Consti Finals PE

Answer the questions legibly, clearly, and concisely. Start each answer on a separate
page. An answer to a sub-question under the same number may be written
continuously on the same page and the immediately succeeding pages until
completed.

Your answer should demonstrate your ability to analyze the facts, apply the pertinent
laws and jurisprudence, and arrive at a sound or logical conclusion. Always support
your answer with the pertinent laws, rules, and/or jurisprudence.

A MERE "YES" OR "NO" ANSWER WITHOUT ANY CORRESPONDING

EXPLANATION OR DISCUSSION WILL NOT BE GIVEN FULL CREDIT. THUS,
ALWAYS BRIEFLY BUT FULLY EXPLAIN YOUR ANSWERS ALTHOUGH THE
QUESTION DOES NOT EXPRESSLY ASK FOR AN EXPLANATION. DO NOT
REWRITE OR REPEAT THE QUESTION ON YOUR BOOKLET.

Do not write your name or any extraneous note/s or distinctive marking/s on your
booklet that can serve as an identifying mark/s (such as names that are not in the
given questions, prayers, or private notes). Writing, leaving, or making any
distinguishing or identifying mark in the booklet is considered cheating.

1. Margarita was born in 1986 to a Filipino mother and a Swedish father. She has
been living in the US for the last 20 years and has also been naturalized as a US
citizen. She reacquired Philippine citizenship in 2008 under RA 9225, the
Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003. She then established a
beach house in Palo, Leyte where she stays during her visits in the Philippines.
After executing an affidavit of renunciation of her American citizenship, Margarita
announced her intention to run as Vice-president in the 2022 Presidential elections.
Is she qualified to run for said office? Discuss your answer.

No. Margarita is not qualified to run as Vice-president.

Article VII of the 1987 Constitution provides that there shall be a Vice-
President who shall have the same qualifications and term of office and be elected
with and in the same manner as the President. Section 2, Article VII states that, no
person may be elected President unless he is a natural-born citizen of the
Philippines, a registered voter, able to read and write, at least forty years of
age on the day of the election, and a resident of the Philippines for at least ten
years immediately preceding such election.

In the case at bar, Margarita must have all the qualifications set by Section 2,
Article VII of the 1987 Constitution, to be qualified to run for said office. However,
Margarita was born in 1986 and by 2022, she is only 36 years old. The 1987
Constitution requires that the President and Vice-president must be at least 40 years
old on the day of the election.
 Since Margarita lacks the age requirement, she is not qualified to run for the
office of the Vice-president.

2. Article VI, Section 5(3) of the Constitution requires that for a city to be entitled to
have at least one district representative, its population shall be at least 250,000
inhabitants. The island of Suargao was recently created as a new province by virtue
of a bill sponsored by Congressman Mando Rugas the outgoing Representative of
the second district of Dunagat the mother province of Suargao before it became a
province. In the next elections Mando Rugas run for Governor of Suargao and his
son Mando Rugas Jr. run as congressman for the lone district of Suargao. The
creation of the new legislative district of Suargao was questioned by the governor of
Dunagat citing that Suargao only has a population of 200,000 inhabitants therefore
it is not qualified to become a new legislative district. Is Mando Rugas qualified to
run for governor of the newly created province of Suargao? (5 points) Was the
creation of the lone legislative district of Suargao valid?

A. Yes. Mando Rugas is qualified to run for governor of the newly created province
of Suargao.

The concept of Forbidden office mandates that no member of the Congress can
be appointed to any office created or the emoluments of which have been
increased during the term for which he was elected.

In the case at bar, the office of governor of the province of Suargao is not the
forbidden office manifested by the Constitution. The appointment to any office
created or the emoluments of which have been increased during the term for which
he was elected is prohibited. However, the Office of the Governor is an elective
office. Mando Rugas is also not prohibited under provisions of the Local Government
Code.
Thus, Mando Rugas is qualified to run for governor of the province of Suargao
since there is no prohibition against it.

