Political Law Samplex

POLITICAL LAW [2019]- ATTY.
EDWIN SANDOVAL
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS – FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW Jhoven Paul Tolentino
TRUE OR FALSE
1. The waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the Philippine archipelago,
regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the maritime domain of the Philippines.
FALSE
2. Under the UNCLOS, a State has sovereign rights over its 200 miles EEZ and continental shelf.
TRUE
3. RA 9522 (The maritime baselines law of the PH) is a mere statutory tool demarcating our
maritime baselines as an archipelagic State; it has nothing to do with the acquisition or
diminution of territory.
TRUE
4. The president may not directly propose amendments to the Constitution.

TRUE
5. Amnesty will require concurrence by 2/3 of all the members of the Senate.
FALSE
6. The dominant political parties in the PH, like the PDP-Laban and the LP, may participate in
the party-list elections, through their sectoral wings.
TRUE
7. Part of the oversight function of Congress is to monitor if the budget is properly implemented
by the officers in the executive branch.
TRUE
8. An appointment made by the president when congress is on recess is merely temporary and
revocable at will by the president.
FALSE
9. Before a congressman may validly appoint member of the cabinet of the president, he must
resign first his position as congressman.
FALSE
10. Intrinsic in the grant of legislative power to congress by the constitution is the power to
conduct inquiries in aid of legislation.
TRUE
11. The sole power to declare war is vested in the congress in joint session assembled voting
separately.
FALSE
POLITICAL LAW [2019]- ATTY. EDWIN SANDOVAL
12. One may not be validly granted amnesty by the president if his case is pending appeal before
the SC or the CA.
FALSE
13. The visiting forces agreement entered into between the PH and USA in 1998 (during Estrada
term) is a mere executive agreement and, therefore, will not require concurrence by the Senate.
FALSE
The power to call out the armed forces is exclusive to the President and, therefore, only the
President may validly exercise that power
TRUE
14. Local governments are not under the control of the president since they enjoy local
autonomy.
TRUE
15. Appointments of judges and justices require confirmation by the commission on

Appointments.
FALSE
16. “Pork barrel” simply means lump-sum discretionary fund.

TRUE
The sources of the pork barrel of the President are the Malampaya Fund and the Presidential
Social Fund.
TRUE
17. Legislative power is exclusively vested in the Congress of the PH, which shall consist of a
Senate and a House of Representatives.
FALSE
18. Under the restrictive doctrine of state immunity, a state may only be sued if it enters into
contracts with private parties in its sovereign capacity.
FALSE
19. Courts may not resolve hypothetical cases or cases based on assumptions since courts are
mandated to resolve actual cases or controversies.
TRUE
20. Changing our government to federalism may be validly done through people’s initiative on
the constitution.
FALSE
The expanded power of judicial review has the effect of diminishing the political question
doctrine
TRUE
The Supreme Court may politely and validly refuse to render an advisory opinion solicited by the
President on the constitutionality of an issue confronting the executive branch of the government
in the implementation of a particular law.
TRUE
The power to ratify treaties or international agreements is vested in the Senate by two-thirds vote
of all its members.
FALSE
An executive privilege may be impliedly invoked by the President by refusing to appear before
any form of congressional investigation.
FALSE
A Congressman accused of homicide (a bailable offense) may validly invoke his privilege from
arrest when Congress is in session.
FALSE
One who is cited in contempt by the Senate for refusing to appear during a Senate inquiry in aid
of legislation may be validly pardoned by the President.
FALSE
Under the Bill of Rights, only a judge (and nobody else, not even the President) may issue a
search warrant or warrant of arrest.
TRUE
Appearance during the question hour conducted by the Senate is not really that mandatory since
the question hour is not a regular feature of a presidential form of government like what we have
in the Philippines.
TRUE
A retired justice of the Supreme Court may be validly appointed by the President as a member of
the Judicial and Bar Council and his appointment will no longer require confirmation by the
Commission on Appointments since he is a Justice of the Supreme Court any way.
TRUE
Once martial law is proclaimed by the President, the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is
automatically suspended.
FALSE
Under the Separation of the Church and State Doctrine, the government may not validly interfere
in purely ecclesiastical affairs of the church like the administration of religious sacraments.
TRUE
One who agreed to be a State witness against his co-accused in a criminal case may validly
refuse to testify during the trial invoking his right against self-incrimination
FALSE
Trial in absentia cannot take place when a accused has not yet been arraigned.
TRUE
A municipal secretary who filed a certificate of candidacy for mayor in an election may no
longer go back to his position as secretary even if he validly withdraws his candidacy for mayor
during the campaign period.
TRUE? - Appointive Position Sec 66, OEC?
A congressman may validly be charged for grave misconduct before the Office of the
Ombudsman during his tenure.
??????
Before conviction, bail is a matter of discretion if on is charged of an offense punishable by

reclusion perpetua and the evidence of guilty is strong.
TRUE sa ENRILE CASE, pero FALSE SA SAMPLEX
Under the Principle of Complementarity in the Rome Statute, the International Criminal Court
(ICC) shall give primacy to national criminal jurisdiction.
TRUE
Only Congress may validly waive state immunity from suit.

TRUE
Our bicameral legislature consists of the Senate and the Congress.

FALSE
The decision of President Duterte for former President Marcos to be buried at the Libingan Ng
Mga Bayani was a political question and, therefore, not subject to judicial review.
TRUE
Under the restrictive doctrine of State Immunity, a state may only be sued in connection with a
contract entered into by it in its commercial or proprietary capacity.
TRUE
Under the Sufficient standard test of a valid delegation of power, for as long as there are
standards that will limit the authority of the delegate, which standards must be determinate or at
least determinable, there is no undue delegation of power.
TRUE
When Congress meets to directly propose amendments to the Constitution, it will be acting as a
constituent assembly – a non-legislative function.
TRUE
The Dominant political parties in Philippine Politics are absolutely prohibited from participating
in party-list elections.
FALSE
Courts may not resolve hypothetical cases or cases based on assumptions, and even moot and
academic cases.
TRUE
Senators are superior than Congressmen since they are elected by the people at large and they
belong to the upper house of Congress.
FALSE
The Kalayan Group of Islands does not form part of the Philippine archipelago but is part of the
national territory of the Philippines.
TRUE
The power of the President to proclaim martial law and his power to suspend the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus may not be subject to judicial review as they are considered to be political
questions.
FALSE
Judicial legislation is absolutely prohibited since the power to legislate is vested in the Congress.
TRUE
The President may validly exercise emergency power motu proprio.

FALSE
Judicial power is vested in the Supreme Court alone

FALSE
The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than 250 members, including those
in the party-list.
FALSE
Intrinsic in the grant of legislative power to Congress by the Constitution is the power to conduct
inquiries in aid of legislation.
TRUE
An appointment made by the President when Congress is on recess is merely temporary and
revocable at will by the President.
FALSE
The Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) entered into between the Philippines and the USA in 1998
is a mere executive agreement and will not require concurrence by the Senate.
FALSE
A general warrant satisfies the requirement of describing with particularity the place to be
searched and the persons or things to be arrested or seized in the issuance of a search warrant or
warrant of arrest
FALSE
There is no constitutional right to appeal as appeal is merely statutory

TRUE
The Right to privacy is constitutional right as the essence of privacy is the right to be let alone
TRUE
The equal protection clause is a better weapon to use when dealing with acts of government that
appear to be arbitrary and oppressive
FALSE
The right to bail flows from the presumption of innocence in favor of every accused in a criminal
proceeding
TRUE
Under Sec 2 of the Bill of Rights, only a judge may issue a warrant or warrant of arrest.
TRUE
Before conviction, bail is a matter of discretion if one is charge where the imposable penalty is
reclusion perpetua and the evidence of guilt is strong
FALSE
A search at checkpoints is limited only to visual search by police officers. An intrusive search
like opening the trunks of vehicles is prohibited.
TRUE
Rebellious and unorthodox views and opinions are not protected under the freedom of expression
clause
FALSE
Only content-neutral restrictions on free speech may be subject to the clear and present danager
test
FALSE
Freedom of expression guarantees not only freedom from prior restraint but also freedom from
subsequent punishment
TRUE
The public Assembly Act is a content-based regulation as it does not totally prohibit public
assemblies.
FALSE - content neutral
The Public Assembly Act allows public assemblies even without permit from the local
authorities.
TRUE
Under the Public Assembly act, the police and other law enforcement officers are mandated to
observe "maximum tolerance" in dealing with rallies and public assembles, or in the dispersal
thereof.
TRUE
The non-establishment clause of freedom of religion prohibit the State from leaning towards any
particular religion
TRUE
Among the custodial investigation rights is the right of the accused to be heard by himself and
counsel
FALSE
An accused who agreed to testify against his co-accused in a criminal case in exchange for
immunity from prosecution may validly refuse to testify invoking his rights against self-
incrimination
FALSE
The right to a speedy trial is a right that properly belongs to an accused in a criminal case and,
therefore, only the accused may invoke it.
TRUE
One applying for a permit to hold a rally in a public place has the burden to guaranty that the
rally will be peaceful
FALSE
In our jurisdiction, under no circumstances may a criminal statute be subject to a facial challenge
TRUE
ART I
NATIONAL TERRITORY
+GEN PROV
The USS Guardian, an American naval vessel, ran aground in Tubbataha reef (a world
heritage site because of its rich marine bio-diversity) in the Sulu Sea destroying our corrals
there. Several environmentalist groups filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of
Kalikasan against the Commander of the US Pacific fleet and demanded compensation for
the destruction of our corrals. Will the petition prosper? Explain. (10pts.)
No, the Petition will not prosper for lack of jurisdiction following the doctrine of
sovereign equality of all States. In effect, the suit is a suit against the US government and,
therefore, should be dismissed. (Arigo v. Swift, 735 SCRA 102 (2014))
It is a well-settled rule that a state may not be sued without its consent, and only upon
recognized exceptions said rule may be set-aside such as, when the State exercises proprietary
functions (jure gestionis) where the cloak of immunity from suit is divested; since the State
under said instance is deemed to have surrendered some aspects of its sovereign power and
regarded as an individual entering into contract with another individual.
In the given case, the Commander of the U.S. Pacific fleet is acting under an official
governmental function (jure imperii) and therefore, immune from suit by virtue of the doctrine of
immunity from suit. Therefore, the Petition will not prosper.
In compliance with UNCLOS III, a multi-lateral treaty of which the Philippines is a party,
Congress enacted RA No. 9522 amending RA No. 3036, demarcating our maritime
baselines as an archipelagic State. Petitioners assailed the constitutionality of said law
arguing that in effect it diminished our national territory.
a. Briefly discuss the significance of RA No. 9522 from the standpoint of

