Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1 views

    Political Law Compressed 2 3

    Uploaded by

    Kris Sindac

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Political Law Compressed 2 3

    Uploaded by

    Kris Sindac
    1 views51 pages

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    1 views51 pages

    Political Law Compressed 2 3

    Uploaded by

    Kris Sindac

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 51
    not be charged with committing immoral conduct {or she is entitled to free exerelse of religion un- der the Constitution. (a) Is Amelia administratively Usable? State your reasons briefly. (2.5%) Amelia is nt administratively able For conjugal arrangement esnnct be penalised a¢ she has made oxt @ case Zar exemption fom the lew based om her fubdamental right ta freedom of veligion, (Getrada v, Bcritor, AM No. P-02-1681, June 22, 2006, 482 SORA 1; see also Bvioda o, Esertor, AM, No, P-02. 1861, Augase 4, 2008, 455 Phil. 611,608 [2003] (b) Briefly explain the concept of “be- nevolent neutrality.” (2.5%) ‘Tho concopt of benevatent neutrality gives room for accommodation of religions exersies as easuired by the Foo Bxoreigo Clauss. it could alow for nooommodatian cf morality hased ea religion, provided it dose muted compelling eato interests. Betrada v. Bacritor, A.M. Na. P.O2-1651, June 22, 2008, 492 SCRA 1) 200 also Estrada v. Hsorior,.M. No, P2681, Angus 4, 2003, 455 Phil. 411, 506 [2005)) x Under See. 5, Article VITT of the Constitution, the Supreme Court shall have the power to “promulgate rules coneeraing the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice and procedure in al eourts xc” Section 23 of RA. No. 9106 or the Comprehensive Danger fous Drugs Act of 2002 provides that “any person charged under any provision of this Act rogard- less of the imposable penalty shall not be allowed ‘to avail of the provision on plea-bargaining." Pa- trielo, aser who wax charged with alleged sale of shabu but who wants Lo enter a plea of guilty to a charge of possession, questions the constitutional ity of Sec. 28 on the ground that Congress en- feroached on the rulemaking power of the St preme Court under See. 5, Article VILL He argues that plea-bargaining is procedural in nature and iswithin the exclusive constitutional power of the Gourt. Is Patricio correct? Explain your answer. 55) Its subuntted that Patricio cores. Seid Section 29 of RA, No, 9165 fs unoonstitu: sional, consisting as does an onlafe eneroachment by the Congross into the exclusive rule making author. fty ofthe Supreme Court under Article VIN, Section 5 (Shot the Constitution, ‘The Supreme Courts sole premugative to issue, amend, o repesl procedural rules i Unsted to Th pres ‘evation of substantive rights, i, the former should not Gimisiae, increase or modify ths lattr. "Substantive nv i that part of the law which erates, defines and ogulatesvighs, or which regulates tha right and dotise srbich give rive fo ean of ction; thal pare af Ube law Which courea ane enablished to administer: as opposed to adjective or remedial law, whieh preseribes the ‘method of enforeing rights or obtain redress for their $20 Prumea. LavasoPiauictmanaman Lie Plea bargaining he ben defined ws process ‘whoreby the accused and the prucecution work aut @ ‘tually satafbeory disposition ofthe case subjec: 20 (our approval" The rules on plea bargaining acither rato @ Age nor tako away a vested right. Instod, it operates a8 ¢ means fo implement an existing eight by ragulatng the judicial process for enforcing rights and Ales rooognized iy substantive law aad for justly ad- ministering remedy aod redress for # disregard or in- fraction of thers, It is therefore within the exclusive rolemaking power ofthe Supreme Court, (Bstizona v, Labrigo, GX. No. 298879, August 15, 2017) mg eacson2019 2017 1 A priority thrust of the Administration is the change of the form of government from unitary to federal. The change can be effected only through ‘constitutional amendment or revision. (@) What are the methods of amending the Constitution? Explain briefly exch method. (2) ‘Under Article XVI ofthe Conetittion, proposals ta amend or revise the Coasiiution may be done or ap proved by the Congress, sctng in its constituent capac ‘hy, upon a vote of tees lourths of alts Members or by 4 onstitstional convention (Sestion 1) created by the Congress also in a constituent capacity, by n vote of ‘eo tirda ofall ta Members. Tho question or matter of falling sucha convention may be submitted ty the Coa (gest tothe elestorato by a mjonty vote of al its Mer: bers. Geeton 8) Antendiments ta the Consitetion may Ukewise be eretly proposed by the people through initstve upon 4 patitidn af at least waive par cxmtuon of the total ‘amber of registered voters, of which every lomilaive Eteier must be represented ly nt least three per cen tum af the registered voles therein. (Section 2) ‘Any aniendneat 2, oF revision of this Constitation under Section 1 shall be valid whon vtiied by a major {ay af the votes cast in a plebiscite which aball be eld rot earlier than sity day nor ater than ninety days er the approval of sach smendmnent or revision. Any amondment under Section 2 shall te valid ‘when ratified by majority of tho voto cast ia plebi Fite which aha! be bold net sar shan say days nor Tater than ninety days afer the cereston by the {Commision om iceons of tho suns of the pet tion Seeson () Cite at least three provisions of the Constitution that need #o be amended o re vised to effect the change from unitary to fed tral, and briefly explain why? (3%) ‘Among the provisions in the Constiusion that would need ia be amended or revised ta affect the ‘hango from unitary to federal would be Che Preamble, for purposes of introducing the concept of federalism and providing fora delaratin to the eft that ite a fainment shall be among the aims ofthe poovisions c? said document; the provisions on tbe Exacutvo, Logit ‘See an suieial Departments, to provide fer conn. ‘monte of and limitations an the powers of esch of sald branches for porpnets of precisely providing fora fed- feral yom of government, abd tae pamvsions 22 Local Govecument, wich, at present, mecely preseribe for the autonomy ofl! government unite. sli Anse the Congr a anata os: ib ain sous pope turer he Cra tn ow taeda ion government ang ta rv "ms tho Canetten that would ed 1 sande triad {ale he changer try to fra mould be tha Er, fc yurrae f irucig the tnege feraae a ong fe deinen ota ot er te stl ang te ‘race of raza pring Sra rss a orm mn Qeactosan) a nd the proviso on Lcl Gaver, witha rem, meres sch br a many el orien te Note: Bar eatin quae cok bs it ong aly a duno ie cnc ch oe P ie Under the doctrine of immunity from suit, the State cannot be sued without its consent. How may the consent be given by the State? Explain your answer. (3%) Consent to be sued may be expressly made, which be dano with a genera! tow. eg. CA AZT, a5 amended (on mney claims against government to be fled with the Commision om Adit) oF a pect law, 25 fn tho caso of Meritt. Government of the Philippine Islands (48 Phil, 12), where a special low allowed a ‘person to sue the Phiipeine Government for injuries he Sustained when his motorgele cilided with a govers: ‘ent embutance Consent may sleo be impliedly made, when the State institute a complaint, agin Frilon v. Pan Orie ‘el Shipping Co. (GK. No. L-6060, September 20, 1950), where the goverment was held to have impli al lowes itself tobe eued when it fle © camps: in in tervention for the purpane of asserting a clam against the plain, to wit, tas seecvery of a veseel Gat not ‘where the corps’ (a lntervention) ie led precisely “ta jin the defendant sn invoking the doctrine of State immunity ta secure tho dismissal of the action” or to resist tbe cai, as in Lim v, Brownell (107 Pal. 848) oF 04 Peemen. Law avo PraLc bens La ‘when it enters into proprietary contracts, 2s in USA. Guinto (182 SCRA 064), which refered tothe operation ofreetauraats and barber shops, but not when it enters Into governmental contracts, such ay in USA 0 ula (136 SCRA 287), which involved the repair of wharves (Crus nnd Cra, Piippine Polite Law, 2014 Beton, page 80-70) BR ‘The doctrine of immunity from suit in favor of the State extends to publie officials in the per formance of their official duties. May such offi cials be sucd nonetheless to prevent or to undo their oppressive or illegal acts, oF to compel them to act? Explain your answer (3) ‘Yes, an ofr of the stato may bo sued without in volving the Stato, ain a claim far recovery of taxes Unlawfully assessed or eollsted Glouston t Houston 252 U.S. 880) ins dais for recovery ony of ile fo ot Doseession of aropery (Syguiev, med Lopes, £4 Pail ‘1D in a suit agninat the Dircior of Public Work, who took aver without authority property belonging 10 ae plaintff and constructed thereon an irrigation eal (eseo v. Fernando, 60 0.G. 1656) and ina suit for he recovery of the value of property which had teen eon- Yarted into publi etreete witneat payment of just ecm ‘pensation, which can prospor