B. Yes. The creation of the lone legislative district of Suargao is valid.

In the case of Aquino v. COMELEC, the Court ruled that a province is entitled
to an initial legislative seat by the mere fact of its creation and regardless of its
population. It was held by the Court that initial apportionment of legislative
districts for provinces does not require a minimum population.

In the case at bar, the creation of the lone legislative district of Suargao is valid
despite its population of 200,000 inhabitants. Upon the creation of the new
province of Suargao, it has become entitled to a legislative district so that it will
be represented in the Congress.

Since the minimum population requirement does not apply to initial

apportionment of provinces, the Province of Suargao is entitled to have an initial
legislative seat.
 3. In order to help finance the costly Build Build Build program of the government the
President decided to guarantee a loan secured by the state owned Lamp Bank of
the Philippines from China. The minority block in the Senate questioned the said
transaction before the Supreme Court citing that the Constitution requires the
concurrence of Senate in order to ratify the agreement. Is the contention of the
Senators valid? Explain your answer.

No. The contention of the Senators is not valid.

In Commissioner of Customs v. Eastern Sea Trading, the Court distinguished

treaties from executive agreements. The Court defined treaties as international
agreements which involve political issues or changes of national policy and those
involving international arrangements of a permanent character. On the other hand,
executive agreements are international agreements involving adjustments of details
carrying out well-established national policies and traditions and involving
arrangements of a more or less temporary nature. While treaties require ratification,
executive agreements become binding through executive action. Furthermore,
Section 20, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution provides that the President may
contract or guarantee foreign loans on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines with
the prior concurrence of the Monetary Board, and subject to such limitations as may
be provided by law.
In the case at bar, the loan guaranteed by the President is not a treaty that will
require the concurrence of the Senate. Not all international agreements will be
considered as a treaty that must be ratified by the Senate to be valid and binding. In
this case, the transaction is valid and binding even without the concurrence of
Senate. The concurrence must be made by the Monetary Board, not by the Senate,
for the transaction to be valid pursuant to Section 20, Article VII of the Constitution..

4. In order to evade the rainy season and to synchronize the assumption of new
Senators with the new school calendar, Congress enacted a law changing the
commencement of the term of office of Senators from June 30th to August 30th.
Members of the Makabayad block in Senate questioned the constitutionality of the
law stating that the June 30th commencement in office was mandated by the
Constitution therefore it cannot be changed by mere legislative action. Do you agree
with the contention of the Makabayad block?

(DI AKO SURE DITO, KAYO NA LANG MADJUGE)

No. I do not agree with the contention of the Makabayad Block.

Section 7, Article VI of the Constitution provides that The Members of the

House of Representatives shall be elected for a term of three years which shall
begin, unless otherwise provided by law, at noon on the thirtieth day of June next
following their election.

In the case at bar, the Congress may enact a law changing the
commencement of office pursuant to the phrase “unless otherwise provided by law”.
The Congress is only prohibited to shorten or lengthen the term of office of the
members of the Congress, but not the tenure.

Thus, the law changing the commencement of the term of office of Senators
is valid.

YES, The contention of Makabayad block in questioning the constitutionality of the

law in changing the date. The Consti is the supreme law of the land and it can only be
modified in amending the Consti, thus a law amending the date is unconstitutional.
5. Distinguish pardon from amnesty.

Pardon. An act of grace which exempts the individual on whom it is bestowed from
the punishment that the law inflicts for the crime he has committed.

Amnesty. Act of grace, concurred in by the legislature, usually extended to groups of

persons who committed political offenses, which puts into oblivion the offense itself.

In People v. Casido, the Court distinguished Pardon from Amnesty. The Court held
that Pardon concerns infractions of peace of the state committed by individuals.
Acceptance is necessary but does not require the concurrence of the congress. It is
private act which must be pleaded and proved. It looks forward and relieves the
pardonee of the consequences of the offense.

