If it is a city, the President of the Philippines will appoint. (Sec.
44, LGC)
Political Law Review
Atty. Enrique V. Dela Cruz
Revalida
Q: State whether you agree with the following statements.
(a) An acting Sec. of Justice can also act as acting Solicitor General.
A: Do not agree. (Funa v. Agra)
(b) The Sec. of DILG cannot sit as concurring chairman of the NAPOLCOM
even in an ex officio capacity.
A: Do not agree. An exception is ex officio capacity.
Q: In the May 2016 elections, Lando Salvador and Ferdie Estrella both ran
for office in Baliwag. Lando was elected and Ferdie Estrella filed an election
protest. Six (6) days before the 2019 elections, Estrella then served the
remaining portion of the remaining term as Mayor. In the 2019 elections,
Ferdie ran and won as mayor. He ran for reelection in 2022 and won again.
Can Ferdie still run in 2025 without violating the three-term limit?
A: YES. The three-term limit rule will apply only if the term is FULLY SERVED for
three consecutive terms. In this case, the first term was not fully served, since
Ferdie served for only six days. (Lonzanida v. COMELEC)
Q: In the 2022 local elections, Atty. Buko won as No. 10 councilor of Baliwag,
Bulacan. After his proclamation but before he could take his oath of office,
Atty. Buko received a scholarship to study in London. He then wrote a letter
to the Sanggunian stating that he is relinquishing his position as councilor.
Can the No. 11 ranked candidate in the election be elevated to the No. 10
slot?
A: NO. A vacancy in the Sanggunian is filled up depending on the person who
caused the vacancy. If Atty. Buko belongs to a political party, his political party
will NOMINATE and the governor will appoint in case of a municipality.
If it is a barangay, the mayor will appoint.
If Atty. Buko does not belong to a political party, the remaining members of the
Sanggunian will nominate and the aforementioned persons will appoint.
Q: What is a failure of elections? Is low-turnout of voters a ground to declare
failure of elections?
A: Before the COMELEC can act on a verified petition seeking to declare a failure
of election two conditions must concur, namely:
(1) No voting took place in the precinct or precincts on the date fixed by
law, or even if there was voting, the election resulted in a failure to elect;
and
(2) The votes not cast would have affected the result of the election.
NOTE: The cause of such failure of election could only be any of the
following: force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud or other analogous
causes. (Banaga Jr v. COMELEC)
Low turnout of voters is not a ground since it indicates that a voting actually took
place.
Q: A foreign ship was found dumping toxic waste 20 NM from Nasugbu. The
officers of the ship were arrested and charged in the RTC of Batangas for
violation of the PH’s environmental laws. The officers of the ship filed a
MTD on the ground that PH courts lack territorial jurisdiction over the case
since the vessel was sailing outside the territorial sea of the PH. In the
ground to dismiss correct?
A: NO. The act committed, while outside PH territory, is within our contiguous
zone. The state has power to enforce customs, fiscal, sanitary, and immigration
laws, such as those that prohibit smuggling or illegal immigration in the
contiguous zone, which is 24 nautical miles from the baselines.
Q: Sheila is the highest ranking member of the sangguniang bayan of
Plaridel, Bulacan. She succeeded to the vice mayor post due to the death of
the latter. Assuming that Sheila does not belong to a political party, how will
the vacancy in the sanggunian be filled up? Is her term as vice mayor
computed for purposes of computing the three-term limit?
Ephraim Bie – UST Faculty of Civil Law – 4C ’22 – ’23 | 1
A: The remaining members of the Sanggunian will nominate and the governor
will appoint. (Sec. 44, LGC)
The term will not be included in computing the three-term limit. For the three-
term limit rule to apply, two requisites must concur, viz.:
(1) The officer must be elected for three consecutive term and
(2) He must fully serve the three consecutive terms.
Q: The Sangguniang Bayan enacted an ordinance prohibiting track betting
and lotto outlets in the municipality, invoking police power under the LGC.
