Sa 2015 Poli Beq
Sa 2015 Poli Beq
Sa 2015 Poli Beq
Territorial Sea; Contiguous Zone; Exclusive Economic Zone; Continental Shelf (II.B
2015)
II.B. Describe the following maritime regimes under UNCLOS (4%)
(a) Territorial sea
(b) Contiguous zone
(c) Exclusive economic zone
(d) Continental shelf
UPLC SUGGESTED ANSWER
B.a. The territorial sea is 12 nautical miles from the baselines. An archipelagic state may draw straight archipelagic
baselines joining the outermost islands and drying reefs of the archipelago, but the drawing of the baselines should not
depart to any appreciable extent from the general configuration of the archipelago save for 3 percent of the total
number of the baselines (Magallona v. Ermita, GR no. 187167, August 16, 2011, 655 SCRA 476).
B.b. The contiguous zone is a zone contiguous to the territorial sea. The maximum limit is 24 nautical miles from the
baselines of the territorial sea. It confers functional jurisdiction to prevent infringements of customs, fiscal, immigration
and sanitary regulations. (Crawford, Brownlie’s Principle of Public International Law, 8 th ed. pp265-268).
B.c. The exclusive economic zone extends no further than 200 nautical miles from the baselines of the territorial sea. The
coastal state has sovereign rights for the purpose of exploiting, conserving and managing the natural resources of the
waters superjacent to the sea-bed and its sub-soil and economic exploitation and exploration, such as the production of
energy. (Crawford, Brownlie’s Principle of Public International Law, 8th ed. p276).
B.d. The continental shelf gives the coastal state rights to explore and exploit the resources of the shelf by operation of
law. (Crawford, Brownlie’s Principle of Public International Law, 8th ed. p276).
1
would not actually be receiving additional or double compensation, it is submitted that he may nevertheless not be
allowed to accept the position of Executive Assistant of the Court of Appeals during his incumbency as a regular
employee of the University of the Philippines, as the former would be an incompatible office not allowed to be
concurrently held by him under the provisions of the Art. IX-B, Section 7 of the Constitution, the second paragraph of
which specifies that “unless otherwise allowed by law or by the primary functions of his position no appointive official
shall hold any other office in the Government.
……………
Rule-Making Power of the Supreme Court vs. Judicial Legislation (XI.B. 2015)
XI.B. Differentiate the rule-making power or the power of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules under Section 5, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution and judicial legislation. (2%)
UPLC SUGGESTED ANSWER
Judicial legislation refers to the encroachment by the Judiciary upon the function of legislature by making the law rather
than declaring, construing or enforcing the law (Ballentine’s Law Dictionary, 3 rd Ed., p. 685).
Sec. 3(5) , Art. VIII of the Constitution granted the Supreme Court power to promulgate rules concerning the protection
and enforcement of constitutional rights. In the exercise of this power, the SC promulgated the Rule on the Writ of
Amparo, the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data, and the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases.
3
UPLC SUGGESTED ANSWER
The claim of Piolo Cruz is not correct. The Constitution does not require a plebiscite for the creation of a new legislative
district by a legislative re-apportionment. It is required only for the creation of a new local government units (Bagabuyo
v. Comelec, GR no. 176970, Dec. 8, 2008, 573 SCRA 290).
2nd Placer Rule; Abandonment of the Rejection of the 2nd placer rule (XVI.A. 2015)
XVI.(1) Gandang Bai filed her certificate of candidacy (COC) for municipal mayor stating that she is eligible to run for the said position. Pasyo Maagap, who also filed his COC for the same position, filed a petition to deny due course or cancel Bai's
COC under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code for material misrepresentation as before Bai filed her COC, she had already been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. Hence, she is disqualified perpetually from holding any public
office or from being elected to any public office. Before the election, the COMELEC cancelled Bai' s COC but her motion for reconsideration (MR) remained pending even after the election. Bai garnered the highest number of votes followed by
Pasyo Maagap, who took his oath as Acting Mayor. Thereafter, the COMELEC denied Bai's MR and declared her disqualified for running for Mayor. P. Maagap asked the Department of Interior and Local Government Secretary to be allowed to
take his oath as permanent municipal mayor. This request was opposed by Vice Mayor Umaasa, invoking the rule on succession to the permanent vacancy in the Mayor's office.
(A) Who between Pasyo Maagap and Vice Mayor Umaasa has the right to occupy the position of Mayor? Explain your answer. (5%)
(B) How do you differentiate the petition filed under Section 68 from the petition filed under Section 78, both of the Omnibus Election Code? (3%)
UPLC SUGGESTED ANSWER
(A) Pasyo Maagap would be entitled to occupy the position of Mayor upon the disqualification of Gandang Bai on the
basis of the Petition to deny due course or cancel here certificate of candidacy under the provisions of Sec. 78 of the
Omnibus Election Code.
The rule that “an ineligible candidate who receives the highest the number of votes is a wrongful winner. By express
legal mandate, he could not even have been a candidate in the first place, but by virtue of the lack of material time or
any other intervening circumstances, his ineligibility might not have been passed upon prior to election date.
Consequently, he may have had the opportunity to hold himself out to the electorate as a legitimate and duly qualified
candidate. However, notwithstanding the outcome of the elections, his ineligibility as a candidate remains unchanged.
Ineligibility does not only pertain to his qualifications as a candidate but necessarily affects his right to hold public office.
The number of ballots cast in his favor cannot cure the defect of failure to qualify with the substantive legal requirement
of eligibility to run for public office” (Maquiling v. Comelec, GR no. 195649, April 16, 2013).
