missing. His whereabouts are determinable. By all accounts, he is staying with the PilipinoYouth and its officers who, at least insofar as Ricardo’s case is concemed, are not agents or organizations acting on behalf of the State, Indeed, against these facts, petitioners! invocation of the remedy of cannot pass. (In The Matter of The Petition for Writ of Amparo and Writ of Habeas Corpus in Favor of Alicia Jasper S. Lucena, G.R. No, 252120, September 15,2020) XVI Romeo was among several charged for violating the Anti-Hazing Law for the death of a neophyte of Alpha Bravo Charlie (ABC) Fraternity. As a member of ABC Fraternity, Romeo was charged as a Principal under Section 14 the Anti-Hazing Law, which reads: Section 14. The presence of a member of a fraternity, sorority, or organization, during the hazing is prima facie evidence of participation therein as a principal unless such person or persons prevented. the commission of the acts punishable herein or promptly reported the same to the law enforcement authorities if they can do so without peril, to their person or their family. UP LAW TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION | REVIEWEE COPY Page 10 of 13Romeo challenged the constitutionality of Section 14, claiming that the provision is essentially a bill of attainder. He argues that Section 14 punishes members of a particular group as principals or co- conspirators even if they have no actual knowledge or participation in the act. Is Romeo's contention correct? Explain. (6 points) ANSWER: Romeo's contention is incorrect. The provision is not a bill of attainder as it does not automatically declare a fratemity, sorority or organization member guilty without undergoing trial. For a law to be considered a bill of attainder, it must be shown to contain all of the following: "a specification of certain individuals or a group of individuals, the imposition of a punishment, penal or otherwise, and the lack of judicial trial." Here, the mere filing of an Information against Romeo is not a finding of his guilt of the crime changed. The prosecution must stil prove the offense, and the accused's participation in it, beyond reasonable doubt. Romeo, in turn, may present defenses to the allegations. (Fuertes vs. Senate, G.R. No. 208162, January 07, 2020) XVI In order to prepare the country for the impending effects of climate change, the President authorized the Secretary of the DOST to negotiate and sign a loan agreement with the Government of Caldera for the establishment of a high-tech Disaster Monitoring and Early Warning System. The Senate approved a resolution asking that the loan agreement be submitted to it for ratification pursuant to Section 21, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution which reads: SECTION 21. No treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate a. Is Senate concurrence required for the validity and effectivity of the subject loan agreement? Explain. (2.5 points) b. If the President, instead of a loan agreement, entered into an executive agreement with the Government of Caldera for the same purpose, will Senate concurrence be required to make the executive agreement valid and effective? Explain. (2.5 points) ANSWER: a. Senate concurrence is not required. The loan agreement is in the nature of an executive agreement, and pursuant to Section 20, Article VII of the Constitution, only the prior concurrence of the Monetary Board is required for the President to contract foreign loans on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines. b. Senate concurrence is still not required. An executive agreement: "(a) does not require legislative concurrence; (b) is usually less formal; and (c) deals with a narrower range of subject matters." Executive agreements dispense with Senate concurrence "because of the legal mandate with which they are concluded." They simply implement existing policies, and are thus entered into: (1) to adjust, the details of a treaty; (2) pursuant to or upon confirmation by an act of the Legislature; or (8) in the exercise of the President's independent powers under the Constitution. (Pangilinan vs. Cayetano, GR. No. 238875, March 16, 2021. See also Saguisag vs. Ochoa, GR. No. 212426, January 12, 2016) UP LAW TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION | REVIEWEE COPY Page 11 of 13XVII After the conduct of the 2022 National and Local Elections (NLE), the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) sought from the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) the release of the remainder of its bud get under the General Appropriations Act. The DBM stated that pursuant to an Executive Order issued by the President, all government agencies must first submit a report on their previous expenditures before the rest of the appropriations may be released, and that the COMELEC has not yet submitted such report on the conduct of the 2022 NLE. The COMELEC countered that the Executive Order should not apply to the COMELEC as it would contravene the guaranty of fiscal autonomy granted by the Constitution. Is the COMELEC entitled to the release of the funds despite failing to comply with the Executive Order? Explain. (5 points) ANSWER: The COMELEC is entitled to receive the rest of its budget, which cannot be conditioned on the submission of a report or the compliance of an Executive Order. The requirement and the Executive Order should not be made to apply to the COMELEC in view of its fiscal autonomy guaranteed to it by Section 5, Article IX-A of the Constitution. The term “automatic release” should be construed to mean that no condition to fund releases to it may be imposed. XIX Having bad blood between them reaching as far back as their law school days, Judge Damon and Judge Criston figured in a physical altercation while in the premises of the Hall of Justice in Quezon City. Due to the injuries he suffered, Judge Criston filed a complaint against Judge Damon with the Office of the Ombudsman for physical injuries, malicious mischief, and assault upon a person in authority. Judge Criston also filed an administrative case before the Supreme Court praying for the dismissal of Judge Damon from the judiciary on the ground of grave misconduct or conduct unbecoming a judicial officer. Judge Damon filed a motion with the Oifice of the Ombudsman praying that the Ombudsman hold in abeyance its investigation in the criminal case filed against him and to refer the same to the Supreme Court. The Ombudsman denied the motion, claiming that the charges against Judge Damon constitute simple criminal charges falling within the parameters of its constitutional power and duty to investigate and prosecute any act or omission of any public officer or employee which appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient. Is the Ombudsman correct in denying the motion? Explain. (5 points) ANSWER: The Ombudsman is incorrect. Under Section 6, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is the Supreme Court which is vested with exclusive administrative supervision over all courts and its personnel. Prescinding from this premise, the Ombudsman cannot determine for itself and by itself whether a criminal complaint against a judge, or court employee, involves an administrative matter. UP LAW TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION | REVIEWEE COPY Page 12 of 13‘The Ombudsman is duty bound to have all cases against judges and court personnel filed before it, referred to the Supreme Court for determination as to whether an administrative aspect is involved therein. The Ombudsman cannot dictate to, and bind the Court, to its findings that a case before it does or does not have administrative implications. To do so is to deprive the Court of the exercise of its administrative prerogatives and to arrogate unto itself a power not constitutionally sanctioned. This is a dangerous policy which impinges, as it does, on judicial independence. It is only the Supreme Court that can oversee the judges' and court personnel’s compliance with all laws, and take the proper administrative action against them if they commit any violation thereof. No other branch of government may intrude into this power, without running afoul of the doctrine of separation of powers. (Caoibes vs. Alumbres, G.R. No, 132177, July 19, 2001). Xx Venting her frustrations against the current administration on social media, Roxanne posted a video on the social media platform FaceTok where she declared that “All corrupt government officials must be lined up and shot, and I myself will pull the first trigger! Sinmulan natin sa Malacanang!” After receiving several complaints, FaceTok took down the video and banned Roxanne from the platform, citing violations of community guidelines. Roxanne filed a petition for injunction, praying that FaceTok remove the ban on her account. In her petition, Roxanne claims that her constitutional right to freedom of expression was infringed. Can Roxanne validly claim that her constitutional right was infringed? (5 points) ANSWER: Roxanne cannot claim that her constitutional right was infringed. FaceTok is a private company and banned Roxanne because she did not comply with the platform's community guidelines. The guarantee of freedom of speech is a limitation on State action and not on the action of private parties (Lloyd Corporation v. Tanner, 407 US. 551 [1972]). -NOTHING FOLLOWS- UP LAW TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION | REVIEWEE COPY Page 13 of 13