even without previously Fling a claim with the Auditor General CAmigubie 2 Cuenca, $3 SCRA 360) ‘The doctrine of saversgn fssmunity cannot be ave esefullyivod to defeat a vad claim ‘or compen ‘ion srsing from the taking without jut eompensston snd withou the preper expropriation proosedings being urqeavsomanr0) m5 firs: resorced to of the plain’ property. Republic w Sandigandayen, 204 SORA 212, Ministerio v, Court of First Instance of Cou, 8b SORA $64; Sontiogov. Repub- 1,87 SCRA 296) ‘The doctrine of sovereign immunity Is not an ins (coment for perpetrating any injustice on ectizen, De a Santoov, Incermedia’s Appllate Court, 223 SCRA 1; Ai Tranaportotion Office v. Ramos, 644 SCRA 86; Crun Notes om the Constitution, Volume T, 2016 Edition, pages 140-141) ice Do government-owned or controlled corpora tions also enjoy the immunity of the State from sult? Explain your answer. (34) It is estblished tha, ifthe government ageney fncnrporaed the eat of ite susbey i found ins char= ter, The simple rule is thats issuable fits charter says co, and this i true reganelese of the functions i iz par freaing, Bermop e. Palppine Normal Colege, G3. No L070, May 16, 1966; Cros and Cras, Philippine Politi cal Lavi, 2014 Ration, pages 70-75) Ansonlingly, it can be ead that government-owned fr contrlled smporstions do not anjay izxaunisy Som Suit, provided their charters exprisely prescribe that they can sue nnd be sued, (Aroegn 2. Courtof Appzats, GR No. L-8160, May 15,1956) m1 State A and Stato B, two sovereign states, en- ter into a 10-year matual defense treaty. After five years, Stato A finds that the more progressive State B did not go to the ald of State A when it ‘was threatened hy its strong neighbor State C. State B reasoned that it had ta be prodent and liberate in reacting to State C because of thelr existing trade treaties, (a) May State A now unilaterally: with- draw from ite mutual defense treaty with Stato B? Explain your answer. (5°) Yes, State A may unilatoraly withdrav from ea ‘oat by reason of State B's lear breach f the sane “Tha would be in conscnance with the provisions of Actile 60 of tho Vienna Coavention on the Law of Trea ties, which proscrbe that « material breech ofa bilat- ral treaty by ane of the partioe entitse the other to Invoke the Breach as aground for terminating the tvaty or eusponding its operation in whole gr ta pact () What 1s the ditference between the principles of pacia sunt xeroanda and rebus Sie standibus in international law? (2.9%) Ariielo 28 ofthe Vienna Convention on the Law af “Troctcs provides for eoneep of poota sunt servondia ad declares That every treaty ia free Us binding upon the pprcios tn it and most be performed by then tn goad faith. Morvover, Atlee 19 ofthe Declaration of Rights and Duties of States adopted by the International Lave Commission in 1809 provides that every State has the Aint to carry out in good faith jit obligations axising fom treaties and other soueces of ntammational lw, and it may not invoke provisions io its constitution or ite laws as an excuse for fallre to perform this duty a yon, Zamora, GR, No, 198570, Octuber 10, 2000) Rebus se tontbee i eqnidered aa “tho equivalent ‘exception t9 the mixin porta sunt stvanda " Tae doe ‘wine “eonctitutes an attempe to formulate legal prin fiple which would justify non performance af = tealy Sbligeiion f the ennditions with veletion to which the [parton contracted have changed ao auaterialy snd 50 Unexpectedly a to erese a situation in which the exae tion of pesformance would be unreasonsbe.” essup, 160, cved in Crar and Cre, International Law, 2020 Hcition, pages 313-916) (©) Ave the principles of pacta sunt ser- anda and rebus sie stantibus relevant in the treaty relations between State A and State B? What about in the treaty relations between State Band State C? Explain your answer. 25%) ‘You, under the principio of pacto sunt servando, Dot States were clearly Loud to comply with their bligasions wader the subject treaty in good faith Te ie however submitted that State B may notin wks the doctrine of rue sic stontibue ee justification Tor ite nea-eompliance with ite abigntions ts oid Stats A slinply bgcause ofthe dhrwats of Stats C regarding tei exiting trade treaties 1 hears emphasis that asiong the limisatons on a ‘lid application of said doctrine of rebus ei atantibus is ‘hae the vital change in circumstances must have been 228 Reema Lae een eae La unforeseen or unforesable and should not have been ‘cused by the party invoking it Tt is submitted that thie clement is not present in this case, (Ariel 62, Vienna Gonvention on che Law of Treaties; Kelsen, 250-808 Fenwick, 354-858, Wilson and Tucker, 92 Brery, 248, sited in Crus and Cruz, Intemational Lew, 2000 Ed, Hon, pages 315) Asp Aner Ye, nar ts poe pet stb sean, bts St orale bund ie Cay wa a ie Seow ne emabjat Sat pal e Sua may ok the dete rus sie anti ft Seat i hs amsoaptance wk tpnioas od Seo ‘Geman of nese a What is the pardoning power of the President under Art. VILL, See. 19 of the Constitutions Is the exercise of the power absolute? (4%) Undes Ariile VIL, Section 19 of the Constitution, ‘scopt in cakes of impeachment, of as otherwise pt vided in this Constitution, the Prosident may: grant reprieve, commutations and pardons, and remit nee and forfeitures, afler conviction by final judgment. He shall also have the power to grant amnesty with Che concurrence of majerity of all the Mezibors othe Com. ares, Junge acc sns 1s can be considered as not absolute in the sence ‘hat is exerci is subj: ta the foregoing consticutional limitations, a8 well ws tothe Tistation ia Section 8 of Article IC ofthe Constitution, which provides that wo pardon, arnosty, pemie, oF suspension ef sontence Sor Violation of lection sw rules, ad regulations shall be granted by tho President without the favorable recom ‘mendation f the Comission It should be added choogh thst the axereice of the pardoning power is discretionary in the President, and ‘uy not be coatroled by legislature ar rovereed hy the courts, save only when it contravenes tbe recugaized limitations. (Cra and Cruz, Philippine Politial Lew, 2014 Ballon, page 443) The pandoning powcr of the resident cannot be limited by lgilative action. tis Vidal c. Coramission on Blections, GR No. 206886, Jontary 21, 2015) 8 Distinguish pardon from amnesty. (4%) The distinctions between sn amaesty and a pardon (1) Amnesty is vsvally addrwsed to crimes against the ovarsignty ofthe State, to poltiesl offenses, tbrgivensss wing deemed more expedient for the public wellare then presceution and pusishmenty pardon condones Fnfractons ofthe peace of the State 190 ume, faa Pomc emounon La (2) Ampbaty s nswally generalised essed! to classes or oven communities of por cons: pardon ie uauolly addrested to en sha vidual 42) Ia amnty, there mayo may not be Aistinct aste of acecplanee, ao that 1 other Yights are dependent upon it and ure asserted, ther is eflrmativo evidence of acceptance, pardon, there mst be distinct acts of aco (4 Pardon does not require the concur. roneo pf tho Copgraos: amnesty requires exch (@)_Paron in private ost ofthe Pres dont whieh must be pleaded and proved bo. ute the sorts do nat tle ja atic of {i amnessy Isa puble act of which the courts ake adil noes (®) Pardon looks forward and reiaces the offender from the consequences of the 0 fuse of which ho has been ooacted: while minesty Tooke backward and abolishes and [Us inio cbllvion the olfense itself st eo over looks nnd obliterates the olfease with which he fs eoargod chat she yecwon released by amnesty stands before tho law precisely as though be Thad eommitiod no offence. (Burdick x. Unit States, 285 US. 476; Cruz sad Cras, Philip pine Political Law, 2014 Edition, pages 64 $55) maqeaceco2s9 ¥ (a) What isthe right of tegation, and how is it undertaken betwoen states? Explain your answer. am) ‘The night of gation, whieh is considered as on a! the most effective ways of facilitating end promot {nterenurse among states, pertains to thai active right to ond diplomatic rapeesantativos and their passive Fight of rwsiving tem to enable them to deal more d fect and eos with eseh other in Use Improvement of their mutual interesta, (Cruz and Cruz, Internationsl Law, 2020 Belton, page 242) (@) Under this right, may a country like Mta- laysia insist that the Philippines establish a con- sulate in Sabeh to look after the welfare of the Filipino migrants in the area? Explain your an- swe: C9) Ne. ring purely gznaeasual, the maintenance of dip. lomatie relatiaas ia aot a demandable right on ho part tf either tho vending or the receiving state. (Cruz and (Cruz, International Taw, 2020 Faition, page 242) wl as ‘The President appoints the Viee President m= bis Administration's Housing Czar, a position that requires the appointee to sit in the Cabinet. Al- Ghough the appointment of the members of the 892 eam, Law Prac ims Lae Cabinet roguites confirmation by the Commission ‘on Appointment (CA), the Office of the President does not submit the appointment to the CA. May the Vice Prosident validly sit inthe Cabinet? 