Section 27 – Prior Consultations Required --- No project or program shall be
implemented by government authorities unless the consultations mentioned
in Sections 2(c) and 26 hereof are complied with, and prior approval of the
sanggunian concerned is obtained.
Can a Sanggunian prohibit the operation of Lotto in their LGU?
(a) Is the ordinance valid?
A: NO. Section 27 of the LGC applies only to national programs and/or projects
which are to be implemented in a particular local community.
Lotto is neither a program nor a project of the national government, but of a
charitable institution, the PCSO. Besides, the PCSO charter is statute. An
ordinance cannot amend or modify a statute. (Lina v. Pano)
(b) If the ordinance is found to be invalid, will the individual sangguniang
bayan members be found personally liable?
A: YES. Under Sec. 60 of the LGC, if an elected local official enacts an ordinance
which is contrary to law, that is an abuse of authority for which he may be held
personally liable.
Q: Distinguish election protest from quo warranto cases as to who can file
the case and the respective grounds therefor.
A: An ELECTION PROTEST may be filed by a losing candidate for the same office
for which the winner filed his certificate of candidacy.
A QUO WARRANTO CASE may be filed by any voter who is a registered voter
in the constituency where the winning candidate sought to be disqualified ran
for office.
In an election contest, the issues are: (a) who received the majority or plurality
of the votes which were legally cast and (b) whether there were irregularities in
the conduct of the election which affected its results.
In a quo warranto case, the issue is whether the candidate who was proclaimed
elected should be disqualified because of ineligibility or disloyalty to the
Philippines.
Q: When can you file an election protest and when can you file a quo
warranto case?
A: Quo warranto, 10 days. EP, depending on position.
Q: Ivana Alawi was appointed by Mayor Ricky as his municipal
administrator for three years “unless sooner terminated.” Mayor Ricky
created a new position (special assistant) with the similar rank and salary
grade as municipal administrator and appointed Ivana to the same
position. Contemporaneously, the mayor appointed Atty. Janna as acting
municipal administrator in place of Ivana.
a) Does the phrase "unless sooner terminated" mean that the position is
terminable at will?
A: NO, “unless sooner terminated” does not mean terminable at will if there is a
term. If there is a term, it must be completed and followed.
In this case, a municipal administrator is a primarily confidential position which
is terminable at will.
b) Was she removed or transferred from her position as municipal
administrator.
A: She was not transferred because there was no lateral movement. It is the
movement from one position to another which is of equivalent rank, level, or
salary without break in service.
Ephraim Bie – UST Faculty of Civil Law – 4C ’22 – ’23 | 2
She was removed from the office because the position was still occupied by an
appointee. A transfer means she retains her appointment.
Q: (Treaty allowing foreigners to practice law in the PH and practice retail
trade in the PH).
A: INVALID. It is against the Constitution. Foreigners are also not allowed to
practice retail trade in the PH.
If a treaty has provisions contrary to the Constitution, the latter will prevail.
Q: Can the President create an office for rehabilitation to facilitate
reconstruction of structures damaged in calamities? Can the President
appoint former Sen. Lacson as chairman of the office?
A: NO. The President cannot create a public office through a mere EO. (Biraogo v.
PTC)
Sen. Lacson cannot be appointed because he lost in the last presidential elections
and he cannot be appointed within one year from the date of the elections.
Q: May an LGU regulate the short time periods and wash rates of motels, to
protect public morals?
A: NO. Individual rights may be adversely affected only to the extent that may be
FAIRLY REQUIRED by the legitimate demands of public interest or public welfare.
However well-intentioned the Ordinance may be, it is in effect an arbitrary and
whimsical intrusion into the rights of the establishments as well as their patrons.
The Ordinance needlessly restrains the operation of the businesses of the
petitioners as well as restricting the rights of their patrons without sufficient
justification.
The Ordinance rashly equates wash rates and renting out a room more than twice
a day with immorality without accommodating innocuous intentions. (White
Light Corp. v. City of Manila)
BDC: The businesses can be restricted but cannot altogether be prohibited.