On the other hand, Amnesty is addressed to political offenses, and classes of

persons. No need for distinct acts of acceptance and requires concurrence of
Congress. It is a public act which the courts may take judicial notice of. Amnesty
looks backward and puts into oblivion the offense itself.

6. Cite 5 provisions in the Constitution which are intended to maintain the

independence of the Judiciary.

1. The Supreme Court is a constitutional body and may not be abolished by the
legislature.
2. Members are only removable by impeachment. (1987 Constitution, Art. XI,
Sec. 2)
3. The SC may not be deprived of its minimum original and appellate
jurisdiction (1987 Constitution, Art VIII, Sec. 2); appellate jurisdiction may not
be increased without its advice or concurrence. (1987 Constitution, Art. VI,
Sec. 30)
 4. The SC has administrative supervision over all inferior courts and
personnel. (1987 Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec. 6)
5. The SC has exclusive power to discipline judges/justices of inferior courts.
(1987 Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec. 11)
6. The members of the judiciary enjoy security of tenure. [1987 Constitution,
Art. VIII, Sec. 2 (2)]
7. The members of the judiciary may not be designated to any agency
performing quasi- judicial or administrative functions. (1987 Constitution, Art.
VIII, Sec 12)
8. The salaries of judges may not be reduced; the judiciary enjoys fiscal
autonomy. (1987 Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec. 3)
9. The SC alone may initiate the promulgation of the Rules of Court. [1987
Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec. 5 (5)]
10. The SC alone may order temporary detail of judges. [1987 Constitution, Art.
VIII, Sec. 5 (3)]
11. The SC can appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary. (1987
Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec. 5 (6)]

7. While Congress was in session the President appointed five (5) acting
department secretaries. The five thus appointed immediately assumed office
without any confirmation from the Commission on Appointments. The minority
block in the Senate questioned the said appoints arguing that the same are
unconstitutional for lack of CA confirmation and instead suggesting that the
President designate an undersecretary to act as secretary pending the confirmation
of the five (5) appointees. Was the appointment made by the President valid? (5
points) Can the president be compelled to designate the undersecretaries pending
the confirmation process?

A. Yes. The appointment made by the President is valid.

In the case of Pimentel v. Ermita, the Court ruled that acting appointments are
not subject to the confirmation from the Commission on Appointments. The
Court also held that the essence of an appointment in an acting capacity is its
temporary nature. In case of a vacancy in an office occupied by an alter ego of the
President, such as the office of Department Secretary, the President must
necessarily appoint the alter ego of her choice as Acting Secretary before the
permanent appointee of her choice could assume office.

In the case at bar, the President is not prohibited to make acting appointments
even without the confirmation from the Commission on Appointments. In this case,
the appointments made are temporary in nature. The acting appointments were
made to fill the offices for a limited time until the appointment of a permanent
occupant to the office. The President has also the power to appoint an alter ego of
her choice as acting secretary. Since the department secretaries are the alter ego of
the President, the acting appointees to the office must necessarily have the
President’s confidence. Thus, the President must appoint in an acting capacity a
person of her choice even while Congress is in session.

B. No. The President cannot be compelled to designate the undersecretaries

pending the confirmation process.

Section 17 of the Administrative Code of 1987 gives the President the power to
issue temporary designation to perform the functions of an office in the
executive branch. In Pimentel v. Ermita, the Court ruled that the Congress,
through a law, cannot impose on the President the obligation to appoint
automatically the undersecretary as her temporary alter ego.

In the case at bar, the Senate cannot compel the President to designate
the undersecretaries as temporary department secretaries. The
department secretaries are the alter ego of the President, thus, the
president must appoint in an active capacity a person of her choice. As
alter ego of the President, the acting secretary must have the President’s
confidence. Thus, before the permanent appointee could assume office,
the President has the discretion to make acting appointments of her
choice.