25m) ‘Yes, the Viee Prosident may validly sit i the Cabi not us the Presdnt's Housing Czar Under Section 8 of Artile VII ofthe Constitution, the Viee Prosident maybe appointed a8 Member ofthe Cabinet, Such appointment requires co corfinmation, B ‘The Exeoutive Department has accumulated ‘substantial savings from les appropriations. Need- ing P3,000,000.00 for the eonduet of a plebiscite or the ereation of a now city but has no funds appropriated soon by the Congress for the pur pose, the COMELEC requests tho President to transfer funds from the savings of the Executive Department in order to avoid a delay in the hold- ing of the plebiselte. May the President validly exorvise lis power under the 1987 Constitution to transfer funds from the savings of the Exceutive Department, tnd make a cross-border transfer of P3,000,000.00 to tho COMELEC by way of augmentation? Is your answer the same ifthe transfer is treated as ald to ‘the COMELEC? Explain your answer. (2) No, the Prosident may nos validly transfor funds ‘om the savings of the Executive Departmen in favor of tho COMELEC by way af augmentation. Neither ean pangaaon.019 ‘this be eousdered os lawl even if too treated ae ‘i to che COMELEC. Under Section 26 (5) of Arile VI of the Constie tion, the President, ané ths other offls mentioned thetvin, roay be alloed or authorized by In to transfer Som appropriations for thelr offees to augment any ‘teu in the general spproprntons law for thei respec: offices from savings In other stems of thelr respec ‘ive appropriations. It fs theroorn clear that sald savings from the a- propriations for his ofcs can be lnwfullytransferzed to fugment any itm fm the general appropriations lw but fly to aay effce within his office, or tho oxecuive ‘ranch, Therfors, the aransfer of ssid savings 7 Gquestad by the COMELEC te its faver, boing a cose: border transueioa, would be violasive of the eforecited feparation of powers. (Avoulla . Aquino 209287, July 1, 2014) vn Give the limitations on the power of the Con gress Wo enact the General Appropriations Act? Explain your answer. (6%) ‘The following are the limitations on the power of the Congress to chad the General Appropriations Act — 1, Nomzenoy shall bo pad out of tho Treasury en capt in pursuance of an appmpristion made by low (Coneitetion, Artici VI Section 29 [)) 2, No public money oF property shall be sppro- raed, applied, pald, oc employed, directly or ind Testly, for the wse, Benet, cr support of any sci, 04 FeunaL Law 0 Pim toeon Law church, denomination, scetaian institation, or system of rliton, or of any pret, prescher, minister, or wer raligions teacher, of danijsry as sue, axcopt whea such rivet, proscher!plsisseh or ciguitary ie esigned to the armed forens, oF to any penal inttation, r government ‘orphanage or leproeartsm, (bid, Section 20 (2) 3 1A appropriations bills shall originate exe sively in the House of Representatives (but the Sonate ‘nay propose or concur with smendmants) Ubi, Section 24), and must be Daced on a budget of expenditures and sources of financing, including reesipte from existing nd proposed eevenge teasure, submited to i by the President within thirty days from the opening of every lar sossion). Ud, Atile VI, Section 22) 4. Tho Congrass may not incrente the appropi. tions resommended by sho President for Use optration of ‘the Government as Spacifed in the budget. ‘The form, consant, and macmer of preparation of the budget shall be presaribed by lav. Ui, Article V, Section 25 [8}) 5, No provision ar enactment hall be embraced in the general appropriations bil leas it relates spe ically 19 some particular appropriation therein. Any such provision or enactment shal be liated fn le op raton ta the appropriation to which if relate, Ubi Artiste VI, Section 28 2) 8. Tho procedure in approving approprsetons for the Congress shall strictly follow the procedure for ap roving appropriations for other departments and agen ‘ee, Ubud, Atle VI, Section 25 (8) 1. No law shall be passed authorizing any trane- ‘ar of appropriations: however, the President, the Presi dent ofthe Senate, the Speakar of the House of Rope sentative, the Chie Justiee of Uke Supreme Court, sad ma@eacanoseD ‘tho heads of Conatitmsional Commissions may, by In, Ie suthorized to augment any iver im the goneral ap propristons law for thei respective ofes fom savings {in other items oftheir respeetive appropriations. bia ‘Artelo VI, Soedion 25 5) 8, Digeretionary funds appropriated for particu Inc officals shall be disbursed only fe public purposes ta be eupported by approprace vouchers und subject sch guidelines as may be prescribed by law. (bid, Article VI, Seeion 28 6h) 8, If, by the end of any fseal year, the Congress stall have flad to pass the goneral appropriations bill, for tke ensuing fecel year, the general appropriations law far the preceding fecal year shell be deemed 20 ‘enacted gd hall renain in forge and ofeet wil the [general appropriations bill is passed by the Congress. Ubi, Arise VT Section 25 (7) vu A bank acquired a large tract of land as the highest bidder in the foreolosure sale of the mort- eaged assets of ite borrower. Te appenrs that the and has been originally registered under the ‘Torrens system in 1922 pursuant to the provisions of the Philippine Bul of 1002, the organic act of ‘the Philippine Islands as a colony of the USA. Sec. 21 of the Philippine Bill of 1902 provided that “all valuable mineral depostts in public lands in the Philippine Islands, both surceyed and unsureeyed, ‘are hereby declared to be free aad open to explora Hon, occupation and purchase, and the land in which they are found to occupation and purchase, by citizens of the United Staten, or of said Ts 886 Pou, Laws Pumuctmseatons Lav lands." Soc. 27 ofthe law declared that a holder of {he mineral claim so located Was ended to all the minerals that ie within his claims ut he ould wot mine oxtalde the boundary lines of his The 1995 Constieution expressly probibitd the alienation of natural vesources except agree tural Iands, See, 2, Art, XII ofthe 1987 Comstitas tion contains a similar prohibition, and proclaims ‘hat all nds of the public domain, waters, mise erale, coal, petroleum, and other mineral ole sil forces of potential energy, fisheries, Toneste or timber, wildlife, orw and faana, another mates ral resoutoes are owned by the State. This provis sion enunciates the Regalian Doctrine May the Government, on the basis of the Re- sllan Doctrine enunciated in the onstveronal Provisions, deny the bank its right us owner tthe mineral resources underneath the nurluce of its Property as rcognized under the Philippine Bill of 10027 Explatn your answer. (53) No. The provisions of the Constitation should be given only prospective application unless’ the contrary ie leery intended. Wore the rule other ealy scguied or vested might be unduly vthdrawn even in the absence of an unmistakable ts tention to place them within the scope af the Canals Accordingly, tho mining elim under consideration no longer formed part of the publie demain whem the Provisions of Artie XII of the 1987 Constitution be wageaaawany ar came effictive, o° even upon the effvsvity of the 1085 Constitution, which provided for a similar imitstion Mining rights acquired under the Philippine Bil af 1902 and subsisting prior to the effectivity ofthe 1955 ‘and 1987 Constitutions should be considered as vested ‘ght that could nov be impairad aven by the Govern ‘nt. (Republi ». Coure of Appeats, Nos. L-48888, L- 408i, 1-44092, Apr 15, 1988, 160 SCRA 20, cited in Vinlu Bicol Mining Corporation 2. Trane-Asia Oil ond Energy Development Corporation, GiB. No. 207043, Sannaxry 12, 2015) 1% a Ambassador Robert of State Alpha committed 4 very serious crime while he headed his foreign mission in the Philippines, Is he subject to arrest by Philippine authorities? Explain your answer, oe Tis submitted that he may not be subjett ta arest Cor is “tory certo crime.” ‘This would be consistent with Article 91 of tae Dip- lomatie Convention, whieh provides that °a aipunzatic ‘agent shall exjy ieumusity rom tw eral arise tion ofthe routing sate,” Its generally acopted principle of international Jaw that the diplomatic agent shall be immune fun ‘such jurisdiction of the reeciving statn. This doss tot ‘oan that be ean violate the local Ive with mua, fon the contrary, hese expecied to observe them metic lourly as bette person of his rank and prestige, I he dose not, he may not be punised for his offense hy the ceiving state, but st can and usualy will atk fr bie ‘call. (Cruz and Cruz, International Lat, 2020 Editon, pages 251.252) Extradition is the process pursuant to a troaty between two State parties for the surren- der by the requested State to the eustody of the requesting State of a fugitive criminal residing in the formes. However, extradition depends on the application of two principles ~ the principle of specialty and the duat eriminality principle. Ex- plain these principles, (4%) Under the principle of spscialiy, a fugitive who is estrada maybe Cried cn fur the exime specified In the request for