Q: Can an LGU, pursuant to its police power, require private cemeteries in
the city to reserve 6% of their total land area for indigents?
A: NO. Police power is usually exercised in the form of mere regulation or
restriction in the use of liberty or property for the promotion of general welfare.
It does not involve the taking or confiscation of property, with the exception of a
few cases where there is a necessity to confiscate private property in order to
destroy it —as for instance, the confiscation of an illegally possessed article, such
as opium and firearms.
The questioned ordinance is not a mere police regulation but an outright
confiscation. It deprives a person of his private property without due process of
law and without compensation. (QC v. Ericta)
Q: Can an LGU, pursuant to its police power, require private cinemas in the
city to give a 50% discount to minors for their admission tickets?
A: NO. The means adopted must be reasonably necessary for the accomplishment
of the purpose and not unduly oppressive upon individuals. The legislature may
not, under the guise of protecting public interest, arbitrarily interfere with
private business, or impose unusual and unnecessary restrictions upon lawful
occupations.
In other words, the determination as to what is a proper exercise of its police
power is not final or conclusive, but is subject to the supervision of the courts.
(Balacuit v. CFI of Agusan del Norte)
Q: May an LGU enact an ordinance to phase out motels, night clubs, and
other establishments to protect public morals?
A: No. Businesses may only be regulated but cannot altogether be prohibited.
Simply because there are no ‘pure’ places where there are impure men. That
these motels and clubs are used as venues of prostitution is of no moment. Sexual
immorality may take place in the most innocent of places. (City of Manila v. Laguio
Jr.)
Q: The United States of America and other European countries have openly
supplied weapons to Ukraine – which is currently in a state of war with
Russia. Is this a violation of the Principle of Neutrality? Can Russia consider
that supplying arms might be an act of war by the United States? Explain.
A: NO. When the states joined together to outlaw war in 1928 and reaffirm that
commitment in the UN Charter in 1945, they created a New World Order in which
might is no longer right and in which states can provide weapons and other
support to a state unjustly attacked so that it can defend itself.
Ephraim Bie – UST Faculty of Civil Law – 4C ’22 – ’23 | 3
The end of impartiality means that states are permitted to supply weapons or
other support to Ukraine. Doing so violates no legal duty of neutrality. States
would become parties to the international armed conflict between Russia and
Ukraine if, and only if, they resort to armed force against Russia. Indeed,
providing assistance to Ukraine supports the international legal order by
allowing Ukraine to defend itself against a war of aggression.
BDC: The principle of neutrality is no longer adopted under the UN Charter.
Under the UN Charter, an act of war is invasion, the USE OF FORCE or the THREAT
of use of force. Supplying arms is not an act of war.
Q: The governor of Bulacan ordered the preventive suspension of Mayor
Ricky pending the administrative proceeding pending before the
sangguniang panlalawigan of Bulacan where he was charged with grave
abuse of authority for appointing an unqualified person as municipal
administrator. s
(a) May Mayor Ricky immediately seek relief from the courts?
(b) Assuming Mayor Ricky is found guilty by the SP, and he appealed to the
Sec. of the DILG, may the latter stay the execution of the decision? If no, may
Mayor Ricky seek relief from the courts to stay such execution?
A: (a) NO. Preventive suspension is not a penalty.
(b) NO, the DILG Sec. may not stay the decision. First, the decision is appealable
to the OP and not the Sec. of the DILG. The Sec. of the DILG has no business staying
the decision of the SP because it is not the reviewing authority. The decision of
the SP immediately executory.
Mayor Ricky MAY seek relief from the courts. If there is GAD, he can ask for
certiorari and TRO.
Q: Ara Mina and Bella Flores are both civil servants of equal rank as
Secretary I at the Office of the Mayor. Ara Mina is beautiful, sexy, and has a
very pleasant personality --- but she is incompetent and lazy. Bella Flores
on the other hand is intelligent, diligent, and has a Masters degree from
Harvard University --- but she is old and ugly.