international law. (5 pts.)
The enactment of R.A. 9522 is Philippine State’s responsible observance of its pacta sunt
servanda obligation under UNCLOS III.
Baselines laws such as RA 9522 are enacted by UNCLOS III Statesparties to work-out
specific basepoints along their coasts from which baselines are drawn, either straight or
contoured, to serve as geographic starting points to measure the breadth of the maritime zones
and continental shelf.
In turn, this gives notice to the rest of the international community of the scope of the
maritime space and submarine areas within which Statesparties exercise treaty-based rights,
namely:
• the exercise of sovereignty over territorial waters,
• the jurisdiction to enforce customs, fiscal, immigration and sanitation laws in the contiguous
zone, and
• the right to exploit the living and non-living resources in the exclusive economic zone and
continental shelf
b. Did the SC agree with petitioners that RA No. 9522 diminish our national
territory? (5 pts.)
No, the SC did not agree with petitioners.
R.A. 9522 is a statutory tool to demarcate the country’s maritime zones and continental
shelf under UNCLOS III, not to delineate Philippine territory.
Baseline laws are nothing but statutory mechanism for UNCLOS III Statesparties to
delimit with precision the extent of their maritime zones and continental shelves. UNCLOS III
and its ancillary baselines laws play no role in the acquisition, enlargement or diminution of
territory. Under traditional international law typology, states acquire (or conversely, lose)
territory through occupation, accretion, cession and prescription, not by executing multilateral
treaties on the regulation of sea-use rights or enacting statutes to comply with the treaty’s terms
to delimit maritime zones and continental shelves. (Professor Merlin M. Magallona, et al. v. Hon.
Eduardo Ermita, et al., G.R. No. 187167, 655 SCRA 476, August 16, 2011, En Banc [Carpio])
c. What comprises the National Territory of the Philippines?
The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and
waters embraced therein, and all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or
jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial, and aerial domains, including its territorial sea,
the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas. The waters around,
between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and
dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines. (Article I, 1987 Constitution)
The State immunity from suit may be waived expressly or impliedly.

1. Discuss briefly how state immunity from suit may be waived impliedly.
State Immunity may be waived impliedly when the State itself commences litigation, thus
opening itself to a counterclaim or when it enters into a contract. In this situation, the
government is deemed to have descended to the level of the other contracting party and to have
divested itself of its sovereign immunity. (Department of Agriculture v. NLRC, 227 SCRA 693,
Nov. 11, 1993 [Vitug])
2. Explain the Restrictive Doctrine of State Immunity.

Restrictive Doctrine of State Immunity provides that not all contracts entered into by the
government operate as a waiver of its non-suability; distinction must still be made between one
which is executed in the exercise of its sovereign function and another which is done in its
proprietary capacity.
The restrictive application of State immunity is proper only when the proceedings arise
out of commercial transactions of the foreign sovereign, its commercial activities or economic
affairs. Stated differently, a State may be said to have descended to the level of an individual and
can thus be deemed to have tacitly given its consent to be sued only when it enters into business
contracts. It does not apply where the contracts relate to the exercise of its sovereign functions.
Sovereignty is no absolute; International Law

Sovereignty is not absolute in International Law
While sovereignty has traditionally been deemed absolute and all-encompassing on the
domestic level, it is however subject to restrictions and limitations voluntarily agreed to by the
Philippines, expressly or impliedly as a member of the family of nations. The Constitution does
not envision a hermit type isolation of the country from the rest of the world.
By the doctrine of incorporation, the country is bound by generally accepted principles of

international law, which are considered to be automatically part of our own laws.
The following are limitations on sovereignty in the field of international relation:

1. where a state enters into a contract with another state, it is understood to have voluntarily
surrendered some aspects of the state power in order to comply with its obligation.
2. When a state join the UN or the family of nations it is understood that the state have to
voluntarily surrender some aspects of its sovereign power in exchange for greater benefits
that it may derive by joining the family of nations, otherwise it may face isolation.
Under the Principle of Pacta Sunt Servanda, treaties and international agreement must be
performed in good faith. Thus, when a state enters into treaty with another state, it cannot invoke
its Constitution or provisions of its own law in order for it not comply with its obligation under
the said treaty.
In a domestic sphere, sovereignty is absolute, but not in the international field.
Alternative Short answer - depende sa question type (2016; 2015) 10 pts

In the case of Tanada v. Angara, the Supreme Court held that in domestic level,
sovereignty is indeed absolute and all-encompassing. However, in the field of
international relations, sovereignty is limited by first, the very nature of our membership
in the family of nations, and second, by the treaty stipulations the State enters into.
The concept of auto-limitation on sovereignty means that where a state enters into
a contract with another state, it is understood to have voluntarily surrendered some
aspects of the state power in order to comply with its obligation.
Who are impeachable officers, and what are the for impeachment?
The following are impeachable officers:
1. President
2. Vice-President
3. The Members of the Supreme Court
4. The members of the Constitutional Commission
5. The Ombudsman
The following are the grounds for impeachment:

1. Culpable violation of the Constitution
2. Treason
3. Bribery
4. Graft and corruption
5. Other high crimes
6. Betrayal of public trust.
ART VI
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
The Ang Ladlad-LGBT Party filed a petition in the COMELEC for it to participate in
Party-List elections. The COMELEC disapproved its application
The act of the COMELEC of not allowing the registration of Ang Ladlad-LGBT Party as
a political party to participate in party-list elections on the ground that its members are
“immoral,” citing verses from the Bible and the Koran, is tainted with grave abuse of discretion
as it violated the non-establishment clause of freedom of religion and, therefore, should be
nullified.
Under this non-establishment clause of freedom of religion, the COMELEC, as an agency

of the government, is not supposed to use religious standards in its decisions and actions.
Party-List System Procedure (2015)

In the House of Rep, there are 243 district Congressmen:
A. Following Sec 5(2) Art VI how many should be the party-list representatives? Explain
and show your computation.
Sec 5(2), Article VI of the Constitution provides that party-list representatives shall
constitute twenty per centum of the total number of representatives including those under the
party-list.
The Supreme Court illustrated in the case of BANAT v. COMELEC the procedure by
which the number of the party-list representatives may be computed.
First, we compute for the total number of partylist seats by dividing the total number of
the district congressmen by eighty per centum. Then, the quotient will be multiplied to twenty
per centum. The result will be the total number of seats allocated for partylist representatives.
To illustrate the given problem:

_243_ x .20 = total number of partylist representatives
.80
Total number of partylist representatives = 60
Thus, if there are 243 district congressmen, there would be 60 partylist congressmen.
B. May the dominant political parties, Like the LP and the NP, validly participate in the
party list elections.
Yes. Dominant political parties may validly participate in the party list elections.
The party-list system is a social justice tool designed to have the marginalized and
underrepresented sectors of society represented in the House of Representatives, nonetheless, the
dominant political parties are not totally prohibited from participating in party-list elections.
Although, as a rule, they may not participate in party-list elections if they field candidates
in district elections, however, by way of an exception, they may still participate through their
sectoral wing, provided that the sectoral wing is registered separately as a political party in the
COMELEC and is linked to the dominant political party through a coalition. (Atong Paglaum,
Inc., et al. v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 203766, 694 SCRA 477, April 2, 2013, En Banc [Carpio])
The SC declared the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) as a form of

Congressional pork barrel unconstitutional.
PDAF has been declared unconstitutional by the SC for the following reasons:
1. The Pork Barrel system has violated the principle of separation of powers because it has
allowed legislators to wield, in varying gradations, non-oversight, post-enactment authority in
vital areas of budget execution.
2.It also violated the principle of non-delegability of legislative power since it has conferred
unto legislators the power of appropriation by giving them personal, discretionary funds from
which they are able to fund specific projects which they themselves determine. Likewise, the
principle of non-delegability of legislative power was again transgressed because it has conferred
to the President the power to appropriate funds intended by law for energy-related purposes only
to other purposes he may deem fit as well as other public funds under the broad classification of
“priority infrastructure development projects
3. Insofar as it has created a system of budgeting wherein items are not textualized into the
appropriations bill, it has flouted the prescribed procedure of presentment and, in the process,
denied the President the power to veto items;
4. The system has equally impaired public accountability insofar as it has diluted the
effectiveness of congressional oversight by giving legislators a stake in the affairs of budget
execution, an aspect of governance which they may be called to monitor and scrutinize.
5. Lastly, it subverted genuine local autonomy insofar as it has authorized legislators, who are
national officers, to intervene in affairs of purely local nature, despite the existence of capable
local institutions.(Belgica, et al. v. Exec. Sec. Paquito N. Ochoa, et al., G.R. No. 208566, 710
SCRA 1, 160-161, Nov. 19, 2013, En Banc [Perlas-Bernabe])
The SC also declared the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) adopted by the
Aquino administration unconstitutional.
1. Briefly explain why it is so declared
A: 10/10 - sagot sa samplex
The Disbursement Acceleration program was declared unconstitutional because it failed
to comply with the requirements of a valid transfer which are the following:
a. There must be a law authorizing the transfer of funds from their respective offices;
b. The funds must come from the savings generated from their respective appropriations in the
GAA; and
c. The Transfer must be made only within their respective offices.
Under the DAP, the funds did not emanate from savings in the appropriations since it
included those which are not found under the GAA. Moreover, it also covers fund from slow-
moving projects and those projects which are not yet completed or terminated. Such funds
cannot be considered as savings since they can only be determined at the end of the year. In
addition, the transfer of funds was not made within their respective offices, but to other branches
of the government such as to the legislature.
2. Should the projects funded from DAP be destroyed/demolished since the DAP was after
all unconstitutional? Elaborate
No, the doctrine of operative fact should be applied to the adoption and implementation
of the DAP.
The doctrine of operative fact recognizes the existence of the law or executive act prior to
the determination of its unconstitutionality as an operative fact that produced consequences that
cannot always be erased, ignored or disregarded. In short, it nullifies the void law or executive
act but sustains its effects. It provides an exception to the general rule that a void or
unconstitutional law produces no effect.
Such doctrine must be applied to DAP by reason of equity and fair play. The
consequences resulting from the DAP and its related issuances could not be ignored or could no
longer be undone. It is undeniable that the implementation of the DAP yield positive results that
enhanced the economic welfare of the country. Not to apply the doctrine of operative fact to the
DAP could literally cause the physical undoing of such worthy results by destruction, and would
result in most undesirable wastefulness
Q regarding Preventive Suspension

