Set 2

1. Q: May a complaint for disbarment against the Ombudsman prosper during her
incumbency? Explain your answer. (2017, 2019 BAR)

A: NO. This is because the ultimate effect is to remove him from office,
circumventing the provision on removal by impeachment thus violating his security
of tenure (In Re: First Indorsement from Hon. Raul Gonzalez, A.M. No. 88-4-5433,
April 15, 1988). An impeachable officer who is a member of the Philippine bar cannot
be disbarred first without being impeached (Jarque v. Desierto, A.C. No. 4509,
December 5, 1995).

2. Q: Define/explain: Doctrine of operative facts (2009 BAR)

A:The doctrine of operative facts means that before a law was declared
unconstitutional, its actual existence must be taken into account and whatever was
done while the law was in operation should be recognized as valid. (Rieta v. People,
436 SCRA 273, 2004)

3. Q: Pedro bought a parcel of land from Smart Corporation, a realty firm engaged in
developing and selling lots to the public. One of the restrictions in the deed of sale
which was annotated in the title is that the lot shall be used by the buyer exclusively
for residential purposes. A main highway having been constructed across the
subdivision, the area became commercial in nature. The municipality later passed a
zoning ordinance declaring the area as a commercial bank building on his lot. Smart
Corporation went to court to stop the construction as violative of the building
restrictions imposed by it. The corporation contends that the zoning ordinance
cannot nullify the contractual obligation assumed by the buyer. Decide the case.
(1989, 2001 BAR)

A: The case must be dismissed. As held in Ortigas and Company, Limited

Partnership v. FEATI Bank and Trust Company, 94 SCRA 533, such a restriction in
the contract cannot prevail over the zoning ordinance, because the enactment of the
ordinance is a valid exercise of police power. It is hazardous to health and comfort to
use the lot for residential purposes, since a highway crosses the subdivision and the
area has become commercial.

4. Q: Undaunted by his three failures in the National Medical Admission Test

(NMAT), Cruz applied to take it again but he was refused because of an order of the
Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) disallowing flunkers from
taking the test a fourth time. Cruz filed suit assailing this rule raising the
constitutional grounds of accessible quality education, academic freedom and equal
protection. The government opposes this, upholding the constitutionality of the rule
on the ground of exercise of police power. Decide the case discussing the grounds
raised. (1994, 2000 BAR)

A: As held in Department of Education, Culture and Sports v. San Diego, 180

SCRA 533, the rule is a valid exercise of police power to ensure that those admitted to
the medical profession are qualified. The arguments of Cruz are not meritorious. The
right to quality education and academic freedom are not absolute. Under Section 5(3),
Article XIV of the Constitution, the right to choose a profession is subject to fair,
reasonable and equitable admission and academic requirements. The rule does not
violate equal protection. There is a substantial distinction between medical students
and other students. Unlike other professions, the medical profession directly affects
the lives of the people.

5. Q: Pornographic materials in the form of tabloids, magazines and other printed

materials, proliferate and are being sold openly in the streets of Masaya City. The
city Mayor organized a task force which confiscate these materials. He then ordered
that the materials be burned in public. Dominador, publisher of the magazine
“Plaything”, filed a suit raising the following constitutional issues: (a) the
confiscation of the materials constituted an illegal search and seizure, because the
same was done without a valid search warrant; and (b) the confiscation as well as the
proposed destruction of the materials, is a denial of the right to disseminate
information, and thus, violates the constitutional right to freedom of expression. Is
either or both contentions proper?

Explain your answer (2016 BAR)

A: The confiscation of the materials constituted an illegal search and seizure

because it was done without a valid search warrant. It cannot be justified as a valid
warrantless search and seizure, because such search and seizure must have been an
incident of a lawful arrest. There was no lawful arrest. (Pita v. Court of Appeals, 178
SCRA 362 [1989]) The argument of Dominador that pornographic materails are
protected by the constitutional right to freedom of expression is erroneous.
Obscenity is not protected expression. (Fernando v. Court of Appeals, 510 SCRA
351[2006]) Section 2 of Presidential Decree No. 969 requires the forfeiture and
destruction of pornographic materials. (Nograles v. People, 660 SCRA 475 [2011])