The position of Secretary II became vacant and both Ara Mina and Bella
Flores are qualified. Mayor Ricky appointed Ara Mina (of course) to the
position.
Can Bella Flores seek relief from the Civil Service Commission or the Courts
to nullify the appointment on the ground that she is better qualified?
A: NO. Bella Flores cannot nullify the appointment on the ground that she is better
qualified.
The head of an agency who is the appointing power is the one most
knowledgeable to decide who can best perform the functions of the office.
Appointment is an essentially discretionary power and must be performed by the
office vested with such power according to his best lights, the only condition
being that the appointee should possess the qualifications required by law.
If he does, then the appointment cannot be faulted on the ground that there are
others better qualified who should have been preferred. Indeed, this is a
prerogative of the appointing authority which he alone can decide (Apurillo v.
Civil Service Commission)
Q: May an admin. agency issue a warrant of arrest?
A: No. Under Art. III Sec. 2 of the Const., only judges may issue search warrants
and warrants of arrest; and
The exception is ONLY in cases of deportation of illegal and undesirable aliens,
whom the President or the Commissioner may order arrested, following a final
order of deportation. (Salazar v. Achacoso)
Q: May an admin. agency cite a person in contempt?
A: An administrative agency CANNOT cite a person in contempt unless it is
expressly provided in the law creating it.
Not all agencies with quasi-judicial functions have the power to cite for contempt,
as the power must be expressly granted in the agency’s charter;
If there is no express grant, the agency must invoke the aid of the courts.
Ephraim Bie – UST Faculty of Civil Law – 4C ’22 – ’23 | 4
Rationale: power to punish for contempt is inherently judicial. The power to
declare contempt cannot be used in the discharge of ministerial functions, but
only in relation to quasi-judicial functions.
Q: When should a candidate be a Filipino citizen?
A: The citizenship requirement in the LGC is to be possessed by the elective
official, at the latest, as of the time he is proclaimed and at the start of the term of
office to which he has been elected.
The LGC does not specify any particular date or time when the candidate must
possess citizenship, unlike the requirements for residence and age.
Repatriation under PD 825 is valid and effective and retroacts to the date of the
application. (Frivaldo v. COMELEC)
Q: When should he be a resident?
A: An elective local official must be a resident of the place he intends to run for at
least one (1) year immediately preceding the day of the election. (Sec. 39, Local
Govt. Code)
No person shall be a Senator unless he is a resident of the Philippines for not less
than two years immediately preceding the day of the election (Sec. 3, Article 6,
1987 Constitution).
No person may be elected President or Vice President unless he is a resident of
the Philippines for at least ten years immediately preceding such election
(Sec. 2, Article 7, 1987 Constitution)
Q: A decision was rendered by the Sec. of AR that Hacienda Luisita was
subject to land reform and distribution. OP affirmed. An MR was filed, but
the opposing party contended that the decision of the OP has already
become final pursuant to the lapse of 15 days from receipt pursuant to OP
rules of appeal. The landowner argued that the rules are mere procedural
and can be disregarded in the interest of substantial justice. The OP
reversed and ruled on the MR. Was the OP correct?
A: The decision of the OP to reverse itself is invalid. It cannot open a case after it
has been decided.
As a GR, res judicata does not apply in administrative proceedings EXCEPT if it is
in adversary proceedings involving substantive rights. In Fortich v. Corona, the SC
ruled that in adversary proceedings, the decision becomes final after the period
for MR or appeal lapses.
Q: What is meant by substitution of candidates? What are the requisites for
substitution?
A: Candidates for elective offices can be substituted. Pursuant to Section 77 of the
Omnibus Election Code, substitution of candidates is allowed only in cases of
death, withdrawal or disqualification of the original candidate. In cases of death
or disqualification, the substitute may file his Certificate of Candidacy up to mid-
day of election day.