The contention of Mayor B is untentable
Preventive Suspension is different from suspension as a penalty. Preventive suspension is

imposed upon the public officer as a pre-emptive measure for the purpose of having an effective
and efficient investigation free from the biases that may arise from the presence and influence of
the person under investigation in the office. On the other hand, Suspension is a penalty that may
be imposed upon a public officer upon finding that he is guilty of the charges against him.
Thus, although Mayor B was preventively suspended, Ombudsman may validly suspend
him since he was found guilty of the charges against him.
Q: THen Pres GMA promulgated EO 464 prohibiting members of her Cabinet and other
top level executive branch from appearing during congressional investigations without her
Consent.
a. Rule on the validity of said order
The Supreme Court ruled in the case of Senate of the Philippines v. Ermita that E.O. No.
464 is partly unconstitutional.
Insofar as Sec 1 of EO 464, it must be construed as relating only to Sec 22, Art VI of the
Constitution, otherwise known as the "question hour".
The required consent of the of the President prior to the appearance of department heads
where the Congress in relation to Sec 22, Art VI of the Constitution is valid since the attendance
of the department heads in question hour is only discretionary because of the doctrine of
separation of powers.
However, Sec 2(b) in relation to Sec 3 of EO 464 shall be declared as unconstitutional for
the reason that attendance of department heads for inquiries in aid of legislation under Sec 21,
Art VI is mandatory or compulsory in nature. It was ruled in the case of Arnault v. Nazareno that
the power of the Legislative Department to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation is inherent and
necessary to enable the Congress to enact good laws.
Thus, the President cannot frustrate the power of legislation by refusing to provide
information to the Congress in aid of legislation unless such information falls within the ambit of
executive privilege.
b. What are the 3 known limitations on the power of each House of Congress to
conduct inquiries in aid of legislation
(From GN)
1. The rights of the persons appearing in or affected by such legislative inquiries shall be
respected.
2. The Rules of procedures to be followed in such inquiries shall be published for the guidance of
those who will be summoned. This must be strictly followed so that the inquiries are confined
only to the legislative purpose and to avoid abuses.
3. The investigation must be in aid of legislation
4. Congress may not summon the President as witness or investigate the latter in view of the
doctrine of separation of powers except in impeachment cases.
5. Congress may no longer punish the witness in contempt after its final adjournment. The basis
of the power to impose such penalty is the right to self-preservation. And such right is
enforceable only during the existence of the legislature (Lopez v. Delos Reyes, G.R. No. L34361,
Nov. 5, 1930).
6. Congress may no longer inquire into the same justiciable controversy already before the
court(Bengzon v. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, G.R. No. 89914, November 20, 1991).
c. What is an executive privilege, and what are its known varieties. (10 pts -2016)
Executive Privilege is the power of the President and high-level officials of the executive
branch to withhold certain kinds of information from the Congress, the Courts, and ultimately the
public.
The Following are its varieties:

a) Presidential communications privilege which refers to information deemed confidential by
the President in deliberating policies and other decisions of the President;
b) Deliberative Process Privilege refers to correspondences, documents, and other materials in
relation to the formulation of policies by administrative bodies and agencies.
c) Informer's Privilege means that the State cannot disclose the identity of persons who furnish
information regarding violation of law to authorities entrusted with the power to enforce
such laws
d) State Secret Privilege refers to crucial information regarding military, diplomatic and other
national security matters
e) General Privilege on Internal deliberations which also pertains to information regarding
policy formation.
ART VII
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
Former President Estrada was convicted of the crime of plunder by the Sandiganbayan but
subsequently pardoned by President GMA. In the May 2013 elections, he ran for mayor of
Manila. It was now argued by petitioner that (a) the pardon given to him was merely
conditional, i.e., conditioned on him not running for any elective public office as stated in
the WHEREAS clause of GMA’s proclamation, therefore he is not qualified to run for
Mayor of Manila; and that (b) only the main penalty of reclusion perpetua was pardoned
by GMA but not the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification to hold public office.
Rule on these contentions of petitioner. (10 pts.)
The contentions are untenable. The pardon given to Estrada was complete, unconditional,
and unqualified.
a) Jurisprudence tells us that Preamble is not an essential part of an act as it is an

introduction or preparatory clause that explains the reasons for the enactment, usually introduced
by the word, “whereas.” Whereas clauses do not form part of a statute because, strictly speaking,
they are not part of the operative language of the statute.
In this case, the whereas clause at issue is not an integral part of the decree of the pardon,
and therefore, does not by itself operate to make the pardon conditional or to make its effectivity
contingent upon the fulfillment of the aforementioned commitment nor to limit the scope of the
pardon.
b) All civil and political rights of Former President Estrada was restored from the plain
reading of the terms of the pardon. By construing that GMA only pardoned the main penalty and
not the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification to hold public office will not be in
consonance with the terms of the pardon.
The exercise of the pardoning power is discretionary in the President and may not be
interfered with by Congress or the Court, except only when it exceeds the limits provided for by
the Constitution.
Therefore, former President Estrada may legally run for mayor being restored with his
political rights including the right to hold public office.
Enumerate at least 5 limitations on the martial law power of the President under Sec 18,
Article VII of the Constitution.
Limitation on the martial law power of the President:
1. The President may only suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the
Philippines or any part thereof under martial law in case there is invasion or rebellion when
the public safety requires it.
2. The state of being under Martial Law or suspension of the privilege of habeas corpus shall
not exceed a period 60 days and the President, upon suspension or proclamation, is mandated
to report the same within 48 hours to Congress who has the authority to revoke the
suspension or proclamation.
3. The state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution.
4. The state of martial law does not supplant the functioning of the civil courts or legislative
assemblies, nor authorize the conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over
civilians where civil courts are able to function
5. The state of martial law does not automatically suspend the privilege or writ of habeas
corpus
6. The Supreme Court has the authority to review the presidential action upon the filing of a
petition by a citizen who questions the factual basis of such presidential action.
Ad interim appointment (2016; 2016

While Congress was on recess Congressman X was appointed by the President as the New
Secretary of Agriculture
A.: May Congressman X immediately assume office as the new Sec of Agri (5 pts)
Yes, Congressman X may immediately assume the office as the new Secretary of
Agriculture because an ad interim appointment is immediately effective subject only to
disapproval by the COA.
The Constitution imposes no condition on the effectivity of an ad interim

appointment, and thus an ad interim appointment takes effect immediately.
Congressman X can at once assume office and exercise, as a de jure officer, all the
powers pertaining to the office.
B.: Assuming that he did assume as Sec of Ag and later on his Appointment as such
was disapproved by the COA, may he still be reappointed by the Pres as Sec of Ag?
No. The disapproval of the COA is a judgement on the merits. Such disapproval
of the COA is the exercise by the Congress of the power of check and balance. Hence,
the President may no longer reappoint Cong X as Secretary of Agriculture.
C.:Will your answer in "b" above be the same if his appointment as Sec of Ag was
simply by-passed by the CoAppointment?
My answer would be different.
A by-passed appointment is one that has not been finally acted upon on the merits
by the Commission on Appointments at the close of the session of Congress. There is no
final decision by the Commission on Appointment to give or withhold its consent to the
appointment as required by the Constitution.
Thus, absent such decision, the President is free to reappoint Congressman X as

Secretary of Agriculture.
D.: If his appointment as Sec of Ag was disapproved or by-passed by the COA, can
he still return to his post in the HR?(5 pts)
No. Under the Constitution, No Senator or Member of the HR may hold any
other office or employment in the Government, or any subdivision, agency, or
instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations or their
subsidiaries, during his term without forfeiting his seat.
The office of the Sec of Agriculture is an incompatible office with his position
being a congressman. Thus, from the moment of assuming the office of Secretary of
Agriculture, a government office, Congressman X is deemed to have forfeited his seat in
the Congress.
Q: Emergency Power (Sec 23(2) Art VI) (2016)
The President may not validly exercise emergency power motu proprio because there
must be an enabling law enacted by the Congress for that effect.
Sec 23(1), Article VI of the Constitution provides that in times of war or other national
emergency, the Congress may, by law, authorize the President, for a limited period and subject to
such restrictions as it may prescribe, to exercise powers necessary and proper to carry out a
declared national policy. Unless sooner withdrawn by resolution of the Congress, such powers
shall cease upon the next adjournment thereof.
Thus, the proclamation issued by the President xxxxx
Q: Whether Lawless violence is a ground for martial law. (Art VII, Sec 18)
It is not his martial law power. The President may place the Philippines or any part
thereof under martial law only for two grounds, to wit: in case of invasion or rebellion, when
public safety requires it.
The existence of lawless violence is not one of the grounds for declaring martial law.
Q: Calling out power (Art VII, Sec 18)

