Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 447 views

    Suggested Answers To 2013 Political Law Bar Examination Questions

    Uploaded by

    Hal Jordan
    The document provides suggested answers to 2013 political law bar examination questions in the Philippines. It addresses four questions: 1) whether importers can successfully sue the Bureau of Customs for damages, 2) whether a petition questioning presidential appointments is valid, 3) whether a judgment of conviction based on an extrajudicial confession should be affirmed or reversed, and 4) whether a law providing for trial by jury is constitutional. The document analyzes each question and provides a concise response supported by relevant cases and constitutional provisions.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Suggested Answers To 2013 Political Law Bar Examination Questions

    Uploaded by

    Hal Jordan
    447 views2 pages
    The document provides suggested answers to 2013 political law bar examination questions in the Philippines. It addresses four questions: 1) whether importers can successfully sue the Bureau of Customs for damages, 2) whether a petition questioning presidential appointments is valid, 3) whether a judgment of conviction based on an extrajudicial confession should be affirmed or reversed, and 4) whether a law providing for trial by jury is constitutional. The document analyzes each question and provides a concise response supported by relevant cases and constitutional provisions.

    Original Description:

    Bar

    Original Title

    Suggested Answers to 2013 Political Law Bar Examination Questions

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document provides suggested answers to 2013 political law bar examination questions in the Philippines. It addresses four questions: 1) whether importers can successfully sue the Bureau of Customs for damages, 2) whether a petition questioning presidential appointments is valid, 3) whether a judgment of conviction based on an extrajudicial confession should be affirmed or reversed, and 4) whether a law providing for trial by jury is constitutional. The document analyzes each question and provides a concise response supported by relevant cases and constitutional provisions.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    447 views2 pages

    Suggested Answers To 2013 Political Law Bar Examination Questions

    Uploaded by

    Hal Jordan
    The document provides suggested answers to 2013 political law bar examination questions in the Philippines. It addresses four questions: 1) whether importers can successfully sue the Bureau of Customs for damages, 2) whether a petition questioning presidential appointments is valid, 3) whether a judgment of conviction based on an extrajudicial confession should be affirmed or reversed, and 4) whether a law providing for trial by jury is constitutional. The document analyzes each question and provides a concise response supported by relevant cases and constitutional provisions.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    SUGGESTED ANSWERS TO 2013 POLITICAL LAW BAR

    EXAMINATION QUESTIONS
    By: Carlo Paul Castro Sana University of Pangasinan

    PHINMA Education Network, COLLEGE OF LAW


    UNIVERSITY OF PANGASINAN
    COLLEGE OF LAW
    SUGGESTED ANSWERS TO 2013 POLITICAL LAW BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS
    By: Carlo Paul C. Sana
    I.
    In the last quarter of 2012, about 5,000 container vans of imported goods intended for the
    Christmas Season were seized by agents of the Bureau of Customs. The imported goods were
    released only on January 10, 2013. A group of importers got together and filed an action for
    damages before the Regional Trial Court of Manila against the Department of Finance and
    Bureau of Customs. The Bureau of Customs raised the defense of immunity from suit and,
    alternatively, that liability should lie with XYZ Corp. which the Bureau had contracted for the
    lease of ten (10) high powered van cranes but delivered only five (5) of these cranes, thus
    causing the delay in its cargo-handling operations. It appears that the Bureau, despite demand,
    did not pay XYZ Corp. the Php 1.0 Million deposit and advance rental required under their
    contract.
    (A)
    Will the action by the group of importers prosper? (5%)
    No. The action by the group of importers will not prosper because the Supreme Court said that
    the Bureau of Customs, being an unincorporated agency without a separate judicial personality,
    enjoys immunity from suit. It is invested with an inherent power of sovereignty, namely the
    power of taxation; it performs governmental functions
    (Farolan v. Court of Tax Appeals, 217 SCRA 298).
    Moreover, the Bureau of Customs is a part of the Department of Finance, with no personality of
    its own apart from that of the national government. Its primary function is governmental, that of
    assessing and collecting lawful revenues from imported articles and all other tariff and customs
    duties, fees, charges, fines, and penalties (Sec. 602, RA 1937). This clearly explains the reason
    why the Department of Finance also enjoys immunity from suit.
    (B)
    Can XYZ Corp. sue the Bureau of Customs to collect rentals for the delivered cranes? (5%)
    No. Even in the exercise of proprietary functions incidental to its primarily governmental
    functions, an unincorporated agency, in this case the Bureau of Customs, still cannot be sued
    without its consent
    (Mobil Philippines Exploration v. Customs Arrastre Service, 18 SCRA 1120).
    II.
    While Congress was in session, the President appointed eight acting Secretaries. A group of
    Senators from the minority bloc questioned the validity of the appointments in a petition before

    the Supreme Court on the ground that while Congress is in session, no appointment that requires
    confirmation by the Commission on Appointments can be made wit
    hout the latters consent, and that an
    undersecretary should instead be designated as Acting Secretary.
    Should the petition be granted? (5%)
    No, the petition should not be granted. The clear and expressed intent of the framers of the 1987
    Constitution is to exclude presidential appointments from confirmation on the Commission on
    Appointments except appointments to offices expressly mentioned in the first sentence of
    Section 16, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution
    (Sarmiento III v. Mison, 159 SCRA 549).
    Since the appointment of an acting secretary is not included under the first sentence of Section
    16, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution, it is no longer subject to confirmation by the
    Commission on Appointments.
    III.
    A robbery with homicide had taken place and Lito, Badong, and Rollie were invited for
    questioning based on the information furnished by a neighbor that
    he saw them come out of the victims house at the
    time of the robbery/killing. The police confronted the three with this and other information they
    had gathered, and pointedly accused them of committing the crime. Lito initially resisted, but
    eventually broke down and admitted his participation in the crime. Elated by this break and
    desirous of securing a written confession soonest, the police called City Attorney Juan Buan
    to serve as the trios counsel and to advise
    them about their rights during the investigation.
    Badong and Rollie, weakened in spirit by Litos
    early admission, likewise admitted their participation. The trio thus signed a joint extrajudicial
    confession which served as the main evidence against them at their trial. They were convicted
    based on their confession.
    Should the judgment of conviction be affirmed or reversed on appeal? (5%)
    The judgment of conviction should be reversed. The police officers committed an offense by
    confronting the three accused. This is a violation to Section 12, Article III of the 1987
    Constitution, which states that any person under investigation for the commission of an offense
    shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have a competent and
    independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of
    counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in
    the presence of counsel.
    IV.
    Congress enacted a law providing for
    trial by jury
    for those charged with crime or offenses punishable by
    reclusion perpetua
    or life imprisonment. The law provides for the qualifications of members of the jury, the
    guidelines for the bar and bench for their selection, the manner a trial by jury shall operate, and
    the procedures to be followed.
    Is the law constitutional?

    You might also like