Accordingly, Gandang Bai “being a non-candidate, the votes cast in his favor should not have been counted”. This leaves
Pasyo Maagap as the “the qualified candidate who obtained the highest number of votes. Therefore, the rule on
succession under the Local Government Code will not apply” (Maquiling v. Comelec, GR no.. 195649, April 16, 2013).
(B) In addition to the rule cited above that a Certificate of Candidacy which is denied or cancelled under Sec. 78 of the
Omnibus Election Code would make said CoC void ab initio (which would preclude the application of the rules on
succession for purposes of replacing him upon his disqualification because, up to the point of his, he shall be considered
merely as a de facto officer), unlike in the case of disqualification under Rule 68 of the Omnibus Election Code, which
would give rise to the de jure officership of the disqualified candidate up to his point of disqualification, the other basic
distinctions.
The other basic distinctions between petitions for the disqualification of candidates and petitions to reject or cancel
certificate of candidacy are as follows:
Under Sec. 68 of the OEC, a candidate may be disqualified if he commits any of the election offenses or “prohibited acts”
specified therein, or if he is a permanent resident of or an immigrant to a foreign country. On the other hand, under Sec.
78 of the same law, a certificate of candidacy may be denied due course or cancelled if found to be containing material
representations which are false and deliberately made. These would include misrepresentations as to age, residence,
citizenship or non-possession of natural-born status, registration as a voter, and eligibility, as when one, although
precluded from running for a fourth term because of the three-term limit rule, claims to be nonetheless qualified or
when one claims to be eligible despite his disqualification on the basis of an accessory penalty imposed upon him in
connection with his conviction in a criminal case.
A petition for disqualification under Sec. 68 may be filed at any time after the last day for filing of the certificate of
candidacy but not later than the candidate’s proclamation should he win in the elections, while a petition to deny due
course to or cancel a Coc under Sec. 78 must be filed within five days prior to the last day for filing of CoC, but not later
than twenty-five days from the time of the filing of the CoC.
While a person who is disqualified under Sec. 68 is merely prohibited to continue as a candidate at all. Thus a candidate
disqualified under Sec. 68 may be validly substituted but only by an official candidate of his registered or accredited
party.
4
The other basic distinctions between petitions for the disqualification of candidates and petitions to reject or cancel certificate of candidacy are as follows:
Under Sec. 68 of the OEC, a candidate may be disqualified if he commits any of the election offenses or “prohibited acts” specified therein, or if he is a permanent resident of or an immigrant to a foreign country. On the other hand, under Sec. 78 of
the same law, a certificate of candidacy may be denied due course or cancelled if found to be containing material representations which are false and deliberately made. These would include misrepresentations as to age, residence, citizenship or
non-possession of natural-born status, registration as a voter, and eligibility, as when one, although precluded from running for a fourth term because of the three-term limit rule, claims to be nonetheless qualified or when one claims to be eligible
despite his disqualification on the basis of an accessory penalty imposed upon him in connection with his conviction in a criminal case.
A petition for disqualification under Sec. 68 may be filed at any time after the last day for filing of the certificate of candidacy but not later than the candidate’s proclamation should he win in the elections, while a petition to deny due course to or
cancel a Coc under Sec. 78 must be filed within five days prior to the last day for filing of CoC, but not later than twenty-five days from the time of the filing of the CoC.
While a person who is disqualified under Sec. 68 is merely prohibited to continue as a candidate at all. Thus a candidate disqualified under Sec. 68 may be validly substituted but only by an official candidate of his registered or accredited party.
ECA Notes:
Sec. 68 vs. Sec. 78 of Omnibus Election Code
Sec. 68 of OEC Sec. 78 of OEC
Grounds for disqualification Declared by final decision of a competent court as guilty or found by the Comelec of Material representation in the Certificate of Candidacy is false (material misrepresentation)
having committed acts listed in Sec. 68
When to file the petition Any time not later than twenty-five days from the time of the filing of the CoC
Substitution of disqualified candidate COC not having been cancelled, candidate maybe substituted CoC having denied due course or cancelled, candidate may not be substituted.
Codal Provisions Sec. 68. Disqualifications. - Any candidate who, in an action or protest in which he is Sec. 78. Petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy. - A verified petition
a party is declared by final decision of a competent court guilty of, or found by the seeking to deny due course or to cancel a certificate of candidacy may be filed by the person
Commission of having exclusively on the ground that any material representation contained therein as required
under Section 74 hereof is false. The petition may be filed at any time not later than twenty-
a. given money or other material consideration to influence, induce or corrupt the five days from the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy and shall be decided, after
voters or public officials performing electoral functions; due notice and hearing, not later than fifteen days before the election.
c. spent in his election campaign an amount in excess of that allowed by this Code;
d. solicited, received or made any contribution prohibited under Sections 89, 95, 96,
97 and 104; or
e. violated any of Sections 80, 83, 85, 86 and 261, paragraphs d, e, k, v, and cc,
subparagraph 6, shall be disqualified from continuing as a candidate, or if he has
been elected, from holding the office. Any person who is a permanent resident of or
an immigrant to a foreign country shall not be qualified to run for any elective office
under this Code, unless said person has waived his status as permanent resident or
immigrant of a foreign country in accordance with the residence requirement
provided for in the election laws.
(B) It is submitted that the strict scrutiny test should be applied in this case because the challenged classification restricts
the political process
5
PSALM will then be used for power generation. Once the water is removed from its natural source, it ceases to be part of
the natural resources of the Philippines and maybe acquired by foreigners. (Initiatives for Dialogue and Empowerment
through Alternative Legal Services, Inc. v. PSALM Corp., GR no. 192088, Oct. 9, 2012 682 SCRA 602).