Yes, it was his calling-out power.
Under Article VII, Sec 18 of the Constitution, the President shall be the Commander-in-
Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out
such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion.
Thus, the President may, due to the existence of lawful violence, call out the AFP in order
to suppress it.
ART VIII
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Political Question Doctrine - Expanded Judicial Power (2016; FINALS 2016; 2016 Finals
Q: What is judicial power, and explain how this definition under the present Constitution
adversely affected the Political question doctrine? (10 pts)
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies
involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not
there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part
of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.
It adversely affected the Political Question Doctrine because of its expanded power. As a
general rule, the Court cannot interfere or question the validity of the acts of other branches,
Legislative and Executive, to which full discretionary power has been delegated to them by the
Constitution however, because of the expanded power, the court may now interfere with the acts
of other branches if there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on their part. In such case, the Court may declare their acts void and unconstitutional.
Distinguish judicial legislation from the rule-making power of the Supreme Court.
Judicial legislation breach of principle of separation of powers by adding, modifying,
transgressing the very spirit of the statute or law provided by the political branches.
On the other hand, rule making power is limited merely to that power of the Court to (5)
Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights,
pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts,
the admission to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the
underprivileged.
Such rules
shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases,
shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and
shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights.
Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless
disapproved by the Supreme Court.
In the case of Resident Marine Mammals of Protected Seascape Tanon Strait v. Secretary
Angelo Reyes, petitioner urged the Court to lower the benchmark on locus standi applying
its epistolary jurisdiction. Briefly discuss this concept of epistolary jurisdiction in relation
to public interest litigations
Although the Court did not rule squarely on the issue (though it cited a dissenting opinion
of an American justice that even inanimate objects like rivers and forests may be proper parties
in environmental cases), yet the Court allowed the petition to prosper. After all, in their petitions
they were joined by human beings as stewards of nature and, under Section 5 of the Rules for the
Enforcement of Environmental Laws (citizen’s suit), any citizen of the Philippines may bring a
petition in court for the enforcement of environmental laws. (Resident Marine Mammals of the
Protected Seascape Tanon Strait, et al. v. Secretary Angelo Reyes, et al., GR Nos. 180771 and
181527, April 21, 2015, En Banc [Leonardo-De Castro, J.])
ART XVII
AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS
A proposal to change our government from unitary-presidential to federalism will require

an overhaul of the entire 1987 Philippine Constitution. May it be validly effected through:
1. A petition signed by at least 12 per cent of the total number of registered voters?
(2.5 pts.)
No, People's initiative on the Constitution is limited only to proposing amendments to the
Constitution, not revision thereof. (Santiago v. COMELEC)
The change of the form of government from Presidential to Federalism involves not
merely an amendment but a revision. Thus, it cannot be made through People's Initiative.
2. An Executive Order issued by the president creating constitutional commission to draft

the proposal whose members shall be appointed by him representing various sectors in the
country? (2.5 pts.)
No, it cannot be done through a Constitutional Commission. While the 1987 Constitution
was drafted by a Constitutional Commission, it is not one of the modes listed under Art XVII to
effect amendments or revisions.
The 1987 Constitution provides for two modes where proposal of any amendment to,
revision of, the Constitution may validly be effected by:
(a) Congress as a Constituent Assembly; and
(b) Constitutional Convention.
3. 3⁄4 vote of all the Senators and Congressmen? (2.5 pts.)

Yes. Congress, acting as a Constituent Assembly, may directly propose amendment or
revision of the Constitution upon a vote of three-fourths (3/4) of all its members as provided by
the Constitution.
4. A Constitutional Convention called by the congress for such purpose whose members
shall be elected by the people representing their respective Congressional districts? (2.5
pts.)
Yes, Constitutional Convention, a body separate and distinct from that of the Congress,
may be effected by 2/3 vote of all the members of the Congress. Further, the act of calling a
Constitutional Convention may be delegated to the People by a majority vote of all the members
of the Congress.
alternative: Yes, it may be done through a concom
A constitutional convention is a body separate and distinct from that of the Congress
itself whose members shall be elected by the people of their respective districts.
There are two (2) ways by which a constitutional convention may be convened; First,
Congress may directly call a constitutional convention, by a vote of two-thirds of all its
members; second, Congress, instead of directly calling a constitutional convention, may submit
the issue of calling such a convention to the people, by majority vote of all its members.
(SAME QUESTION) President Duterte pushes for a change of the present form of our
government, which is unitary-presidential, to federalism. This plan will require the revision
of the 1987 Constitution. Considering Article XVII on Amendment or Revision, briefly
explain if this may be validly effected through any of the following:
1. People's Initiative on the Constitution

2. Constitutional Convention
3. Constitutional Commission
4. Congress as a Constituent Assembly
May the People directly enact an Anti-Political Dynasty Law?

Yes. Sec 1, Article VI of the Constitution provides that the legislative power shall be
vested in the Congress of the Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and a House of
Representatives, except to the extent reserved to the people by the provision on initiative and
referendum.
The Constitution recognizes the power of the people to propose and enact laws or
approve or reject any act or law or part thereof passed by Congress or local legislative body.
Moreover, under Article XVII of the Constitution, amendments to the Constitution may
be directly proposed through People's Initiative. The same provision of the Constitution provides
that the Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right. Republic Act
No. 6735 was enacted by Congress as the enabling law.
Thus, The people may directly enact a law such as Anti-Political Dynasty Law.
PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW
What is the International Criminal Court, and what offenses fall under the jurisdiction of
this Court.
The International Criminal Court is an independent body from the United Nations
established by the Rome Statute. Under the Rome Statute, it shall have the power to exercise its
jurisdiction over persons for the most serious crimes of international concern x x x and shall be
complementary to the national criminal jurisdictions.
Its jurisdiction covers the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the
crime of aggression as defined in the Statute
What is the Principle of Complementarity in the Statute of the International Criminal

Court (ICC)?
Under the Principle of Complementarity, the International Criminal Court x x x shall be
complementary to national criminal jurisdiction.” This principle becomes operative in Article 1
of the Statute. This, however, has to be correlated with the sixth preambular paragraph of the
Statute which declares that “it is the duty of every State to exercise its criminal jurisdiction over
those responsible for international crimes.” The principle of complementarity produces a
correlation of the ICC jurisdiction with that of every state over international crimes under the
ICC Statute.
The principle of complementarity gives primacy to national jurisdiction x x x.
The principle of ne bis in idem in Article 20, paragraph 3, of ICC Statute strengthens
complementarity, thus: Unless the proceedings in the national court is for the purpose of
shielding the person concerned from liability, or not conducted independently or impartially, “no
person who has been tried by another court for conduct … [constituting crimes within its
jurisdiction] shall be tried by the Court with respect to the same conduct x x x.” (Magallona,
Fundamentals of Public International Law [2005 ed.])
The concept of Opinio Juris

It exists when a clear and continuous habit of doing certain things develops under the
CONVICTION that it is obligatory and right. This conviction is called “Opinio Juris” When
there’s no conviction that it is obligatory and right, there’s only a Usage. Usage is also a usual
course of conduct, a long-established way of doing things by States. To elevate a mere usage into
one of a customary rule of international law, there must be a degree of constant and uniform
repetition over a period of time coupled with opinio juris.
The Auto-limitation on sovereignty in international law

Under the principle of auto-limitation, any state may by its consent, express or implied,
submit to a restriction of its sovereign rights. There may thus be a curtailment of what otherwise
is a plenary power (Reagan v. CIR, G.R. L-26379, December 27, 1969). When the Philippines
joined the United Nations as one of its 51 charter members, it consented to restrict its sovereign
rights under the "concept of sovereignty as auto-limitation.
The Concept of an Association or Associated State - (Poli 1 Prelims 2016,\) 10 pts

An association is formed when two states of unequal power voluntarily establish durable
links. In the basic model, one state, the associate, delegates certain responsibilities to the other,
the principal, while maintaining its international status as a state.
In international law practice, an associated state arrangement as been usually used by

former colonies on their way to full independence.
It is not recognized under the 1987 Constitution because it implies powers that goes
beyond anything ever granted by the Constitution to any regional or local government.
Moreover, it implies that the recognition of the "associated entity" as a state. The
Constitution does not recognize any state in its jurisdiction other than the Philippine State,
neither does it provide for a transitory status that aims to prepare any part of the Philippine
territory for independence.
MOA-AD Unconstitutional (2015)

Discuss why the Proposed Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domains (MOA-AD)
about to be signed by and between the representatives of the Philippine Government and
the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) that will pave the way for the creation in
Mindanao of the Bangsa Moro Juridical Entity (BJE) was declared unconstitutional by the
Supreme Court.
The proposed MOA-AD should be declared unconstitutional for the following reasons:
First, the Constitution does not contemplate of an associated state. Under the MOA-AD,
the relationship of the BJE and Central Government is one which closely relates to that of an
association. The 1987 Constitution, however, does not recognize a state other than the Philippine
State.
Second, the initiative in the signing of an the enactment of the proposed MOA, is taken
by the Executive Department. This is violative of the Provisions of Art X. Under the 1987
Constitution, it is the Congress which has the power to enact an organic act of any entity or
autonomous region which will only be effective if ratified by the people through a plebiscite.
Lastly, the BJE is not an autonomous region under the Constitution. The BJE is far more
powerful than the autonomous region contemplated in the Constitution. It is deemed to be a state
in all but in name
Alternative answer:
The “MOA-AD” was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court for the following
grounds.
First, “the MOA-AD authorized the relationship of association to be had between the BJE
and the Philippine government such concept of association is unconstitutional as it violates the
national unity that the Constitution embodies. It also violates the Constitution because it grants
the BJE implied independence by reason of the associated-relationship that the MOA-AD
proposes.
Second, the MOA-Ad grants the BJE a portion of the territory that even the ARMM did
not have thereby damaging and diminishing Philippine national territory in general and damaged
the proper baselines and territorial limitations that the Philippines shall comply with.
Lastly, the MOA-AD creates a new state in all but its name because the BJE, pursuant to
that MOA-AD, acquired all the elements of the state:
1. People;
2. Territory;
3. Government;
4. Sovereignty.
BJE is a state in all but name as it meets the criteria of a state laid down in the
Montevideo Convention namely, a permanent population, a defined territory, a government and a
capacity to enter into relations with other states. Even assuming that the MOA-AD would not
necessarily sever any portion of Philippine Territory, the spirit animating it – which has betrayed
itself by its use of the concept of association – runs counter to the national sovereignty and
territorial integrity of the Republic.
Executive Agreement (2016)