Requisites:
(1) It can only be done in case of withdrawal, death or disqualification of a
candidate;
(2) They must belong to the same political party;
(3) They must have the same surname.
A candidate who has withdrawn his COC can be nominated as a substitute for
another position provided that they comply with the requisites for substitution.
Q: (a) A public official appointed to an ex officio position as provided by law has
no right to receive additional compensation.
(b) Subsequent reelection cannot be deemed a condonation of a pending
administrative case if the administrative offense was committed in the prior term
of the elected local official.
A: (a) AGREE.
(b) AGREE.
Q: Can Russia validly use nuclear weapons against Ukraine?
A: NO. First, the treaty of the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons treaty is
signed by both Russia and Ukraine. Second, under the Geneva Convention, there
is a prohibition against the use of weapons of mass destruction.
Ephraim Bie – UST Faculty of Civil Law – 4C ’22 – ’23 | 5
Further, it violates the rule on proportionality. The attack must be proportional
and must target only the military and not the civilian population. Nuclear
weapons will affect non-combatants.
Q: In case of conflict between a treaty and a custom, which would prevail?
A: In case the treaty comes after a particular custom, as between the parties to
the treaty, the treaty should prevail.
If custom develops after the treaty, the customs should prevail, it being an
expression of a later will.
Q: If the conflict is between two treaties, which obligation controls?
A: Time frame. Later one prevails and modifies previous ones.
Q: Does the Sec. of Justice exercise quasi-judicial powers in reviewing the
resolution of the prosecutor in findings of probable cause?
Does the Mayor exercise quasi-judicial powers when it issues orders to abate a
public nuisance (i.e. illegally constructed structures on government property)?
A: (a) NO. A preliminary investigation is not a quasi-judicial proceeding since the
prosecutor in a preliminary investigation does not determine the guilt or
innocence of the accused.
A quasi-judicial agency performs adjudicatory functions such that its awards,
determine the rights of parties, and their decisions have the same effect as
judgments of a court.
Such is not the case when a public prosecutor conducts a preliminary
investigation to determine probable cause to file an information against a person
charged with a criminal offense, or when the Secretary of Justice is reviewing the
former’s order or resolutions.
A preliminary investigation thus partakes of an investigative or inquisitorial
power for the sole purpose of obtaining information on what action of a judicial
nature may be taken. (Atty. Alice Odchigue-Bondoc v. Tan Tiong Bio, G.R. No.
186652, 06 October 2010)
(b) YES. Under existing laws, the office of the mayor is endowed with authority to
hear issues involving property rights of individuals and to come out with an
effective order or resolution thereon. In this manner, it exercises quasi- judicial
functions.
It cannot be denied as well that in determining whether or not a structure is
illegal or it should be demolished, property rights are involved thereby needing
notices and opportunity to be heard as provided for in the constitutionally
guaranteed right of due process. In pursuit of these functions, the city mayor has
to exercise quasi-judicial powers. (City Engineer of Baguio vs. Hon. Domogan)
Q: Pursuant to an administrative case of misconduct in office, the
Sangguniang Panlungsod of Olongapo City issued a resolution rendering a
decision imposing a 30-day suspension on Capt. Barbell. Despite the fact
that the decision has already been served to him, may Capt. Barbell refuse
to heed the same on the ground that the resolution was not signed by the
mayor?
He also contends that he cannot be suspended pending appeal. Is he
correct?
A: (a) He is incorrect. The disciplinary authority is the sanggunian for barangay
captains.
(b) There is a preventive suspension pending appeal.
Q: What are ruses of war? Are they prohibited?
A: Ruses of war are acts which are intended to mislead an adversary or to induce
him to act recklessly but which infringe no rule of International Law applicable
in armed conflict and which are not perfidious because they do not invite the
confidence of an adversary with respect to protection under that law.
Ruses of war are legal. The following are examples of ruses of war:
(1) The use of camouflage;
(2) Decoys;
(3) Mock operations;
(4) Misinformation.