extradition and included in the it of flees in the extradition treaty. (US: 0, Reacher, 119 US 407, ated in Crar and Crus, International Law, 2020 Blition, page 568) Under this rule in intaraational Jaws, @ Requested State shall surrender wo a Requesting Stale porson to be tied only for a criminal offense specified In their teaty of extradition, (Goserninent of Hlonghora Special dranistrative Region ». Manos, GR. No. 207342, November 7, 2017) On the other band, the dual criminality principle ‘oqulres thatthe aet fe whieh the excadition fs sought ‘ust be patishable in boch the requesting and the s3- ‘quested state. (Cre and Cro, International Law, 2020 Halton, page 870, Government of Honstong, Special Admiiatratise Region 0, Muss, G.R. No, 20732, No- ‘rember 72017) magaaicene ° ‘The President signs an agreement with hix counterpart in another country involving reeip- rocity in the treatment of each country's nationals residing in the other's territory. However, he does hot submit the agreement to the Senate for con- Sec. 21, Art, VII of the Constitution provides that no treaty oF international agreement shall be ‘alld and effective without such concurrence, Is the agreement signed by the President of: fective despite the lack of Senate concurrence? Explain your answer. (499 Yes, esid agreement can be considered as an exec tive sgrosment, Wwaiea would therefore not require the foncurronce of the Senate for te validity or Mec (Bayon Muna v- Romulo, GAR. No. 158615, 1 Febrwary 2011, G41 SCRA 258-259; Saguisog u. Roncutve Soret, OR, No, 212426, Janzary 12, 2018) x as Under the enrolled bill doctrine, the signing ‘of a bill by both the Speaker of the House of Rep Tresentatives and the President of the Senate and the certification by the secretaries of both Houses ‘of Congress that the bill was pasted on a certain ate are couslusive on the bill due enactment. ‘Assuming there is a conflict hetweon the enrolled Dill and the logislative journal, to the effect that the enrolled bill signed by the Senate President ‘and eventually approved by the President turned out to be different from what the Senate actually passed as reflected in the legislative journal, (a) May the Senate President disregard the enrolled bill doctrine and consider, his signature us invalid and of no effeet? (2.5%) Ne, Under the Barlled Bl Theory, the contents of a cnvoll bill shall prevail aver those of the journel In case of enfict. Tas Is justified under the prineple of separation of powers abanag v. Lanes Vito, Gt, No 11122, March 5, 1947, 78 Pl. 1; Astorga o: Villegas, GR. No. L-22475, April 30, 1974, 56 SCRA 714) An on rolled bil fs conclusive nos only ofite provisions but also of ts due enactment. (Tblentina v. Secretary of Finance, GK. No, 115456, Ovicher 30, 1995, 226 SORA. 60; Abcknda Guro Party List », Ermita’ GR. No. 168056 September 1, 2005) 1 beses emphsats that the aubce bill had alceady boen “approved” hy the President. Said approval has transfused tho sere iso a law which therefore exanct bbe changed (or amended ar repealed) with or by the ‘ere withdrawal of the signature by the Senate Pras ont. To change it would require an amendment (or rupeal) of said law. (Casco Chemient Cu. u. Ginienee, GRNo, 117981, Fobruary 28, 1963, 7SCRA 374) (@) May tho President thereafter with draw is signature? Explain your anewer, Gs) Bus@ea coon sn Under Seetion 27 (1) of Article VI of the Cans tion, every bill paased by the Coagrots shal, when 29 proved and signed bythe President ups presentment af the same to his, be constdared ai, by reacen af sald approval and signing, having becom sla, subject only tothe mguinersent of publication fr ite eect. Accordingly, she President may not thereafter aul: lity che sume by mere withdrawal of his signature. To allow him to do thls wold be violative of the principe of separation of powers As earlier stated, to change it would require aa amendment (r repel) of suid lave. (Cosco Chemieal Co 1 Gimenez, GR No, 117951, February 25, 1963, 7 SORA 374) 2. See, 2612), Art. VI of the Constitution provides ‘at no ‘bill passed by either House of Congress shall become a law unless It has passed three ‘readings on separate days and printed copies of it in its final form have been distributed ¢o the Members of the House three days before its pas sage. Is there an exception to the provision? Ex: plain your answer (0), You ‘The exception is found in Section 26 (2) of Article VI of the Constitution, which presenbes that saié re- auiroments may be dispensed with wien the President certifies tothe necessity of ite immediate enactmont to oct © publie calamity or esuergency. (ulenino t. See | 42 Poms, LawasPeatiohansance Lat retary of Finance, GR. No. 125455, Ostober $0, 1995, 285 SCRA 630) xu Sec. 17, Art. VI of the Constitution establishes an Electoral Tribunal for each of the Houses of Congress, and mals each Electoral Tribunal “the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, yeturns, and qualifications of their respective Members.” On the other hand, See. 2(1, C (Com: ‘mission on Elections), Art. IX of the Constitution rants to the COMELEC the power to enforce and ‘administer all Jaws and regulations “relative to the conduet of an election, plebiselte, initiative, referendum, and recall.” Considering that there is no concurrence of jurisdiction between the Electoral Tribunals and the COMELEC, stave when the jurisdietion of che Electoral Teibunals beyins, and the COMELEC's Jurisdietion ends. Explain your answer. (4%) Tes essablishod that, ence a winning candidate hae teen prtclaimed, taken hie proper oath, and sacumed office te Membr ofthe House of Reproweriatves or of the Senete, the juradilion ofthe House of Representa Luvor Bloetpral Tribunal and of the Senate Electors) ‘Tebunal begins over election contests relating to his slecson, rotuons, snd. qualifeations. Conseoonly, Would ty st this point that the jurisdiction of the COMBLEC to enfors and sdminietr all awe and reg Intions “lative to toe conduct of nn election” anda inketchong v. COMBLEC, GR. Noe, 17888332, Apel es maga acoso an 207264, June 28, 2013; Ligov. Commission om Bletions, G.K.No, 205608, September 28, 20 xu The Congress establishes by law Philippine Funds, Ine, private corporation, fo recelve for: eign donations coming from abroad duriog’ tonal and local calamities and disasters, and t0 Cnable the unhampered and spoody disburse. ‘ments of the donations tsough the mere action of ts Hoard of Directors. Thereby, delays in the re Tease of the donated funds occasioned by the stringent rules of procurement would be avoided. Alsiy tho relegces would not come under the ju Tiodiction of the Comminsion on Audit (COA). (a) Is the Law establishing Philippine unds, Ine. constitutional? Explain your an- swe, (8) 1 eubmitz thn anid lave i uneonsteutionsl. Said low ccvating the subject private corporation ‘would te violative of the provisions of Sestion 16 of Art: Ge XIl of the Constzition, which preseribus thatthe ‘Congress shall not, exept by genoral law, provide for tn formation, organization, oF regulation of private toepeeations,(ciban e, Gordon, GR No. 17562, Janne sy 18, 2011, Jly 15, 2009) ‘The purposes for the ereation of this private corpo- ration bythe Congress, £2, 2 receive and admininter foreign donations coming fom abreod during national ‘an loel eslamitige and disasters, cannot bs invoked for $44 Pema. LaramPrauctewrsnal Lat Purposes of allowing this breach of this consttatinal rabibiion, (b) Can the Congress pass the law that would exempt the foreign grants from the jac risdietion of the COA? Explain your answer. a ‘This would be violative ofthe provisions of Section 4 of Articla IX-D of the Constitition, which preseribos ‘thet no law shall be passed exempting aay entity of the Government oF its subsidiary in any guise whatever, or lng investment o?publie funds, trom the juriedetion of the Commission on Audi, xu Command responsibility pertains ta the res pponsibility of commanders for erimes committed by subordinate members of the armed forees or other persons subject to their control in interna tional wars or domestic conflicts, The doctrine ‘has now found application in ell actions for hu: ‘man rights abuses, and ln proceedings seeking the privilege of the writ af amiparo. (a) What are the clements to be estab lished in order to hold the superior or com. fianider Hable under the doctrine of command responsibility? (4%) ‘The requisites of the doctrine of command respon: sibility are “a. the existence of a auperor subordinate relationship between the sccused as superior gad the aqaacomans Ms perpetrator of the erie as his subordinate be supe For knew or had reagan to know That the erime vos fbou: ta be or had heen eommittad; and e. the superior failed to tako the necessary and reasonatle measures (0 prevent, the criminal aets or punish the perptratare therwof" (Rodrigues u. Masopagal.Aroyo, GR. No, 191805, November 15, 2011; so also in the Matter ofthe Petition for the Writ of Ampare and the Writ of Habeas Data in Fovor of Francis Saez», Macapagal-Arroyo, GR No, 185533, September 25, 2012, 681 SCRA 878, citing Gowales v, Abaya, Gt. No, 164007, August 1, 2006, 498 SCRA 145) (8) May the doctrine ofeommand re ponsibility apply to the President for the fahuses of the armed forces (AFP and PNP) Siven hit unique role as the commander: chief of all the urmed torees? Explain your answer. 