Q: During the term of then President Ninoy Aquino, the Philippines entered into an
Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) with the USA where the US will be
allowed to preposition its troops and military facilities and equipment in Ph military bases
on a rotational basis. Some senators urged the President to transmit EDCA to the senate for
concurrence which the former refused arguing that the EDCA is merely an executive
agreement that will not require Senate action.
a. Which position should be upheld and why?
Malacanang's position should be upheld.
The power of the President to enter into binding executive agreements without Senate
concurrence is already well-established in this jurisdiction. As the sole organ of our foreign
relations, and the constitutionally assigned chief architect of our foreign policy, the President is
vested with the exclusive power to conduct and manage the country's interface with other states
and governments.
In order to keep the peace in its archipelago in this region of the world, and to sustain
itself at the same time against the destructive forces of nature, the Philippines will need friends.
Who they are, and what form the friendships will take, are for the President to decide. The only
restriction is what the Constitution itself prohibits. It appears that this overarching concern for
balancing constitutional requirements against the dictates of necessity was what led to EDCA.
As it is, EDCA is not constitutionally infirm. As an executive agreement, it remains

consistent with existing laws and treaties that it purports to implement.
b. Is an executive agreement an equally binding international obligation considering

that it will not require the concurrence by the Senate? (5/5)
Yes, an executive agreement is an equally binding international obligation because it
binds the contracting parties to the performance of their respective obligations in good faith.
Furthermore, in international law, there is no distinction between a treaty and an

executive agreement. Both are valid sources of obligation of the contracting States
The Benham rise is recognized by the UN as part of the Philippines exclusive economic
zone (EEZ) and reportedly rich in mineral resources. Recently, Chinese research vessels
where reported to have stayed there for an extended period, which alarmed our Secretary
of National Defense and the Department of Foreign Affairs. The Chinese Embassy in
Manila clarified that these vessels are but exercising freedom of navigation and the right of
innocent passage. Comment on the incident.
(Exclusive Economic Zone - a maximum zone of 200 nautical miles from the baseline from which
the territorial sea is measured, over which, the coastal State exercises sovereign rights over all
the economic resources of the sea, sea-bed and subsoil
Rights of other States in the EEZ (a) Freedom of navigation and overflight (b) Freedom to lay
submarine cables and pipelines (c) Freedom to engage in other internationally lawful uses of the
sea related to said functions.)
The Chinese Embassy’s argument is misplaced. Under International Law, the Philippines,
has the exclusive right to exploit all natural resources found in its exclusive economic zone and
such right is exercised to the exclusion of other state’s right to do the same. Hence, China cannot
conduct scientific research in the EEZ of the Philippines. The right of all states to conduct
scientific research only arises when they are navigating the high seas, which is considered res
communes.
On the exercise of freedom of navigation and the right of innocent passage, such rights
can only be enforced when it is solely for that purpose and not when it seeks to be prejudicial to
the Philippines.
The right of innocent passage can only be invoked while the vessel is passing through the
territorial sea. The Chinese embassy and China itself must prove that such act of passage did not
prejudice the rights of the Philippines, otherwise, International Law Organizations may sanction
them for such violations.
8. The traditional view is that an individual person is not a subject but merely an object of
international law. Is this view still valid today?
No, the traditional view is no longer valid today.
The modern trend in public international law is the primacy placed on the worth of the
individual person and the sanctity of human rights. Slowly, the recognition that the individual
person may properly be a subject of international law is now taking root.
The vulnerable doctrine that the subjects of international law are limited only to states
was dramatically eroded towards the second half of the past century. For one, the Nuremberg and
Tokyo trials after World War II resulted in the unprecedented spectacle of individual defendants
for acts characterized as violations of the laws of war, crimes against peace, and crimes against
humanity.
Recently, under the Nuremberg principle, Serbian leaders have been persecuted for war
crimes and crimes against humanity committed in the former Yugoslavia. These significant
events show that the individual person is now a valid subject of international law. (Government
of Hong Kong v. Judge Olalia, Jr. and Muñoz, GR No. 153675, 19 April 2007 [Sandoval –
Gutierrez])
10. In Vinuya vs Executive Secretary Alberto Romulo (the case involving the claims of
Filipino comfort woman during World War II against Japan), It was argued that the duty
of a State to espouse the claims of its nationals against another State has already evolved
into a jus cogens norm and therefore, mandatory. Explain/Clarify.
The Executive Department has the exclusive prerogative to determine whether to espouse
petitioners’ claims against Japan.
In this case, the Executive Department has already decided that it is to the best interest of
the country to waive all claims of its nationals for reparations against Japan in the Treaty of
Peace of 1951. The wisdom of such decision is not for the courts to question since it is a political
question.
The Executive Department has determined that taking up the claims against Japan, cause
would be inimical to the country's foreign policy interests, and could disrupt our relations with
Japan, thereby creating serious implications for stability in this region.
Even the invocation of jus cogens norms and erga omnes obligations will not alter this
analysis. It was not shown that the crimes committed by the Japanese army violated jus cogens
prohibitions at the time the Treaty of Peace was signed, or that the duty to prosecute perpetrators
of international crimes is an erga omnes obligation or has attained the status of jus cogens.
11. Considering that the right to self-determination of people has already been elevated into
the status of generally accepted principle of international law (as held by the SC in the
Province of North Cotabato case), may the Bangsa Moro People of Mindanao not validly
invoke this right to secede from the Republic of the Philippines? Explain.
No, Although the right to self-determination of peoples had been elevated to a status of a
jus cogens principle, it does not mean the Bangsa moros can invoke their right to secede from the
Philippines.
In the case of secession of Quebec it was clarified that the right to self-determination, that
people may only pursue their economic, social and cultural development within the framework
of an existing state.
The Canadian Court went on to discuss the exceptional cases in which the right to
external self-determination can arise, namely,
(1) where a people is under colonial rule,
(2) is subject to foreign domination or exploitation outside a colonial context, and - less
definitely but asserted by a number of commentators – is
(3) blocked from the meaningful exercise of its right to internal self-determination.
In this case, the Bangsa Moro was not under the exceptional cases in which the right to
self-determination can arise, therefore, Bangsa Moros does not have the right to invoke secession
from the Philippines.
ART III
BILL OF RIGHTS
I.
In Mosqueda v. Pilipino Growers and Exporters Association, Inc. The SC declared an
Ordinance enacted by the Sangguniang Panglungsod of Davao City banning aerial
spraying as an agricultural practice in all agricultural entities in that City
Unconstitutional. Briefly explain why.
The Ordinance was declared unconstitutional it violates due process and equal protection
clause and such enactment of ordinance is also considered an ultra vires act.
The ordinance violates due process for being oppressive as it requires agricultural entities
in City of Davao to shift to another mode of pesticide application within three months. It is
unreasonable because such time frame is very short and would require
It also violates the equal protection clause. The ordinance suffers from being
“underinclusive” because the classification does not include all individuals tainted with the same
mischief that the law seeks to eliminate. A classification that is drastically underinclusive with
respect to the purpose or end appears as an irrrational means to the legislative end because it
poorly serves the intended purpose of the law. Aside from being underinclusive, the ordinance
also tends to be “overinclusive” because its implementation will affect groups that have no
relation to the accomplishment of the legislative purpose. Its implementation will unnecessarily
impose a burden on a wider range of individuals than those included in the intended class based
on the purpose of the law.
Lastly, it was an ultra vires act on the part of the Davao City Government. The power to
regulate the application and use of chemicals and pesticides is vested in the Fertilizer and
Pesticides Authority (FPA) – a national government agency. This power is not among those
devolved to local governments under the Local Government Code (R.A. No. 7160).
II.
The Producer and director of the popular local TV drama series "Ang probinsyano" were
castigated and threatened by PNP authorities as the show tended to depict the PNP in a
negative [light?]. Subsequently, the director of the TV show, upon instruction of the TV
station management had to edit certain portions of the story plot to comply with the
demand of PNP authorities. If you are asked to question this act of PNP authorities, what
constitutional issue/s will you raise? Elaborate (10 pts)
III.
In connection with the May 2013 senatorial elections, the Diocese of Bacolod posted
huge tarpaulins in the premises of its Cathedral in Bacolod City categorizing candidates for
Senator into either belonging to "Team Buhay" or Team Patay. In essence, the tarpaulins
urged the Catholic faithful to vote only for candidates belonging to Team Buhay in the
election.
The COMELEC ordered the Diocese to remove those tarpaulins as they are
considered unlawful campaign propaganda materials prohibited under the Omnibus
Election Code, otherwise those responsible for their posting may be prosecuted for violation
of election laws.
The Diocese argued that those tarpaulins are part of their religious speech and,
therefore, protected by the Constitution pursuant to the Separation of Church and State
Doctrine.
A. Comment on the merits of the argument raised by the Diocese of Bacolod
The argument does not persuade. It was not a religious speech; it has nothing to do with
the creed, doctrine or beliefs of the church which can be considered “a purely ecclesiastical affair
of the church” that will prohibit the state from intruding into. It was a political speech by a
religious group that may be subject to the police power of the state. (The Diocese of Bacolod,
Represented by the Most Rev. Bishop Vicente M. Navarra, et al. v. COMELEC, GR No. 205728,
January 21, 2015, En Banc [Leonen])
B. Will you uphold the order of the COMELEC under the circumstances?
No. The power of the COMELEC is to regulate the use of political campaign propaganda
to insure equal opportunity among candidates and political parties during the elections. The
tarpaulin cannot be considered a campaign propaganda material which can be regulated by the
COMELEC under the police power; it was an opinion of a voter on an issue of national
significance which is beyond the power of the COMELEC to regulate as it is protected by the
Constitution under the freedom of expression clause. (The Diocese of Bacolod, Represented by
the Most Rev. Bishop Vicente M. Navarra, et al. v. COMELEC, GR No. 205728, January 21,
2015, En Banc [Leonen])
What are "content-based" restrictions on free speech as distinguished from "content-
neutral" regulations? (Prelims2016; Finals2016
Content-based restriction is directed against the speech itself or the contents of the
speech. Such restrictions constitute prior restraint on the freedom of expression. On the other
hand, Content-neutral restriction is not directed agains the speech itself but only on the incidents
of the speech, the manner, the time and the place of speech.
The significance in knowing the distinction is to know the requirement in order to justify
such curtailment of right because as a rule, infringement or impairment of the fundamental
freedom comes to the court with the presumption of unconstitutionality.
If the restriction is content-based, the Government may justify the restriction by proving
that there is a clear and present danger of a substantive evil which the state is duty bound to
prevent and to suppress.
If the restriction is content-neutral, the Government may justify the restriction by

