INSTRUCTIONS:

There are 10 questions in this mini-exam. A mere YES or NO answer to a question without
explanation will not warrant full points. Be brief and concise but direct to what is required or asked
of each problem. Your answers should demonstrate your ability to analyze facts and use
applicable laws.
Good luck!
1. A was imprisoned for the crime of treason during May 15, 1986. At that time, there was no
Consitution of the Republic of the Philippines. During his imprisonment, A was subjected to
inhumane, cruel, and degrading treatment. He went to the Court for redress against the
government officers who maltreated him arguing that he has the right to be treated with dignity
and humanely during his incarceration. The government officers countered that A’s action in court
has no legal basis as during the interregnum, in the absence of a constitution, the fundamental
human rights enshrined under the Bill of Rights is ineffective. Is the contention of the government
officers correct? Explain.
2. The Mayor of the City of Marasigan wanted to rid the city of prostitutes. He ordered the
Sangguniang Panlungsod to enact an Ordinance which orders the deportation of such prostitutes
to Mindanao, as an exercise of the police power of the LGU. The Sanggunian enacted such
ordinance and upon its effectivity, the Mayor ordered the deportation of the prostitutes to
Mindanao.
a. What are the tests to determine the validity of the exercise of police power?
b. Is the Ordinance ordering the deportation of prostitutes constitutional?
3. Compare and contrast the fundamental powers of the State.
4. Petitioners in a case contends that in expropriation proceedings, the just compensation must
be made in cash. In their case, the Government of the Philippines paid petitioners landbank
checks and bonds. According to the petitioners, this is an invalid form of payment as the law
requires that just compensation be paid full, in cash. The Government countered that large of
tracts of lands are being expropriated and should just compensation be paid merely in cash, it will
entail an equally large amount of money. Is the payment of just compensation using Landbank
checks and bonds, as in this case, valid? Reason.
5. An administrative case was filed against Juan before the Civil Service Commission. The latter
then required Juan and the plaintiff to file their respective position papers. After the submission
of their position papers, the Civil Service Commission rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
Juan questions the judgment arguing that it was arrived without due process of law. According
to him, the decision of the CSC on the basis merely of position papers is insufficient as he was
not even required to submit his evidence.
a. What is due process?
b. Was Juan deprived of his right to due process?
6. The CIDG, by virtue of a search warrant for violation of RA 10591, search the house of
Ambassador Juan Dela Cruz of the Sate of Dimaculangan. When they implemented the search,
the CIDG was able to confiscate all the firearms and ammunitions as listed in the subject search
warrant.
Rule on the admissibility of the firearms and ammunitions as evidence against
Ambassador Juan Dela Cruz.
7. What is a Constitution? Enumerate the parts of a written constitution.
8. In preliminary investigation, the Prosecutor determines whether there is probable cause that
the accused committed the crime charged against him. Once the Prosecutor determines that
there is indeed a probable cause sufficient for the issuance of a warrant of arrest, the Prosecutor
transmits his Resolution to the court of competent jurisdiction. Does the Resolution of the
Prosecutor bind the Judge such that his issuance of a warrant of arrest becomes merely a
ministerial duty? Explain.
9. Differentiate search warrant and warrant of arrest.
10. A wanted to send a package to Europe through BCD private courier. When A went to the
courier, B assisted A and per protocol, opened the package for inspection. When B opened such
package, he was surprised to find out that the same contained heroin. Thus, B confiscated the
package and held A captive until the law enforcement officers came. Consequently, a case for
possession of illegal drugs in violation of RA 9165 was filed against A. During trial, A contests
the admissibility of the confiscated heroin against him. He said his constitutional right against
unreasonable search and seizure was violated as no search warrant was issued at the time B
searched and confiscated the heroin. Thus, said illegal drugs are inadmissible against him.
Rule on the contention of B.