6. Q: The STAR, a national daily newspaper, carried an exclusive report stating that
Senator XX received a house and lot located at YY Street, Makati, in consideration for
his vote cutting cigarette taxes by 50%. The Senator sued the STAR, its reporter,
editor and publisher for libel, claiming the report was completely false and
malicious. According to the Senator, there is no YY Street in Makati, and the tax cut
was only 20%. He claimed one million pesos in damages. The defendants denied
"actual malice," claiming privileged communication and absolute freedom of the
press to report on public officials and matters of public concern. If there was any
error, the STAR said it would publish the correction promptly. Is there "actual
malice" in STAR'S reportage? How is "actual malice" defined? Are the defendants
liable for damages? (2004 BAR)

A: Since Senator XX is a public person and the questioned imputation is

directed against him in his public capacity, in this case actual malice means the
statement was made with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of
whether it was false or not (Borjal v. CA, 301 SCRA 1). Since there is no proof that the
report was published with knowledge that it is false or with reckless disregard of
whether it was false or not, the defendants are not liable for damage.

7. Q: In a protest rally' along Padre Faura Street, Manila, Pedrong Pula took up the
stage and began shouting "kayong mga kurakot kayo! Magsi-resign na kayo! Kung
hindi, manggugulo kami dito!" ("you corrupt officials, you better resign now, or else
we will cause trouble here!") simultaneously, he brought out a rock the size of a· fist
and pretended to hurl it at the flagpole area of a government building. He did not
actually throw the rock.

a. Police officers who were monitoring the situation immediately approached

Pedrong Pula and arrested him. He was prosecuted for seditious speech and was
convicted. On appeal, Pedrong Pula argued he was merely exercising his freedom of
speech and freedom of expression guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Decide with
reasons.
b. What are the two (2) basic prohibitions of the freedom of speech and of the press
clause? Explain. (2012 BAR)

A: a. Pedrong Pula should be acquitted. His freedom of speech should not be

limited in the absence of a clear and present danger of a substantive evil that the state
had the right to prevent. He pretended to hurl a rock but did not actually throw it. He
did not commit any act of lawless violence (David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, 489 SCRA
160)

b. The two basic prohibitions on freedom of speech and freedom of the press
are prior restraint and subsequent punishment (Chavez v. Gonzales, 545 SCRA 441)

8. Q: 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
hours pro bono reproductive health services as a condition to Philhealth
accreditation, and for couples desiring to marry to attend a family planning seminar
prior to the issuance of a marriage license. It also punishes certain acts of refusals 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 ground:
It violates the Freedom of Religion, since petitioners' religious beliefs prevent them
from using contraceptives, and that any States ponsored procurement of
contraceptives, funded by taxes, violates the guarantee of religious freedom.

Rule on the above objection. (2018 BAR)

A: 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)

9. Q: The Government, through Secretary Toogoody of the Department of

Transportation (DOTr), filed a complaint for eminent domain to acquire a 1, 000-
hectare property in Bulacan, owned by Baldomero. The court granted the
expropriation, fixed the amount of just compensation, and installed the Government
in full possession of the property.

a. If the government does not immediately pay the amount fixed by the court as just
compensation, can Baldomero successfully demand the return of the property to him?
Explain your answer?

b. If the government paid full compensation but after two years it abandoned its plan
to build an airport on the property, can Baldomero compel the government to resell
the property back to him? Explain your answer. (2016 BAR)

A: a. If the government does not pay Baldomero the just compensation

immediately, he cannot demand the return of the property to him. Instead, legal
interest should be paid from the time of taking of the property until actual payment
in full. (Republic v. Court of Appeals, 383 SCRA 611 [2002])

b. With respect to the element of public use, the expropriator should commit to
use the property for the purpose stated in the petition. If not, it is incumbent upon it
to return the property to the owner, if the owner desires ot reacquire it. Otherwise,
the judgment of expropriation will lack the element of public use. The owner will be
denied due process and the judgment will violate his right to justice. (Mactan-Cebu
Airport Authority v. Lozada, Sr., 613 SCRA 618 [2010]) If the just compensation was
not paid within 5 years from finality of judgment, the owner is entitled to recover the
property. (Republic v. Lim, 462 SCRA 265 [2005]

10. Q: 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 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, and 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 Data 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 that 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 term had ended.

Was the CA correct in saying that the writ of amparo rendered unnecessary the
issuance of the temporary protection order? (2018 BAR)

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, 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)