Q: What is the principle of “Non-Refoulement”?
Ephraim Bie – UST Faculty of Civil Law – 4C ’22 – ’23 | 6
A: It is a customary principle of international law which prohibits the expulsion
or return of refugees to their state of origin. Article 31 of the UN Charter states:
1. No Contracting State shall expel or return a refugee in any manner whatsoever
to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on
account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group
or political opinion.
2. The benefit of the present provision may not, however be claimed by a refugee
whom there are reasonable grounds for regarding as a danger to the security of
the country in which he is, or who, having been convicted by a final judgment of
a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community of that
country.
Q: Who is a refugee?
A:
(1) The person must be outside their country of origin or habitual residence;
(2) The person must have a well founded fear of persecution for reasons of:
race, religion, nationality, political opinion, membership of a particular
social group;
(3) The person must be unable or unwilling to avail of the protection of their
own State for reasons of such persecution. (Article 1A of the 1951
Convention On Migrants and Refugees)
Q: Ferdie was elected mayor of the municipality of Baliwag for 2016, 2019
and 2022. During his third term, the municipality was converted to the
component city of Baliwag. The charter provided for holdover. In the 2025
elections, may Ferdie run for city mayor even though he has served for
three consecutive terms when Baliwag was still a municipality?
Assuming the decision disqualifying him came too late and he was already
proclaimed as city mayor, may the second placer in the elections assume
office?
A: (a) NO. Because the area and inhabitants of the locality are the same and the
municipal mayor continued to hold office until such time as city elections are
held. The conversion of the municipality into a city did not convert the office of
the municipal mayor into a local government post different from the office of the
city mayor. (Latasa v. COMELEC)
(b) NO. The Vice Mayor would succeed.
Q: PMC is a government hospital created by law to provide healthcare to the
public, especially the less fortunate. To enable PMC to perform its mandate,
the national government provided initial capital, land and equipment to
PMC. PMC’s charter also authorized it, acting through its board of trustees,
to acquire property, enter contracts, etc. The QC assessor issued notices of
assessment for RPT against PMC’s properties that are being leased to
private concessionaires because the properties are not being exclusively
used for charitable purposes.
PMC contended that as a government instrumentality imbued with
corporate powers, it is exempt from RPT. Is PMC liable for RPT over the
leased properties?
A: NO. Real property owned by the Republic of the Philippines, its
instrumentalities and political subdivisions, the beneficial use of which has been
granted, for consideration or otherwise, to a taxable person, shall be listed,
valued and assessed in the name of the possessor, grantee or of the public
entity if such property has been acquired or held for resale or lease. (Sec. 205,
LGC)
Q: May the city assessor assess the lessees of the RPT due?
A: YES. Same provision.
Q: Pursuant to a law ordering the fixing of “just and reasonable standards,
classifications, regulations, practices, or services to be furnished, observed
and imposed by operators of public utility vehicles,” the Land
Transportation Franchise and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) promulgated and
published a regulation that “no car beyond six years shall be operated as a
taxi.” Taxi operators assailed the validity of the regulation contending that
procedural due process was violated because position papers were not
asked of them and no notice was given to them prior to the issuance of the
regulation. Were the taxi operators denied procedural due process?
Explain briefly.
A: NO. This is an exercise of quasi-legislative powers. Prior notice and hearing is
not required.
Q: Do you agree with these statements –
Ephraim Bie – UST Faculty of Civil Law – 4C ’22 – ’23 | 7
(a) An elected provincial board member who is a lawyer can also be a
notary public.
(b) An elected local official cannot be hired as a consultant of a government
official.
A: (a) YES. Under Sec. 90 of the LGC, they can practice their profession.
(b) YES. This will amount to double compensation. They cannot be allowed to
receive additional compensation from the government and occupy another
government office.
Q: The Congress passed a law prohibiting the sale and distribution of
alcoholic drinks within 100 meters from religious and educational
institutions. A city enacted an ordinance increasing the coverage of the
prohibition to 150 meters from any religious and educational institution. Is
the city ordinance valid?