459) Pursuent to the doctrine of command responsiil- Sty, the President, n= the Commanderin-Chiat af the ARP, can bo Bed licble for affont ngninst the peti=. tiomers rights to life, Nberty and security as Tong 95 substantial evidence axiot to show shat Be or she hed txhibited involvement in oc ean be imputed with know ‘edge ofthe violations, or Aad failed to exereige neces ‘and reasonable diligence in conducting the neosseary Investigations roquited ‘under the rales. Presidential ‘mount from salt exists only in eoneureenes with the residents ineumbeney. (Rodrigues v. Mecapage! Arro 10, GR. No. 91805, November 15, 2011, iting Estrada Deslrto, Gut Nos L48710-15, 148798, March 2, 2001, S53ScRA 452) 16 FeumcaL Law vo Pave ean a The President, as Coramander-in-Chisf am be held responsible or aeoatable for extrajudicial lings and fforoed disappearances in the context of anjnre pr seedings on tho basis af the doctrine of command re ‘ponsibiliey. The President, being the carmanderi- chief of ail ie armed fores, ist be considered aa nec. sesuily possessing control over the military that qual fies him as a superir within the gurdew of the Goe- trina, Moreover, be can be presumed to have knowledge of the commission of Ivegulaities, crimes or offenses Pertinent to seid extrqjaicial lings and. enfireed Aisappenrannes, “Meanwhile, as ta the ve of lure to rove or punish, ts important to nota Unt a the cam manderénchief ofthe arma froos tha proaidet has ne Donec to efectvely eomand, contra nd iscipline the miliary” (Rodriguez. Mocapegal-Arroyo, GR. No. 381805, November 15,201}; se aso Js the Matfer ofthe Petition for Ue Wee of Amparo and the Writ of Habeas Data in Favor of Francis Saez us Mecapagel-Arreye, G.R. No, 188558, September 25, 2012, 681 SCRA 678, siting Goneale 2, Abava, CR. No. 16007, August 10 32008, 458 SCRA 465) 1a amparo proceedings, “commanders ray these fore be impleaded—no+ actually on the baste Gf com. mand zespenstiity—bat rather on she ground of thet esponsibility, or af least secountability.” (Balao Macapagal-Arroyo, GR. No. 186080, December 13 2011, 662 SCRA S12 xiv To fulfil a campaign promise to the poor folk. im a farclung area in Mindanao, the President requested his frlend, Pastor Roy, to devote his ministry to them. The President would pay Pastor argu acnonani0) wr Roy a monthly stipend of P50,000.00 from his ais- ceretionary fund, and would also erect a modest house of worship in the locality in an area of the Ttter's ehatee, Does the President thereby violate any provl- sions of the Constitution? Explain your answer. (oe) Tee aubmitted that this act ofthe President would ‘be vilative of Section 29 (2) ofthe Constitution, which provides that no public money or propersy shall be ap Drooristed, aplied, pai, or employed, vot cr indi Feet, fbr the usc, bereft, of support of any sect ccqureh, denomination, sectarian institution, or system fof eligioa, or of any priest, poche, mininter, oF other Trlisious teacher, or dignitary ce sueh,execp= when swch Drlet, preacher, nistr, or dignitaryis assigned tothe tnrmed forces, or to any penal institution, or goverament ‘orpaanege or lepresariu. sv Ms According to See. 8, Art. VII of the Constitue tion, the Judiciary shall enjoy fiseal autonomy. What doos the term fiscal autonomy signify? Ex- plain your answer. (3%) Fiscal auronomy contemplates @ guarantee on fall exiblity to alloate an tiling their eaoarcea withthe ‘wisdom and dispaten shat thse needs requir. Ie 3oe08 izes the pover and authority to levy, assess and ellct fs, fic rates of compensation not exeooding the best rates auioriaed by law Zi eompeneation sod pay plans 848 Pout, Lave mc rapa La ot the government and allocate and disburse cach ous fs may bo provided by law or prescribed by them in the cures of te discharge of thelr functions Fiscal autonomy means freedotn frum outside com te 1 vests in those oxprestly conferred with this pre ‘ogative the independance and Genii needed in the ischarge oftheir constitational duties, The Impocition of restrictions and constraints on the manner the inde: pendent eoustiztional offices locate and wile the unas epproprsted for thele operations is anathema to fiscal autonomy end violative not only of tae expross ‘mandate of the Constitution but, especially a regards the Supreme Court, of the independence and separation of powers upon which the entire fabric of our constitu. tional aysiem ie based. (Bengson w. Drilon, GR. No 108524, April 1, 1992, 208 SCRA 148) B ‘May a complaint for disbarment against the Ombudsman prosper during her ineumbency? Explain your answer. (9%) No. ‘Tha role is established that an iapeachble oftcor ‘who isa member ofthe Bar aanot be disherted without Sst being Impoaehed. (Mareleta s. Borra, A.C. No, 1776, Mareh 80, 2009; Jargua v. Ombudemon, AC. No 409, December 5, 1965, 260 SCRA ai Its Real Mf, Goncales, A.M. No, 884-8433, April 15,1988, 160 SCRA ‘THY; Cueneo v, Ferman; AC, No. 8135, Rebraary 17, 2985, 158 SCRA 29) To grant such a complaint for disbarment would in cffoct be to eiecusvert and ence to run afoul of the unatitutional mandato that imposchablo ofeos, such fs the Ombudemen, who are ansitutionslly required to be lawyers, may be removed fro office only by im peachinant for and conviction of eerlain offenses Fisted fm Aeticlo XI (2) ofthe Constitution. (Cuan 2 Femans AG. No. 8185, February 17, 1988, 158 SCRA 29) c See. 8, Art. XI of the Constitution states that “Inlo impeachment proceedings shall be initiated ‘against the samo official more than once within a period of one year.” What constitutes initiation of impeachment roccedings under the provision? (3%) “nation of inpachment proses takes place by he at of ng of Ue nipeachment empl a terral to the House of Commitee on Justin.” (Fran Slot. Hue of Prpresnttns, @R. No. 160201, Nox ember 10 200 Gueresv The House of presen Hoes, G.I No 169489, February 15,2012) Cae ere 2018 1 Congress enseted law to provide Filipinos, specially the poor sil the marginale, access 4 information toa fall rao of moder family planning methods, including contraceptives ts {rautorine deviees, njctblen, nonavortfackent Kormonal contraceptives, and family, plana products and supplier, bit expressly prosbited hortion To ensure it objectives the law made ‘mandatory for health providers to provide infor: ‘ation oa the fall range of moder funy plan “ing metheds, suppl and services for schol te provide reproductive healdy education, for on/governmental medical practioner to en ‘ier mandatory 48 hours pro bono reproductive heath wero as condi to Phila éreditation, and for couples desiring to mary to tend a family planning seminar prior tothe tn Suance ofa marviage licence It also punishes cor tain aets of refs to carryout ie tandates The Spouses Aguilus, both Homan Catholics ftod a Petition 10 declare the law a» cneonsttational based on, among others, the following grounds G) It violates the right to life, since it practically sanetiony abortion, Despite ex: ‘press terms prohibiting abortion, petitioners claim that the family planning products and supplies oppose the initiation of life, whlel ts ‘fundamental human right, and the ganction of contraceptive use contravenes nathral law and is an affront to the dignity of man, nga Acos.2n19 (b) Ie violates the constitutional probitbi- tion against involuntary servitude because it requires medical practitioners to render 48 shows of pro bono reproductive healt ser viees which may be against thelr will. (6) It violates the Frecdom of Religion, since petitioners’ religious beliefe prevent ‘thom from using contraceptives, and that any State-sponsored procurement of contracep- tives, fanded by taxes, violates the gunrantee ‘of religious freedom. Rule on each of the above objections, (2.5% each) ()_‘The framers ofthe Constitution did not ftene ta ban all contraceptives. Only contraceptives and de vices that Kil or destroy he fertilized ovum should be oemed as an abortive and thus prohibited, aiace life ‘tars Som conception oF upon fertilization. Conversa, contracepeives and devices that actualy provent the ton ofthe eperm and the ovum, and thove that ein Tanly take plate prior to larization abould be deere ‘on-cborti¥e and enstiutionaly permissible. (b) Tho notion of involuntary servitude connotes the presence of force, threats, intimation, or ather raeans of exertion and comlsin. Tze aseilec prov sion aaly encuurages private reproductive healticare serve providers to render pro bono services. Other than nonvacereditation with Philheal2h, no penalty is imptced. Tosa health servioe providers also enjoy the Hbaxy 19 choose which kind of henth tories they Wish to provide. Cleary, there is no compulsion, force or feat apon thom to render the pro bane services sngnint tha’ wl 92 FoueAL Law Protea La ()_ What ig prabihivd in the