pointing out compelling state interest only that will justify the restriction. There is no need to
apply clear and present danger rule.
Is the Public Assembly Act (BP 880) a content-based restriction or content-neutral?
BP 880 is a content-neutral regulation. Its provision pertains to the manner, or procedural

aspect by which the freedom is exercised. A regulation limiting or drawing the maximum
restraint that can be employed by public authorities, the police and military, is not dirrected
against the content or validity of the speech. It is a mere regulatory measure for the protection of
the public.
Due to frequent rallies held in Mendiola and other public places in Metro Manila, the
Arroyo administration adopted the Calibrated Preemptive Response (CPR) policy, which
simply means the strict enforcement of the “no permit, no rally” policy.
a. Comment on the constitutionality of said CPR policy vis-à-vis the “maximum

tolerance” policy defined by BP 880. Discuss
Under BP 880, maximum tolerance has been defined as the highest degree of
restraint that the military, police and other peace keeping authorities shall observe during
a public assembly or in the dispersal of the same.
In the case of BAYAN v. Ermita, the Supreme Court said that if the CPR adopted
by arroyo administration in dealing with rallies and public assemblies means no more
than maximum tolerance as defined by bp 880 then it become superfluous that will only
lead to confusion because the policy has already been defined by the said law.
However, if the CPR means more than maximum tolerance as defined by BP 880
then it becomes unconstitutional that will constitute an infringement or impairment of
the freedom of expression and other basic freedoms.
For this reason, the so-called calibrated preemptive response policy has no place
in our legal firmament and must be struck down as a darkness that shrouds freedom.
b. Under BP 880, what are the instances when one may hold a rally even without a
permit from local authorities. (Answer: 3 instances - Sec 4, BP 880)
1. If the public assembly/rally shall be done or made in a freedom park duly established
by law or ordinance or
2.If the public assemply/rally shall be done or made in private property, in which case
only the consent of the owner or the one entitled to its legal possession is required, or
3.if the public assemply/rally shall be done or made in the campus of a
governmentowned and operated educational institution which shall be subject to the
rules and regulations of said educational institution
X was a natural born Filipino Citizen. Later, he became an American citizen. With the
enactment of RA 9225 (The Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003), he
reacquired his Philippine Citizenship by taking an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines before an officer authorized to administer an oath in the Philippines. In may
13, 2013 elections, he filed his certificate of candidacy for Mayor of his hometown. In
compliance with the requirement of RA 9225, he renounced his American Citizenship at the
time of the filing of his certificate of candidacy. Later, it was established that he continued
to travel to the US using his American passport. His citizenship qualification was
questioned in a petition filed in the COMELEC. While the petition was pending in the
COMELEC, there came the election and he won and was proclaimed and assumed office as
Mayor.
A. considering the foregoing, was his proclamation and assumption of office valid?
No, both his proclamation and assumption are invalid. X, by using his US
passport after renouncing his American citizenship, has recanted the Oath of
Renunciation he took.
Section 5(2) of The Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003

provides Those seeking elective public office in the Philippines shall meet the
qualifications for holding such public office as required by the Constitution and existing
laws and, at the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy, make a personal and
sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before any public officer
authorized to administer an oath.
In this case, X made an effective renunciation of his foreign citizenship. However,

this legal presumption does not operate permanently and is open to attack when, after
renouncing the foreign citizenship, the citizen performs positive acts showing his
continued possession of a foreign citizenship.
The renunciation of foreign citizenship is not a hollow oath that can simply be
professed at any time, only to be violated the next day. It requires an absolute and
perpetual renunciation of the foreign citizenship and a full divestment of all civil and
political rights granted by the foreign country which granted the citizenship.
Thus, Section 40(d) of the Local Government Code applies to his situation. He is
disqualified not only from holding the public office but even from becoming a candidate
in the May 2011 elections.
B. Assuming that his proclamation and assumption as mayor was declared invalid,
who shall assume the position of mayor: the Vice mayor? or his opponent that
obtained the second highest number of votes?
The Candidate who receive the second highest the qualified candidate who obtained the
highest number of votes will should be proclaimed mayor The rule on succession under the Local
Government Code will not apply.
The opponent who obtained the second highest number of votes should be proclaimed
mayor. Since X was disqualified from running for mayor in the first place, he having dual
citizenship, it is as if he was not a candidates at all and, therefore, the votes cast in his favor
should not have been counted. The opponent who obtained the second highest number of votes
actually was not a second placer; he was, in fact, the first among the remaining qualified
candidates and, therefore, should be proclaimed and assume office as mayor.
Is a foundling a natural-born citizen? Reason/s

Although the Constitution is silent as to the citizenship of foundlings, there was neither a
restrictive language that will exclude them as such. On the contrary, in the records of the
deliberations of the drafters of the 1934 Constitution, it was shown that there was an attempt to
confer natural-born citizenship to a foundling; the only reason that the proposal was not carried
out was that the framers considered the possibility that there will be foundlings will be too few
and too far between, hence, no need for any such provision.
At any rate, even international law and our domestic laws on adoption subscribe to the
proposition that foundlings should be accorded the status of being natural-born citizens.
Otherwise, it will be downright discriminatory to deny them such a status because of the
unfortunate circumstance not of their own making. (Mary Grace Natividad S. Poe-Llamanzares
v. COMELEC, G R. No. 221697, March 8, 2016, En Banc [Perez])
Distinguish dual citizenship from dual allegiance, and clarify what really is prohibited by
the Constitution.
Dual citizenship arises when, as a result of the concurrent application of the different
laws of two or more states, a person is simultaneously considered a national by the said states.
For instance, such a situation may arise when a person whose parents are citizens of a state
which adheres to the principle of jus sanguinis is born in a state which follows the doctrine of jus
soli. Such a person, ipso facto and without any voluntary act on his part, is concurrently
considered a citizen of both states.
Dual allegiance, on the other hand, refers to a situation in which a person simultaneously
owes, by some positive act, loyalty to two or more states. While dual citizenship is involuntary,
dual allegiance is the result of an individual‟s volition. (Mercado v. Manzano, 307 SCRA 630,
May 26, 1999, En Banc [Mendoza])
What is prohibited by the Constitution is Dual allegiance. Section 5, Article IV, 1987
Constitution Provides that Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall
be dealt with by law.
The executing law is RA No. 7160 (Local Government Code). Hence, the phrase “dual
citizenship” in R.A. No. 7160, Section 40(d) (Local Government Code) must be understood as
referring to “dual allegiance.” Consequently, persons with mere dual citizenship do not fall under
this disqualification. Unlike those with dual allegiance, who must be subject to strict process
with respect to the termination of their status, for candidates with dual citizenship, it should
suffice if, upon the filing of their certificate of candidacy, they elect Philippine citizenship to
terminate their status as persons with dual citizenship considering that their condition is the
unavoidable consequence of conflicting laws of different states.
Briefly discuss the effects of repatriation

xxx
Distinguish taxes from licenses. May taxes be subject to off-setting or compensation?
Taxes cannot be subject to off-setting or compensation simply because the Government

and the taxpayer are not creditor and debtor of each other. Taxes are not debts and there are
material distinctions between them. Debts are due to the Government in its corporate capacity
while taxes are due to the Government in its sovereign capacity. Taxes are compulsory and not
just a matter of bargain. Hence, a taxpayer cannot refuse to pay his taxes when they fall due.
Justice Marshall once remarked that "the power to tax includes the power to destroy"
which statement was later rebutted by Justice Holmes when he asserted that "the power to
tax does not include the power to destroy for as long as this court sits." Which of the two
statements is correct. Explain.
Both are correct, the power to tax involves a destructive power which may interfere with
the personal and property rights of the people and take from them a portion of their property. The
Supreme Court, aware of the destructive potential of the power of taxation, has come up every
now and the with reminders as to how these powers may be held in check.
The Constitution itself through the Due Process Clause could provide a check, preventing
any arbitrary, capricious or confiscatory exercise of the power. There are also constitutional
limitations which directly address certain issues on the exercise of such power in order to make it
fair and equitable.
Is there a Constitutional right to privacy?
Yes, there is a constitutional right to privacy.
The essence of privacy is the “right to be let alone.” In the 1965 case of Griswold v.
Connecticut (381 U.S. 479, 14 L. ed. 2D 510 [1965]), the United States Supreme Court gave
more substance to the right of privacy when it ruled that the right has a constitutional foundation.
It held that there is a right of privacy which can be found within the penumbras of the First,
Third, Fourth, Fifth and Ninth Amendments x x x. In the 1968 case of Morfe v. Mutuc (22 SCRA
424, 444-445), we adopted the Griswold ruling that there is a constitutional right to privacy x x x
Indeed, if we extend our judicial gaze we will find that the right of privacy is recognized
and enshrined in several provisions of our Constitution. (Morfe v. Mutuc [1970]). It is expressly
recognized in Section 3(1) of the Bill of Rights x x x. Other facets of the right to privacy are
protected in various provisions of the Bill of Rights (viz: Secs. 1, 2, 6, 8, and 17. (Ople v. Torres,
G.R. No. 127685, July 23, 1998 [Puno]) Various guarantees of our Constitution and laws create
zones of privacy.
There are four (4) sections of the Bill of Rights governed by exclusionary rule on evidence
so that any evidence obtained in violation of any of these four (4) will not be admissible in
evidence for any purpose in any proceeding. Briefly describe each.
There are 4 provisions of the Bill of Rights governed by the Exclusionary Rule on
Evidence such that any evidence obtained in violation of any of the 4 will not be admissible for
any purpose in any proceeding, it being incompetent evidence. These are:
- Sec 2 (The Right against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures)
- Sec 3 (The Right to Privacy of Communication and Correspondence)
- Sec 12 (The Custodial Investigation Rights)
- Sec 17 (The Right against Self-Incrimination)
What are the requisites for a valid issuance of a search warrant or warrant of arrest?
Requisites of a valid warrant:
1. It must be based upon probable cause
2. The probable cause must be determined personally by the judge
3. The determination must be made after examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and witnesses he may produce
4. It must particularly describe the place to be searched and the person of things to be
seized
In the more recent case of Conchita Carpio Morales v. CA, the SC abandoned the doctrine
of condonation although the abandonment was given prospective application only.
a. what is this doctrine of condonation?