A: YES. Increasing the coverage of the prohibition is not contrary to law but
merely supplements the law.
Q: Lemuel was born in 1988 to a Filipina mother and American father as
shown in his birth certificate. However, his father petitioned for him as a
result of which Lemuel received a certificate of American citizenship. In
2022, Lemuel filed a certificate of candidacy to run as representative of the
lone district of Batanes. Isla, a Filipino citizen and resident of Batanes filed
a petition for disqualification with the COMELEC alleging that Lemuel is
ineligible to run for public office in the PH as he is an American citizen. Is
Isla correct?
A: Isla is not correct. Lemuel is a natural-born citizen being born to a Filipina
mother. Upon his filing of certificate of candidacy, he reacquired his Philippine
citizenship and as such, he is eligible to run for public office.
Q: The Philippine government signed its conformity to the Rome Statute of
the ICC but refused to submit it to the Senate for concurrence. Sen. Pimentel
filed a petition for mandamus to compel the Exec. Dept. to transmit the
signed text of the treaty to the Senate. May the suit prosper?
A: NO. As the sole organ of our foreign relations and the constitutionally assigned
chief architect of our foreign policy, the President is vested with the exclusive
power to conduct and manage the country's interface with other states and
governments.
Q: When the treaty is signed by the official representative of the state, does
it mean that the state is already bound by the provisions?
A: YES, assuming the official representative of the state is granted full powers.
Q: State whether the following are government agencies or government
instrumentalities –
(a) Bureau of Internal Revenue;
A: GA. It is within the department framework.
(b) Social Security System;
A: GI. It does not fall within the department framework and it stands alone with
its own charter.
(c) Philippine National Police;
A: It is a GI. It is a standalone instrumentality.
(d) UAAP.
A: Neither. It is a private organization. The government does not own anything in
the UAAP.
Q: What is customary international law? What are the elements of
customary international law?
A: Customary international law or international custom is a source of
international law as stated in the Statute of the ICJ.
It is defined as the "general and consistent practice of states recognized and
followed by them from a sense of legal obligation.”
In order to establish the customary status of a particular norm, two elements
must concur: State practice, the objective element; and opinio juris sive
necessitates, the subjective element.
Ephraim Bie – UST Faculty of Civil Law – 4C ’22 – ’23 | 8
State practice refers to the continuous repetition of the same or similar kind of
acts or norms by States. It is demonstrated upon the existence of the following
elements: (1) generality; (2) uniformity and consistency; and (3) duration. While,
opinio juris, the psychological element, requires that the state practice or norm
"be carried out in such a way, as to be evidence of a belief that this practice is
rendered obligatory by the existence of a rule of law requiring it." (Bayan Muna
v. Romulo)

Q: Israel conducted air attacks and eventually invaded Lebanon to force the
Lebanese government into pressuring the Hezbollah terrorists to release
abducted Israeli soldiers and to refrain from firing missiles to Israel. The
UN SC failed to reach a consensus on whether to support or oppose the acts
of Israel. Can the action taken by Israel find justification in international
law?

A: Israel’s action is justified under international law. This is state self-defense to

prevent the firing of missiles towards Israel, which is allowed under the
protective principle of jurisdiction. It can invade another country to prevent an
attack unto itself.

Q: Distinguish extradition from deportation.

A: Extradition is effected for the benefit of the state to which the person to be
extradited will be surrendered because he is a fugitive criminal in that state, while
deportation is effected for the protection of the State expelling an alien because
his presence is not conducive to the public good.

Extradition is effected on the basis of an extradition treaty, while deportation is

the unilateral act of the state expelling an alien.

In extradition, the alien will be surrendered to the State asking for his extradition,
while in deportation the undesirable alien may be sent to any state willing to
accept him.

Ephraim Bie – UST Faculty of Civil Law – 4C ’22 – ’23 | 9