Constitution is the ‘stablihment of 4 até religion. While the establish ment clase in the Constitution restricts what the gor Cemment san do with region, it leo insta het rl ‘Bus sets can or cannot do with the goverment. They fan neither eauco thb government to adopt thelr par Beular doctrine as policy for everyone, nor ean they ‘age the government o retres eer groupe, Toda 20 ‘woul eaone the Sate to adhere co partiulareeligion, and thus establish a state religion. Umber v. Ochoa, GER. No 204819, Apel 8, 2014), Agnes was allogedly pieked up by a group of military men headed by Gen. Altamirano, and Was brought to several military camps where she was nterrogated, beaten, mauled, tortured, and threatened wich death if she would not confess hor membership in the New Poople's Army (NPA) ‘and point to the location of NPA camps. She suf fered for several day until she was released aftor she signed a document saying that she was a Ssurenderee, and was not abducted or harmed by the military. After she was released, and alloging that her rights to life, Uberty and security had been violated and continued to be threatened by violation of such rights, she fled with the Su- ppreme Court Ithe Court) « Petition for tho 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 abdsetion, beating, mauling and life ee anqaconnanin oy threats were committed), General Altamirano, and several military men whom Agnes was able 10 recognize during her ordeal. The Court, after ‘nding the petition to be im order, issued the writ of amparo and the writ ofhebeas data and div rected the respondents to file a verified return on. the writs, and directed the Court of Appeals (CA) to hear the petition. The respondents duly fled their return on the writs and produced the doc- ‘ments in thelr possession, After hearing, the CA. Fuled that therw wis no more meed to issue the temporary protection orders since the writ ‘of ainparo had already becn issued, and dismissed the petition ayainst President Amoyo on the firound that he was immune from suit during his Ineumbency as President. Agaes appealed the CA. ruling to the Court. The appeal was lodged after President Amoyo's term had ended. (a) Was the CA correct bn saying that the “writ of amparo rendered uanceessary the is Tanee of the temporary protection onder? co) Yee ‘The wrlt of amparo ie an extewondinary aod inde sendent remody that provides rapid judicial relief 1 pertakes of a summary proweding and requires only ubstantial evidence ta maxe the aporopriate interim fand permanent reliefs to the petitioner, I serves beth provenuve end curative reliefs in adéreasing extrajudl Gal abduction and sorture. Temporary protection orders fire merely intended to assist the Court before it can frvive at judicious devermination of the arparo pti Gon A temporary protection orcer, boing an interim 864 Ruma, wa rave bey Lan elif, can only be granted Define final adjudication on the emparo caze is mada, The privilege of the writ of srypare, ace granted, already entails the protection of the agercved party. Thus, anes the writ ofamparo was heady granted and issued, thaw fa 0 mare need ue 9 temporary protzcion onder. (Yano 0. Sanches, GR. No. 186640, Februury11, 2010; Rodrigues v. Meco: agal-Arroyo, GK. Non. 191805 & 198160, Novernber 45,2013), () Will the President's immunity from suit continue even after his term has ended, considering that the events covered by the Petition took place during his term? (2.6%) No, The presidents) immunity Gem euit existe ‘only in soncurtonce with the President's ineumbeney” bnon-siting President cngt claim immunity even ifthe sets complained af ware cenit whl be we al = Sitticg President. The reacon Zr tha fe Sot i tha im- "munity in not granted while ix in ofc, he might be ponding all hs tima in attending ta itgations. Aer hig torm, ho cam already atiend to them (Perada v Desierto, GB. Nos. HAST1G-15, 46785, April 3, 2003; Rerdigaoe ix Macopagel-Arrays, GR. Nos. 191808 & 1198160, Nevembor 15,2011 a What and whose vote is required for the fol lowing acts: (2% each) (2) the repeal ofa tax exemption law A mujorty ef all the members of Congress (Artsle M1, Section 28,4) haga ican) ()_ declaration of the existence of a state of war; ‘Tworthitds of ail essere af Congres, voting sep ratoly (Artis VI, Seetion 23,1) (6) the amendment of a constitutional provision through a constituent assembly; ‘the approval of the constitutional amendment can be efeeted with a majority ofthe volun cant in a. plebi- cite, caricle XVII, Section 1, 1) The approval af the proposal to amend would be valid upon a vote of terse fourine of all the Members of the Congress. (Article XVII, Section 4) (2) the resolution of a tie in a presiden- tHal election: and |A majority ofall the members of both Houses of Congress, voting eaparctly.CArtile Vl, Socton 4) () the extension of the period for the suspension of the privileye of the writ of ha ‘boas corpus? ‘Tho Congress, vating Joie, by a voto of atleast a smsjortyof all its Merabers in zegular or epecis eesion (tele VIL, Seetion 18) 986 PRUmeAs Lava Peace Lae w ‘The Provinee of Amaya is one of the smallest provinces in the Philippines with only one legisl- tive disiviet composed of four municipalities: Uno, Dos, Tree, and Cuatro, ‘Andres, a resident and registered voter of Cuatro municipality, ran and was elected ax member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan (SP) of Amaya in the 2010 and 2013 local elections. While Andres was serving his second term ux SP member, a law was enacted reapportioning the four towns of Amaya into two legislative dis- {iets Uno and Dos comprising the Flrst District 1 Tres and Cuatro comprising the Second Dis- telet In the 2016 local elections, Andres ran and was elected as member of the SP of Amaya repre- senting the Second District. Andres seeks your logal advice regarding his Intention to man as @ member of the SP of Amaya for the Second District in the next local elections {n 2019, What will you advise Andros? 2.5%) es not eligible, This involv = question of the pplication of the theve-trm Limit rule upon Toes slo tive ffcals in renamed andlor reapportioned districts {A provincial board tember easmot be elected and serve Sur ore than three consecutive terms. The ele intent ofthe framers of the Constitution was to limit the torm to thies consseaive slecions io tha sta position. (Ne tol a COMBLEC, 2. No, 207851, uly 8, 2014), 9.94 Acs002019 State whother or not the following acts axe constitutional (27 each) G@ A law prescribing as qualifiestions for appoiatment to any court lower than the Supreme Court, Philippine citizenship, whether natural-born oF naturalized, 95 years Of age on the date of appointment, and at Teast eight years as a membur of tho Philip: pine Bar; The law prscribing as @ qualification for appoint rent to any lower court mere Philippine citizenship, ‘whether natursl-bam or naturalizeé, would be uncon ational with rwepect Co appointments to collegiate Ghurts (CA, CTA, Sendigenbayas) because all sppoint: es to these cour must be natsralbora eiizens. (Coa ‘Station, Avile VEIL, Section 7) (6) Alaw requiring all candidates for nas ional oF local elective offices to be college legree holders: The low reqicing all candidates for national or 0: cal eletve offices fo be college degree holders shouldbe fnnsidered aa wneonetittonsl with respset to national ‘lective afices because it is not one of the qualifiestions cally required fr these alles. The qualieations for these positims under the Constizution are exclusive in character and the Congress would be incompeter to Droscrbe thie requirement as an adisionsl qualification for candidates for cational sleeve office. This addi- ‘Honol regulrement would, however, be valid with re- spec to candidates for loa elective posts, (Socal Jus tice Society «, Dangerous Drugs Board, 510 SCRA $10) (o), The designation hy the President of aan acting Associate Commissioner of the Civil Sovvieo Commission; Such designation ic uneonstitutional because the CConssvation provides that uo person shall be appointed cr designated in any ofthe constitutional commissions {temporary or aeting capacity. (Articles DEB, Sec sion 12), IX-C, Section 12} and IND, Section 12) (a) "The appointment by the President as Deputy Ombudsman ofa lawyer who has been ‘engaged in the practice of law for five years; ppointmont eon be upheld because only the an i Feqarod under the Constitution to have Sareea paar mar eet (@) The nomination by a national party list of « person who is not one of its bona fide members “The nomination is invalid boouuse nominoes of 3a tional patties must be bona fide members of sach par ties CAtone Paclaam v. Commission on Elections, 604 SCRA AT? ul Ang Araw, « multi-sectoral pasty-list organi. zation duly registered az such with the Commis: waa zomn9) 0 sion on Elections (Comeleo), was proclaimed as fone of the winning party-lise groups in the last national elections. Tle first nomince, Alejandro, ‘assumed office as the party-list representative About one year after Alejandro assumed of- fice, the Interim Central