CAGAYAN STATE UNIVERSITY

MIDTERMS (Special Exam)– CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2

April 28, 2023

INSTRUCTION: Argue like a LAWYER and not as a law student. Convince me that you deserve to pass my subject
without any grain of doubt. A categorical answer without explanation deserves no merit at all. A shotgun approach
deserves the lowest merit. Lest it be misunderstood that correlative answers are prohibited. To pour more fuel into
the flame, any answer, which is illegible, deserves no patience from the handling professor. Your stylistic pen craft
does not merit a point. NEVER cite a case beyond your competence; neither should you cite the exact law
citation if you cannot. Do not bluff your professor or else, caveat emptor.

1. The City of GaburGabur enacted Ordinance No. 87000 otherwise which prohibits short time admission or
checking in for less that twelve hours in hotels, lodging houses, pension houses and similar establishment
in the city and province that violators shall be punished by imprisonment and fine. The Petitioners
questioned the ordinance before the Regional Trial Court arguing that it is unconstitutional for violating the
right to privacy and infringing their property right thus affecting their business interests as operators of
drive-in hotels and motels in the city.

The Regional Trial Court ruled in their favor and strike down the ordinance as unconstitutional for
infringing personal liberty as guaranteed by the Constitution such as the right to operate economic
enterprises. Further, the illicit relationships the ordinance sought to dissuade could be performed still by
paying the 12-hour stay. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of Regional Trial Court
stating that, (i) it did not violate the right to privacy and freedom of movement as it only penalizes owners
or operators of establishment that admit individual for short time says, and (ii) it is a valid exercise of
power.

a) Does Ordinance 87000 a valid exercise of police power under the general welfare clause? (10%)

b) What are the requisite of a valid ordinance? (5%)

c) When is a statute vague? (5%)

2. The National Bureau of Investigation and Atty. Thirdie Pagaddu filed a Plunder complainant with the
Ombudsman against Senator Mark Jinggoy Aglay. The following month, another plunder complaint against
Senator Aglay was filed, this time, by the Field Investigation Office Mr. Ric Callueng of the Ombudsman.
Senator Aglay seasonably filed his counter affidavits in the two complaints.

Section 4(b), Rule II of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman states that, “[a]fter such
affidavits [of the complainant and his witnesses] have been secured, the investigating officer shall issue an
order, attaching thereto a copy of the affidavits and other supporting documents, directing the respondent to
submit, within ten (10) days from receipt thereof, his counter-affidavits x x x.”

Senator Aglay seasonably filed his counter affidavits in the two complaints and also eighteen of Aglay’s
co-respondents in the two complaints likewise filed their counter affidavits.

Subsequently, Aglay filed his “Request to be Furnished with Copies of Counter Affidavits of the Other
Respondents, Affidavits of New Witnesses and Other Filing”. The Ombudsman denied the said request.

Without filing a Motion for Reconsideration of the Order of the Ombudsman denying his request, Aglay
then went to Supreme Court via Petition for Certiorari with prayer for the issuance of a Temporary
Restraining Order enjoining the Ombudsman and the National Bureau of Investigation from conducting
further proceedings.

During the pendency of Senator Aglay’s petition before the Supreme Court, the Ombudsman furnished him
copies (most but not all) of his co-respondent’s counter affidavits.

a) Whether or not Senator Aglay was denied due process when he was initially denied copies of his
co-respondents counter-affidavts. (10%)

b) Whether or not the requirements of due process under the Ang Tibay case are applicable to
preliminary investigation such as Aglay’s case. (10%)

3. Petitioners opposed the unilateral act of the Food and Drugs Administration (FDA) on re-certifying the
contraceptive drugs named Implanon and Implanon NXT; the basis of their opposition hinges on the fact
 that these drugs are abortifacients. Thus, according to them, they should have been given notice of the
certification proceedings, and a chance to present evidence that indeed such drugs are abortifacients.

Respondents, on the other hand, alleged that petitioners are not entitled to notice and hearing because the
said proceedings are done in the exercise of its regulatory power, not quasi-judicial power; also, they
alleged that the Honorable Supreme Court is incompetent to rule on the instant controversy due to the same
reason.

a) Whether or not the petitioners were deprived of substantial and procedural due process (10%)

b) What are the requisites of a substantive due process. (10%)

4. Four (4) police officers were conducting a patrol in Quiapo due to bomb threats that had been occurring in
the area for the last seven (7) days. They found two groups of Muslim-looking men standing on opposite
sides of the Quezon Boulevard corner who were acting suspiciously and their eyes were moving very fast.
After thirty minutes of observing the two groups, they decided to approach one of the groups. Upon seeing
the policemen, the groups fled in all directions. Fortunately, one of the men later identified as Malacat, was
apprehended. Without a warrant, the police officer searched him and found a grenade tucked inside his
front waist line. Malacat was arrested and charged with illegal possession of explosives.
.

a) Does the search and seizure by the police officer valid? (10%)
b) Discuss the plain view doctrine. (5%)
c) What is the difference of eminent domain to regulatory taking? (5%)

5. In Sept 1993, Rodrigo Abos, a former employee of UPC reported to the BIR that Uy Chin Ho aka Frank
Uy, manager of UPC, was selling thousands of cartons of canned cartons without issuing a report. This is a
violation of Sec 253 & 263 of the Internal Revenue Code. In Oct 1993, the BIR requested before RTC
Cebu to issue a search warrant. Judge Gozo-Dadole issued a warrant on the same day. A second warrant
was issued which contains the same substance but has only one page, the same was dated Oct 1st2003.
These warrants were issued for the alleged violation by Uy of Sec 253. A third warrant was issued on the
same day for the alleged violation of Uy of Sec 238 in relation to sec 263. On the strength of these
warrants, agents of the BIR, accompanied by members of the PNP, on 2 Oct 1993, searched the premises of
the UPC. They seized, among other things, the records and documents of UPC. A return of said search was
duly made Labaria with the RTC of Cebu. UPC filed a motion to quash the warrants stating that the
warrant issued is a general warrant, but was denied by the RTC. They appealed before the CA via
certiorari. The CA dismissed the appeal for a certiorari is not the proper remedy

a) Whether or not there is a valid search warrant. (10%)

b) What is the exclusionary rule or the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine? (5%)
c) What are the exemptions of a valid search warrant and warrant of arrest (5%)

Semper Peratus

“Being prepared will serve you well in life and allow you to embrace both opportunities and challenges
that come your way”