Under the Doctrine of Condonation - A public official cannot be removed for
administrative misconduct committed during a prior term, since his re-election to office operates
as a condonation of the officer‟s previous misconduct to the extent of cutting off the right to
remove him therefor. The foregoing rule, however, finds no application to criminal cases pending
against petitioner. (Aguinaldo v. Santos, 212 SCRA 768, 773 [1992])
b. Briefly explain why this doctrine was abandoned.

The Court observed that this doctrine was first applied in the 1959 case of Pascual v.
Provincial Board of Nueva Ecija - which ruling was based on an American case. Upon review of
American cases on the matter, the Court found that even in the US, this doctrine was not
uniformly recognized by American courts.
Besides, Pascual was decided under the 1935 Constitution which Constitution does not
give emphasis to the nature of public office as a public trust - a novel feature of this 1987
Constitution.
Continuous observance of this doctrine will make a mockery of the nature of public
office as a public trust and the corresponding accountability of public officers, hence, should be
abandoned.
Moreover, the reason behind the adoption of said doctrine as expressed in Garcia v.
Mojica appears to be based on faulty reasoning for, indeed, the electorate cannot possibly
condone what it did not know, since it is common knowledge that a misconduct is committed in
secret. (Conchita Carpio Morales v. Court of Appeals (Sixth Division), GR Nos. 217126-27,
November 10, 2015, En Banc (Perlas-Bernabe)
Extradition - sui generis (Finals 2016

Explain the ruling in Government of the USA v. Judge Purganan which states that "no bail
rule applies in extradition" was reexamined in the later case of Government of Hongkong
Special Administrative Region v. Judge Olalia, and state what are the conditions before an
extraditee may be allowed to post bail during the pendency of an extradition proceeding.
An extraditee may be allowed to post bail during the pendency of an extradition

proceeding. However, for him to be allowed to post bail, still he must prove that
(1) once granted bail he will not be a flight risk or a danger to the community; and
(2) that there exists special, humanitarian and compelling circumstances that will justify the grant
of bail to him, by a clear and convincing evidence.
Constitutionality of the Biometrics law was challenged in the SC as it violated Sec 1, Art V
on Suffrage which essentially provides that "no literacy, property or other substantive
requirements may be imposed in the exercise of suffrage" Rule on the issue (FINALS 2016
Biometric Validation is not a “qualification” to the exercise of the right of suffrage, but a
mere aspect of the registration procedure, of which the State has the right to reasonably regulate.
It was institutionalized conformant to the limitations of the 1987 Constitution and is a mere
complement to the Existing Voter‟s Registration Act of 1996. X x x
“Thus, unless it is shown that a registration requirement rises to the level of a literacy,
property or other substantive requirement as contemplated by the Framers of the Constitution –
that is, one which propagates a socio-economic standard which is bereft of any rational basis to a
person‟s ability to intelligently cast his vote and to further the public good – the same cannot be
struck down as unconstitutional, as in this case.” (Kabataan Party-list, et al., v. Commission on
Elections, G.R. No. 221318, December 16, 2015, En Banc (Perlas-Bernabe)
The right of people to a balance and healthful ecology is not included under the Bill of
Rights, does it mean that it is less important?
No. While the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is to be found under the
Declaration of Principles and State Policies and not under the Bill of Rights, it does not follow
that it is less important than any of the civil and political rights enumerated in the latter. Such a
right belongs to a different category of rights altogether for it concerns nothing less than self-
preservation and self-perpetuation.
As a matter of fact, these basic rights need not even be written in the Constitution for they
are assumed to exist from the inceptions of mankind.
The MMDA ordered the opening of Neptune St. to public vehicular traffic to ease up the
traffic congestion in that part of Makati. The BAVA questioned the act of the MMDA
arguing that Neptune St. is a private property and its opening to public vehicular traffic
will greatly affect the peace and privacy of village residents
a. Resolve the issue, citing reasons
Opening Neptune St, a private property, to the public is in effect taking the
property for public use, an exercise of the power of eminent domain.
Here, MMDA, an administrative agency, has no authority to exercise the power of

eminent domain. MMDA acted beyond its power.
Hence, the order promulgated by MMDA is invalid.

b. Will it make any difference if it was the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Makati

which issued the order through an ordinance?
Yes. Sangguniang Panglunsod of Makati, a local government unit, may exercise

the power of eminent domain through a valid ordinance upon payment of just
compensation as the power of eminent domain has been delegated by the Congress to the
local government unit under Section 19 of the local government code.
May a local government validly exercise the power of eminent domain through a
resolution? Clarify. State the requisites for a valid exercise by local government of the
power of eminent domain.
No. The local government can not exercise the power of eminent domain through a
resolution. The Court clarified in the case of Municipality of Paranaque v. V.M Realty
Corporation that resolution is different from an ordinance. Before a Local government unit may
exercise the power of eminent domain, the following requisites must be present:
1. An ordinance is enacted by the local legislative council authorizing the local chief
executive, in behalf of the local government unit, to exercise the power of eminent
domain or pursue expropriation over a particular private property.
2. The power of eminent domain is exercised for public use, purpose, welfare, or for the
benefit of the poor and the landless.
3. There is payment of just compensation
4. A valid and definite offer has been previously made to the owner of the property sought
to be expropriated, but said offer was not accepted.
Explain the void-for-vagueness” doctrine and the “doctrine of overbread” and how they
relate to due process?
Under the void-for-vagueness doctrine, a statute or act which either requires or forbids
the doing of any act is vague because it lacks comprehensible standards that men of common
intelligence must necessarily guest as to its meaning but differ as to its application. It violates
due process for failure to accord persons, especially the parties targeted by it, fair notice of what
conduct to avoid and it leaves the law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out its
provisions and become an arbitrary flexing of the Government muscle.
On the other hand, under the doctrine of overbreadth, a statute may be said to be
overbroad where it operates to inhibit the exercise of individual freedoms affirmatively
guaranteed by the Constitution such as the freedom of speech and religion. The said statue
violates due process for failing to give adequate warning of the boundary between the
constitutionally permissible and constitutionally impermissible application of the statute.
While going home on board a taxi after a drinking spree with some friends, Martin was
stopped in a checkpoint manned by PNP to implement the gun ban law during the election
period. Taken from his attache case was a sachet of “shabu” and some pornographic
materials
a. Are the sachet of “shabu” and pornographic materials taken from Martin admissible in
evidence?
No, the search made by the PNP violates the constitutional right of Martin against
unreasonable searches. For searches at checkpoints to be valid, the search should be limited only
to visual search, usually with the use of flashlight. Intrusive search is not allowed.
In this case, the sachet of shabu and pornographic materials are taken from Martin’s attache case,
obviously not a visual search. It is an intrusive search without a valid search warrant, therefore, it
violates the constitutional right of Martin against unreasonable searches and in effect makes the
sachet of shabu and pornographic materials inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any
proceeding for having been obtained in violation of Sec 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution
(The right against unreasonable search and seizure).
b. What is a plain view search? What are its requisites

Plain view search is a lawful search without a search warrant. Objects falling in plain
view of an officer who has a right to be in the position have that view are subject to seizure
without a search warrant and the same may be introduced in evidence.
The "plain view" doctrine applies when the following requisites concur:
(a) the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an
intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular area;
(b) the discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent;
(c) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of
a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure.
c. Comment on the constitutionality of warrantless searches at the airport.

Person may lose the protection of the search and seizure clause by exposure of their
person or property to the public in a manner reflecting a lack of subjective expectation of
privacy, which expectation society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. Such recognition is
implicit in airport security procedures. With increased concern over airplane hijacking and
terrorism has come increased security at the nations airports. Moreover, travelers are often
notified through airport public address systems, signs, and notices in their airline tickets that they
are subject to search and, if any prohibited materials or substances are found, such would be
subject to seizure. Hence, warrantless searches at airports are valid.
For soliciting without permit from the DSWD for the repair of their community chapel,
mang sendo was prosecuted and convicted by the trial court for violation of PD 1564
(which penalizes anyone who solicits for charitable and public welfare purpose without
permit from the DSWD)
a. Explain why his conviction should be reversed on appeal.
PD 1564 penalizes anyone who shall solicit for charitable and public welfare
purpose without securing a permit from the DSWD. The Supreme Court held in the case
of Centeno v. Villalon-Pornillos that the scope of PD 1564 should not be extended to
religious purposes because solicitation of contributions for the construction/repair of a
church is not solication for charitable or public welfare purpose but for a religious
purpose, and a religious purpose is not necessarily charitable or public welfare purpose.
In this case, mang sendo was soliciting for the repair of their community chapel, a
religious purpose, and such purpose is not within the purview of the provisions of PD
1564. Hence, Mang Sendo’s conviction should be reversed.
b. What are the 2 aspects of freedom of religion. Briefly discuss.