Committee of Ang Araw expelled Alejandee fron the party for disloyalty find replaced him with Andoy, its second nominee. Alejancico questioned before the Comelee his ex pillsion and replacement by Andoy. ‘The Comelee considered Alejandro's petition ‘ov an Intea-party dispute which it eould resolve as fan incident of ts power to register political par ties: it proveeded to uphold the expulsion. Isthe Comelee's ruling correct? (65) No, the Commission on Elections is not corres. It should Sismiss Alejandrols petition for lak of juristie: The petition questioning Alejandro’ expulsion and the sussssin ofthe second nominee as part List epee tative isa diequaliieation eazo because (relates to the question of unseating Alejandro, who is already a ‘Member ofthe Hozse af Representatives, Section 17, Artila VI of the 1987 Constitution en- ‘dows the HRET wich jurisdietion to nacolve questions on the qualification of memisers of Congres. Ta the case of pattyist roprescatatives, the HET scguires jurisdic. tion over « disqualification ease upon procaniation of the winning partyliet group, oath of the nomines, and fssomption of office a8 member ofthe House of Reore- entatvos Ip this euse, the COMELRC prociaied Ang ‘Aen os a winning partylist group, Alejandro took his bath and he nssummed ofc inthe House of Representa tives, Thus, itis the HRET, and not the COMELEC, tharos jurislietian over this disqualifetion esse. (Sse ico vs. Commission on Elections, GR. No, 205805, Sep twcnber 28,2015) vu ‘Tho 2016 mayoralty race in the City of Ards- nia included Arnaldo and Anacleto as contenders Arnaldo fled « petition with the Comelee to cancel Anacleto’s Certificate of Candidacy (CoC) for misrepresenting himself as a Filipino eitizen. Arnaldo presented as evidence a copy of Ana leto's Spanish passport and a certification from the Bureau of fmmigeation (B) showing that Ana- cleto used the same passport several times to travel to and from Manila and Madrid or Barce- Iona. In his Comment, Anacleta claimed that, # year prior to filing Inia CoC, he hac complied with all the requirements of R.A. No. 9235 (Citizeiship Retention and Re-nequisition Act of 2008) to reae- ineeessty since he had yet to abtaln his Philippine passport despite veacquiring his Philippine citi zenship. Even after he secured his Philippine passport, he sald he bad to walt for the issuance ff a Schengen visa to allow him to travel to Spain to visit his wife and minor ehiléven, (a) Based on tho allogations of the par ties, is there sufficient ground to cancel Ana cleto's Col? 5%) ‘The sole at of using a foreign passport doesnot di vest Anstleto of his Pilipino ctizship waich he 2 (Guired by repatriation. Homoven, ty representing hime Scltas a Spanish eitten, Anaclet volontarly and elie tively reverted to bis earlier status se a Cua! citizen. Such reversion wee not retavactive: it sook placo the ingat Aneleta repsesented himself aa a Spanish eit zen ty using hie Spanish passport. He is thos diaqual fed fa beleg a dual siizen, and hie CoC should be cane tallad, GManquiling © Comelee, GR. No, 196849, April 16,2013) (@) In case Anacleto’s CoC is properly ‘cancelled, who should serve as mayor of Ar- dania City: Arnaldo, who obtained the second highest number voles, or Andrea, the duly- lected Vice Mayor of the City? (2.5%) ‘the rele on succession would not apply if the per- manent vacaney was caused by one whose certificate of candidacy wee veld ab initio. Spec'eally with respest to {dual citiaens, their eartsficates of randilacy are vaid a mato becanse they pososs "a substantive (Bequsiiying Geumstanea) .. lecating) prior to the dling of their cartiiate of candidacy." Legally, they should not even Ti sousidened candidates. ‘The votes east for them ‘should be considered steoy and ehould nat be ound, In cases of vacancies eaucad by those ith vod ab ‘nti coreifiaine of tardy, the person lagally enti fled tothe vacant postion would be the eané:date who ttarooted the ext ighest camber of votes among those 2 PHUMEAL Law am Rm ear La igi; in tls eas, (4 was Arnaldo. (Chaz » Comele, GR No, 216607, Apr! 5, 2016) vit ‘Two petitions for the cancellation of Corti cate of Candidacy (CoOyDenial of Due Cours were filed with the Comelee against two candi ates running as municipal mayors of different towns. ‘The first petition was against Anselmo. Yours ago, Ansclmo was changed and eonvieted of the ferime of rape by final judgment, and was sen- tenced to suffer the principal penalty of ecluslon perpetua which ewrtied the accessory penalty of orpetual absolute disqualification. While: Axel- mo was in prison, the President commuted his sentence and he was discharged from prison. The second petition was against Ambrosio. Ambrosio's residency was questioned because he was allegedly a "groon card holder,” Le, a perma: nent resident of the US, as evidenced by a certifi Cation to this effect from the US Embassy. Acting on the recommendations of its Law Department, the Comelecen bane mote proprio issued two resolutions granting the petitions against Anselmo and Ambrosi, Both Anselmo and Ambrosio filed separate petitions with the Supreme Court assailing the resolutions cancelling thelr respective CoC. Both ‘laimed that the Comelee en bane acted with rave abuse of diseretion amounting to lack or ‘excess of jurisdiction because the petitions should haave first beom hoard and reselved by one of the (Comclec's Divisions, ‘Are Anselmo and Ambrosto correct? (55) Anselm ia incorrct ‘Whilst may be troe that Sestion 3, Article BEC of the 1987 ‘Pllippine Constitution requires ensos Sled with the Commission on Elections to fist “beara and ‘ecided in division,” and tha: only motions for zocosi ‘tation of seid decisions shall be decided by the Com- ‘misioa ex Bane, ea constitutional provision, requiring f motion ‘or revonsideration before the COMME tone may take action, is confined only to cas the COMELEC sxarciaes ft quasijadicin) power. I finds no application in matters concerning the COME- LEC sxercis of administrative functions, While the denial of due ovr to andl tion of one's CoC generally necessities the COMELECe quasi judicial fonsions cummenced rough a petition base on either Sections 1220 ar 7321 bf the Omnibus Election Cods (OC), or Section 4022 of the LGC, when the ground therefor nee rendered con- ‘lusive on senust of final and exceutory judgments ~ a8 ‘oen a candidate's disqualification to ran far public tifiee ix Heed on a Sal conviction — such exarciso fall within the COMELEC's seministrative functions, aa {a this ease. The Comeloe marly performod its duty to tnforoe sad atiminister election lars in esnecing pet Honees CoC on the basis of ie perpotual ebecluto es ‘qualifestion, the fut of which hed already been estab lished by. bis final conviction, In tis regard, the COMBLEC sn banc was exercising ile administrative finetions, dispensing with she need for a motion for reconsideration of @ division ruling under Section 8, 04 Pounok. Law a Pua beam La Axticle 1%-C of the Constitution, the same being ro sguired only in quasijadilal proceeding (lalosee to Goramissin. on Blections, OR, No. 208088, June 13, 2013) COMLLEC, inthe exercise ofits adjudicatory or quasi lat weer ehaeaey ar teoiver 23, 2008) eat a In 1090, Agripina migrated to Canada and ac- uired Canadian citizenship. Tn 2008, Agripina retired and returned to the Philippines o permanently reside in her home. town of Angeles, Pampanga. A month after return, ing to the Philippines, Agripina took her oath of allegiance and executed a sworn renunciation of her Canadian ctzenchip in accordanes No. 9225. e i, In 2009, Axripina filed her certificate of can- didacy for Congress for the 2010 elections. Agri ina’s political rivals lost no filing of various actions to dacs; They questioned hor ‘member of Congress. Sinee Agripina had to take fan oath under RA. No, 9225, it meant that she needed to perform an act to perfect her Philip: Pine citizenship. Hence, they claimed thet Agripina could nat be considered @ natural-born eltiven. Agripina raised the defense that, having complied with the requirements of RA, No. 225, he hid reac: fquived, and seas doomed never to have lost, her Philippine citizenship. 