8. The President decided to appoint his fraternity brother Kapal Mukha as Supreme
Court Chief Justice two (2) months before a presidential election. Kapal Mukha
promptly accepted the appointment and assumed the office of the Chief Justice.
Members of the Makabayan block questioned the appointment saying that Kapal
Mukha cannot assume office because appointments are forbidden three months
before any election. They argued further that the appointment was a “midnight”
appointment which is prohibited by law. Do you agree with their contentions?
Explain.

No. The contentions of the Makabayan Block are not meritorious.

In De Castro v. Judicial Bar Council, the Court ruled that the prohibition under Section
15, Article VII of the Constitution does not apply to appointments to fill the vacancy in
the Supreme Court or to other appointments in the judiciary.

In the case at bar, the appointment made by the President in favor of Kapal Mukha
cannot be considered as a midnight appointment, which is prohibited by law. The
prohibition against midnight appointments only applies to positions or offices of the
executive branch. The prohibition does not apply to appointments to fill the vacancy in
the SC or to other appointments in the judiciary. In this case, the appointment of Kapal
Mukha does not violate the Constitution. The prohibition found in Section 15, Article
VII of the 1987 Constitution does not cover all kinds of presidential appointments. Such
prohibition cannot be found in Article VIII of the Constitution.

Thus, Makabayan Block is incorrect in saying that Kapal Mukha’s appointment is

prohibited by law.
 9. Due to rampant reports regarding “justice for sale” coming from the court of Judge
Fera Makabenta of the Regional Trial Court of Tarlac, the Ombudsman decided to
conduct an investigation and a “lifestyle check” on Judge Makabenta. The
Ombudsman found out that the judge has several mansions in Metro Manila and
owns a fleet of luxury vehicles. The Ombudsman then decided to order the
suspension for 6 months of Judge Makabenta pending further investigation. Is the
suspension valid? Explain.

No. The suspension is not valid.

Section 6, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution provides that the Supreme Court shall
have administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof. In Fuentes
v. Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao, the Court ruled that the Ombudsman may
not initiate or investigate a criminal or administrative complaint before his office
against a judge.

In the case at bar, the investigation and suspension ordered by the Ombudsman
against Judge Fera Makabenta violated the doctrine of Separation of Powers. The
suspension of Judge Makabenta is beyond the powers of the Ombudsman. The
suspension likewise encroached into the power of the Supreme Court of
administrative supervision over all courts and its personnel. The Ombudsman can
only indorse the case to the Supreme Court for appropriate action. The Ombudsman
has no power to conduct its own investigation and suspend Judge Makabenta.

Thus, the suspension is not valid for violating the Constitution and the principle of
Separation of Powers.

10. The anti drugs campaign of the President caused massive congestion in the
court dockets because of the multiple drugs cases being filed every day. The
congestion of dockets was more intense in the cities because of the volume of cases
already pending. In order to fast track the prosecution of cases the President
ordered that Judges from the provinces with minimal number of cases be allowed
to hear and decide cases in the cities thru a newly created mobile drugs court.
Several judges questioned the order arguing that the President does not have the
authority to re-assign judges to other courts. Do you agree with the judges? Explain.

Yes. I agree with the judges.

Section 5, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution provides that the Supreme Court has
the sole power to assign temporarily lower court judges to other stations as public
interest may require.
In the case at bar, the President has no authority to re-assign judges to other courts.
The order of the President is unconstitutional for violating the Principle of Separation
of Powers. The act of the President in ordering the re-assignment of the judges to
other courts constitutes encroachment upon the power of administration of the
Supreme Court.

Thus, the Judges are correct in saying that the President does not have the
authority to re-assign judges to other courts.