1s Agripina disqualified to run for Congress for failing to moet the citizenship requirement? esa Agripina is wipe ts run ax member of Congress Ropatrasion results in the reovary ofa person’ orig fal nationity: ‘This means that a naturalized Piping ‘eho lost his eiizanship will be restored to hie ator ae a Filipino citizen, [fake were oxiginally = hatival‘bor citfsn before abe last har Philippine ei ‘nip she would be restared to her firmer asus 5s 2 natral-bora Filipino, (Bangeon IT va HRET. <09 Pil 133; xen also Purrono ox, Commission on Act, 31 Pil 1888, and Tehana vx. Chmraiaion on Elections, GR. Nos 221097 & 221638-700, Mare 8, 2016)) FRA 9025 makes a distinction betwoen those net ralthom Filipinos who Becsime foreign cities before tnd after the effetvty of RA No. 9225, For those who ‘were naturalized in a foreign country, they shall be eamed to have reaoguleed their Philippine citizenship ‘high was lot pursuant to CA 65. In the ease of tacos ‘ho became foreign diluens ster RA £225 took effet, ‘hey shall retain Philippine citizenship despite having lscuired foreigacizwnship provided they take the osth of elleginnce under the nev lav. 966 Team, oPrmLctvmwareAs La Considering that petitioner was nesuralized as @ Canadian citizen price tothe efletvity of RA 0226, be belongs to the frst category of natural bora Filipinos who lost their Philippine citizenship by aeturalization ina foreign counts, under the ftst paragraph of Section 8. As the new nw olows duai citcenahip, cho was able to reaequire ber Philipsine atizenship by toking the ‘oqured oath of allegiance (David nx Agbay, Gait No 199138), x Ascertain the constitutionality of the follow: ing acts (2.5% each) (a) An investigation conducted by the Ombudsman against a Commissioner of the Commission on Audit for serious misconduct. ‘The act is constitutional, Although a Commissioner of eny ofthe Constictonel Commissions is removable ‘only through impsachment this rule dace not preclude the Ombudsman ftom exnduetng an invesigsticn into the alleged serious misconduct commited by impeach. ble offcials for the purpose of ling a verified come plaint for impeachment. (Section 22, RA 6770; Carpio Moraies v. GA, GR. Nos, 217126-27, Noverber 10, ©) A tow probibiting any court, other than the Supreme Court, hom issuing & weit of injunction against an investigation being conducted by the Ombudsman. Tho law it unconstitutional The power to issue in- Jumetive writs is part of jedi power. Th muqeagonann aw erning the exercise ofthis power are within the powers of the Supreme Court to promulgate. The law therefore ‘san eneroachnont into the Courts vole snaking power. (Carpio Morales v CA, GR. Nos. 21712627, November 40,2018) (e) A law probibitiag any appeal from the decision ar final order of the Ombudsman in. an administrative proceeding, except Usrough potition for review om certiorard fled before the Supreme Court. ‘The la is unconstitutional. In Fabian o, Desierto (GR, No, 129742, September 18, 1908), the Court in validated Section 27 af RA. No. 6770 inaafur as 3 pro vide for appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 from the decisions or orders of the Ombudsman in administrative ‘ates, Section 27 of A, No, 6770 had the effet, not only of increasing the sppellste jurisdiction of tis Court ‘without ite neve and eooarrence ia violation of Sec ‘Hon 20, Aisle VI of the Consstation, st was clo ineon- sistent with Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rales of Court ‘which provides that a petition for review on certiorari ‘hall apply only toa review of jedgimenta a final orders ofthe Court of Appeals, the Sandigarhbayan, the Court fo Tax Appel, the Regional Tpial Court, or ater sours ‘authorized bylaw” Inthe absanes of excurrenco by 286 Buprome Coutt auch & law would be unconstitutional x ‘Under Section 6 of Article V (on Criminal Ju: risdiction) of the Visiting Forves Agreement (WEA, the custody of a United States (US) per- sonnel who becomes subject to eriminal prosecu- {ion before a Philippine court shall be with the US military authorities, ifthe latter s0 requests, The custody shall bogin from the commission of the ‘offense until the completion of all judicial pro- ‘ecedings, However, when requested, the US mill tary authorities shall make the US personnel available to Philippine authorities for any invos- Ligative or Judicial proceeding relating to the of fense with which the person has been chard. In the event that the Philippine judicial proceedings are not completed within one year, the US shall bbe relieved of any obligation under Section 6, The constitutionality of Section 6, Axticle V of ‘he VFA is challenged on two gronnds (1) it wull- fies the exclusive power of the Supreme Court to adopt rules of procedure forall courts in the Phil ippines; and @) it violates the equal protection clause to the extent that it allows the transfer of the custody of an aceused to a foreign power as providing a different rule of procedure for that ecused, Rule on the challenge, (6%) ‘The challenge is without mart ‘The ruly jn international lve is that foreign armed {orees allowed to enter oo lacitory are inmno fom local juriscleton, oxcopt the extent ngreedl un. Ae a result, the situstion involved ig aot one in which the power of the Supreme Court to adopt rales of procedure fs curtailed or violated. Rather, it 6 one in hich, as ie snormally encountered around the word, she laws Gn inding rales of procedure) of ane Stat do not extend or spply except to the extent agreed upon, to suljects of another State due tothe resigution of extraterritorial Smmurity given to euch bain a ing orsign [Nothing in the Constittion prohibit such ogre mente rengusing muy om junadison or some sis of rain ah cua) ens lone-esogiad sacra of sus ismuniy ike Hace o Site diplomats and members of the aed forces gone Eencents of fosige State allowed wnla? anocber Statst terfary On the contrary the Constitution State that the Phlppines adopes the generally c= tepled principles of ntercational lara part of he lew othe lan Are, Seo 2) [Neither i the equ protstonelause violated be cave tore fe subotanl baal orn rest este Snent of foreign military armed fess allowed so enter Chr tenor ad all edhe aus. (Nzolor Romulo, (8 No 15988, February 13,2000) x reese Scrs ee eee fecheeneinears Section 16(9) of Article VI of the Constitution states that “Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings.” Seetion 21, Article VI of the Constitution further provides that “The Senate o the House of Representatives ov any of its respes- tive committees may conduct inguities..in aceon dance with its duly published rules of procedure.” _, Finally, Section 3(8) of Artiole XI of the Con: tion declares that “The Congress shall prom. ‘lgate its rules on impeachment to effectively carey out the purposes of this section.” Are the rules promulgated pursuant to these provisions subject to review and disapproval by the Supreme Court? (9%) Section &(5] of Artile VIII of the Constitution ‘early provides that the “Rules of procure of special courts ond quastjudicia) bodies shall retin effective Unless disapproved by the Supreme Court” Accordingly, 4 is dear that the Supreme Court may review and re vere the rales of procedure ofthe Sandiganbeyan ad the Constitutional Commissions, With reas the rl of procedure of Congress in its praceadings,logiatve tages and ene Prachment, wale thee rule may be generly cone trod as plies! qnestiony, when Questoned below the urs ina propet este mould aoverthnlee eau {ct to te power offule review under ho second Paragraph of Seton I, Artie VI ofthe Conetttien Which authocae to neviow and annul al at any brane of goverment hk my 5 tale! with grave atin of discretion amounting tek or xen sition ae xu POI Adrian Andal is known to have taken bribes from apprehended motorists who have vio- Inted traffic rules. The National Bureat of Inves: tigation. conducted an entrapment operation Where POI Adrian wat caught red-handed de: manding and taking PAPS00.00 from a motorist ‘who supposedly beat a red light, After he was apprehended, POL Adrian was requived to submit a sample of his urine. The drug. test showed that he was positive for dangerous rugs. Hence, PO Adrian was charged with vila tion of Section 16, Article Il of RA. No. 9168 oF the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, POL Adrian argues against the admissiil of the urine tert renults and seeks its exclusion. He claims that the mandatory drug test under TA.No. 9165 is a violation of the accoxed’s right to privacy and right against self incrimination. ‘Are POI Adrian's contentions correct? (2.5%) Ot Adrion ia coreot that hls eights to pelaey and sgninst albnerimination have been volneed, Tie r= sults of the “emfirmatary” rine test should therefore be rejected as evidence against bi, Ie should be noted that RA 9265 llons the conduct of sine teste only for persons arrested for acts prohi ited under sa law, such as, among others, the manu facturing, sale, use or possesion of slegal drugs, and not for any unasful eet, Ike extortion, for which POL Adan was arrested. (De la Cruz vs. Peaple, GR, No. 200748, duly 23, 2014) 872 Pusmou. Law wo Rae ems Lat x Amoroso was: charged with treason before military court mavtlal He was acquitted, “He was later charged with the same offense bbeforw Regional Trial Court. He aks that the Information be quashed on the ground of double Jeopardy. ‘The prosecution objects, contending that for purposes of double jeopardy, the military court martial cannot be considered as “competent Should the Regional Trial Court grant Amor- yn to quasl on the ground of double ieopardy? 2.5%) Yes, the Motion to Dimiss should bo grante. A cefendant, having beon acquitted of «crime ty © court martial of competent jurisdiction proceeding under lawful authority cannot be subsequently tied for the same oflense ina civil court. 1 appearing thal the affine charged in the Court Marinl and in the Rogional Trial Court is the

    You might also like