11. The Presidential Electoral Tribunal decided and proclaimed Dongdong

Carmos as the duly elected Vice-president of the Philippines against Neli Dobrero
by a margin of only 50,000 votes. Dobrero strongly questioned the said decision
and argued that members of the PET were bribed by Carmos into favoring him.
Dobrero lost no time and immediately filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Supreme
Court within fifteen days from receipt of the decision challenging and praying for its
reversal. Will the petition prosper? Explain.

BarQnA
Q. Mr. Yellow and Mr. Orange were the leading candidates in the vice presidential
elections. After elections, Yellow emerged as the winner by a slim margin of 100,000
votes. Undaunted, Orange filed a protest with the Presidential Electoral Tribunal
(PET). After due consideration of the facts and the issues, the PET ruled that Orange
was the real winner of the elections and ordered his immediate proclamation.

a. Aggrieved, Yellow filed with the Supreme Court a Petition for Certiorari
challenging the decision of the PET alleging grave abuse of discretion. Does the
Supreme Court have jurisdiction? Explain. (3%)
b. Would the answer in (a.) be the same if Yellow and Orange were contending for
a senatorial slot and it was the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET) who issued the
challenged ruling? (3%)
c. What is the composition of the PET? (2%) d. What is judicial power? Explain
Briefly. (2%)

No. The Petition will not prosper.

Rule 69 of the 2010 PET Rules provides that the decision of PET shall become
final 10 days after receipt of a copy by the parties or their counsel if no motion for
reconsideration is filed. In Macalintal v. PET, the Court ruled that the Presidential
Electoral Tribunal is an institution independent but not separate from the Supreme
Court.
 In the case at bar, the decision of PET declaring Carmos as the winner
has become final. Such decision can no longer be challenged through a petition
for certiorari. Furthermore, since PET is not a tribunal separate from the
Supreme Court, its decision cannot be assailed by filing a petition for certiorari.
The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over the petition for certiorari filed by
Dobredo. The Supreme Court acting as PET can only entertain motion for
reconsideration before the finality of such decision, but its decision cannot be
challenged by a petition for certiorari.

Thus, the petition for certiorari filed by Dobredo will not prosper.

PET rules
Art VII Sec 8

12. Congress passed a law authorizing the Integrated Bar of the Philippines to
regulate the conduct of the Bar Exams, provide for the qualifications of lawyers and
regulate admission to the practice of law. Retired members of the Supreme Court
questioned the said law for being unconstitutional arguing that only the Chief
Justice has the authority to perform the above-mentioned acts. Do you agree with
the contention? Explain.

BarQnA

(DI KO ALISIN YUNG ORIGINAL ANSWER NUNG BLOCKMATES MO,

ALTHOUGH TAMA NAMAN YUNG ARGUMENT, PERO HINDI SYA RESPONSIVE
SA QUESTION NI CALINGIN. KAYA NEED TALAGA BASAHIN NYO MAAYOS
YUNG QUESTION AND WAG MAGCONCLUDE AGAD NA BAR QS YON KASI
MAY BINABAGO SI CALINGIN. LIKE DITO SA PROBLEM NA TO, PAREHONG
MALI YUNG CONGRESS AND YUNG CONTENTION NG RETIRED MEMBERS OF
THE SC)

No. I do not agree with the contention of the retired members of the SC.

Section 5, Article VIII of the Constitution provides that the Supreme Court shall
have the power to Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of
constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to
the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged. It
is also a well-settled jurisprudence that the Congress cannot enact a law that will
alter the conduct of the bar examinations and modify the qualifications of the practice
of legal profession in the Philippines.

In the case at bar, while it is true that the Congress has no authority to authorize the
IBP to regulate the conduct of Bar Exams, provide for the qualifications of lawyers
and regulate admission to the practice of law, the retired members of the SC is also
incorrect in contending that it is the Chief Justice of the SC, who has such authority.
Pursuant to the 1987 Constitution, the authority to regulate the admission to the bar
and practice of law in the Philippines is vested in the Supreme Court as the Judicial
Department of the government.

Thus, the contention of the retired members of the SC is also wrong.