The two aspects of freedom of religion are:
1. Freedom to believe
2. Freedom to act on one’s belief.
As held in the case of Iglesia ni Cristo v. CA, freedom to believe is an absolute

right for as long as the belief is confined within the realm of thought; while freedom to
act on one’s belief is not absolute for it is subject to regulation, by virtue of police power
of the state, where the belief is translated into external acts that affect the public welfare.
What are the recognized restriction to the right of the people to information on matters of
public oncern as enumerated by SC in Chavez v. PCGG.
The recognized restriction to the right of the people to information on matters of public
concern as enumerated by the Supreme Court in the case of Chavez v. PCGG are:
1. National security matters and intelligence, these are with with respect to state secrets regarding
military, diplomatic and other national security matters;
2. Trade or industrial secrets pursuant to the Intellectual property code, and banking transactions
pursuant to the Secrecy of Bank Deposits Act;
3. Criminal matters, such as those relating to the apprehension, prosecution and the detention of
criminals, which courts may not inquire into prior to such arrest, detention and prosecution;
4. Other confidential information, those which are protected by privilege communication.
What are the 2 kinds of involuntary or coerced confessions under Sec 12, and state the
significance of knowing the distinction. (Reason: presumptions)
The 2 kinds of involuntary or coerced confessions under Sec 12 of the Article III of the
1987 Constitution are:
1. Confessions which are the product of third degree methods such as tortute, force, violence,
threat, intimidation which are dealt with in paragraph 2 of Section 12 of Article II of the 1987
Constitution
2. Confessions which are given without the benefit of Miranda warnings, which are the subject
of paragraph 1 of Section 12 of Article III of the 1987 Constitution.
The significance in knowing the distinction is to know the application of presumption

regarding the extrajudicial confession made by the suspect. According to the SC in the case of
People v Obrero, if the confession was alleged to have been obtained through tortute, force,
violence, threat, intimidation, or third degree methods, the presumption is that it was voluntarily
given so that the burden of proving that the suspect was subject to torture or third degree
methods when he executed that extrajudicial confession lies on the part of the suspect because
the police enjoys the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duty.
On the other hand, if the confession was alleged to have been obtained without the
benefit of the Miranda warnings, the presumption is that it was psychological coerce, so that the
burden of proving that he was informed and that his Miranda rights were properly observed lies
on the part of the prosecution and law enforcement officer.
Pursuant to the provision of the RP-US extradition Treaty, the american Government
requested the Philippine government to have X arrested and extradited to the US for
alleged criminal offenses. The request was coursed through the DFA. The DFA transmitted
the request to the DOJ for initial evaluation pursuant to PD 1069 (Our extradition law).
Upon learning of said request for his extradition from the American government, X
requested the DOJ to furnish him copy of said document together with the supporting
evidences so that he can prepare his defense.
a. Will it constitute denial of X’s right to due process if the DOJ deny its request?
No. An extradition proceeding is not criminal in character and the evaluation
stage of an extradition proceeding is not similar to preliminary investigation, the due
process safeguards during preliminary investigation do not necessarily apply during the
evaluation stage in an extradition proceeding. The concept of due process is flexible for
not all situation calling for procedural safeguards call for the same kind of procedure.
Thus, An extradition proceeding is sui generis, a class by itself. It is not similar to a
criminal proceeding which will call into operation of all the rights of an accused
guaranteed under the Bill of Rights.
Hence, the denial of the DOJ to the request of X to give him copy of document for
him to prepare his defense does not violate his right to due process.
b. Assuming that the petition for his extradition is filed by the DOJ in the RTC
before the Judge issues a warrant for his arrest under PD 1069, is prior notice and
hearing required?
No. It was held in the case of Government of the United States of America v.
Judge Purganan that prior notice and hearing is not required before a judge issues a
warrant of arrest of an extraditee on two basis, statutory and consitutional basis. Section
6 of PD 1069 uses the word “immediate” and phrase “if it appears”, accuracy is not need
in the early stage; Section 2 , Article III of the 1987 Constitution does not require prior
notice before the judge issues a warrant of arrest.
Hence, prior notice and hearing is not required before a judge issuas a warrant of
arrest of an extraditee.
c. During the pendency of the extradition proceeding in the RTC, should he be

allowed to post bail?
Yes. However, an extraditee is always presumed to be a flight risk. He may be
allowed to post bail provided that he must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that
once granted bail, he will not be a flight risk or a danger to the community; and that
there exist a special, humanitarian and compelling circumstances that will justify the
grant to bail to him.
A group of unarmed demonstrators, numbering about 10k, made up of urban poor, slum
dweller, students, senior citizen, and several religious personalities marched along mendiola
on their way to malacanang. They were carrying banners and streamers very critical of
Arroyo administration. Their leaders were delivering fiery speeches, exhorting them to be
very vigilant in the protection of basic constitutional rights which, they claimed, are
significantly trampled upon and reduced to a myth by the present dispensation. After
crossing Mendiola bridge, they were dispersed by police military personnel assigned to
secure the Palace grounds with truncheons, water cannons and tear gases, causing injuries
to several of them.
a. Was the dispersal justified?

No. Any act of the government that is alleged to have infringed upon or impaired a
constitutioonal right such as freedom of expressions comes to the court with a heavy
presumption of unconstitutionality, so that the burden lies on the part of the government to justify
such act by showing some compelling State interest.
In this case, the group of demonstrators are just exercising their freedom of expression.
The police military personnel infringed upon the exercise of such right of the group of
demonstrators and considering that the group of demonstrators were unarmed, there is no
compelling State interest to justify the dispersal
Hence, the dispersal was not justified.
b. Distinguish content-based restrictions from content-neutral. Explain the significance of

knowing the distinction.
Content-based restriction is directed against the speech itself or the contents of the
speech. Such restrictions constitute prior restraint on the freedom of expression. On the other
hand, Content-neutral restriction is not directed agains the speech itself but only on the incidents
of the speech, the manner, the time and the place of speech.
The significance in knowing the distinction is to know the requirement in order to justify
such curtailment of right because as a rule, infringement or impairment of the fundamental
freedom comes to the court with the presumption of unconstitutionality.
If the restriction is content-based, the Government may justify the restriction by proving
that there is a clear and present danger of a substantive evil which that state is duty bound to
prevent and to suppress.
If the restriction is content-neutral, the Government may justify the restriction by

pointing out compelling state interest only that will justify the restriction. There is no need to
apply clear and present danger rule.
In his petition to post bail, the judge conditioned the grant of bail to X on his arraignment
ratiocinating that if he is granted bail without having been arraigned first, he might jump
bail and, therefore, trial in absentia may not proceed. What constitutional right/s of P will
be violated by such condition imposed by judge on the grant of bail to him?
The rights violated by such condition imposed by judge on the grant of bail are the right
not to be put on trial except upon valid complaint or information sufficient to charge him with a
crime and his right to bail. To condition the grant of bail to an accused on his arraignment would
place him in a position where he has to choose between 1) filing a motion to quash the
information against him and 2)to be arraigned in order to bail, in which case he can no longer file
a motion to quash even if there are valid grounds to do so. These scenarios undermine the
accused’s constitutional right not to be put on trial except upon valid complaint or information
sufficient to charge him with a crime and his right to bail.
State how expropriations may be initiated. What are the 2 stages in an expropriation
proceeding?
Expropriation may be initiated by court action or legislation by congress. If the power of
eminent domain is only delegated, expropriation is only by court action. At any rate, either by
court action or by legislation of congress, just compesnation is determined only by the Court.
The two stages of expropriation are:
1. Determination of the court of authority of agency which moved for expropriation and
determination of the court of genuine necessity for the taking.
2. Determination of just compensation
Discuss the limitations on the right of the people to information on matters of public
concern. Are the funds of the GSIS matters of public concern subject to this right?
X was charged with Homicide(reclusion temporal) before the RTC. In application for bail,
the judge refused the grant of bail ratiocinating that there were 2 witnesses to the killing as
shown in the affidavit.
a. Was the judge correct in denying bail?

No. The judge is wrong in denying the bail. Before conviction, bail is a matter of
right if the offense charged where the imposable penalty is lower than reclusion
perpetua. In this case, X was charged with Homicide, an offense punishable by reclusion
temporal only. Hence, X has the right to post bail by sufficient sureties.
b. If after the trial, he was convicted of the crime charge, should he be allowed to go
on bail while waiting for the result of his appeal? (Rule 5, Sec 114 of ROC)
c. When is bail a matter of right? When is it a matter of discretion?

Bail is a matter of right if one is charge with an offense where the imposable
penalty is lower than reclusion perpetua.
On the other hand, bail is a matter of discretion if one is charge with an offense
punishable by Reclusion Perpetua or higher. In such case, the Court is mandated to
conduct a hearing to determine whether the evidence of guilt of the accused is strong or
not. Moreover, after conviction by the RTC, the granting of bail is discretionary under
Section 5, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court provided that the offense involved is not
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment provided that none of the
circumstances enumerated in section 5, rule 114 of ROC is present.
Define the following

a. Bill of attainder – is a legislative act which inflicts punishment on individual or members of a
particular group without a judicial trial.
b. The meaning of “Cruel, degrading, inhuman” punishment -
c. Doctrine of fair comment – means that wile in general every discreditable imputation publicly
made is deemed false, because every man is presumed to be innocent until his guilt is judicially
proved, and every false imputation is deemed malicious, nevertheless, when the discreditable
imputation is directed against a public person in his public capacity, it is not necessarily
actionable. In order that such discreditable imputation to a public official may be actionable, it
must either be a false allegation of fact or comment based on a false supposition.
d. In flagrante delicto arrest – is an arrest made for an offense that has just been committed, is
being commited, or is about to be committed in the presence of the arresting officer.
e. Arrest in hot pursuit – is an arrest made for an offense that in fact just been committed, and the
arresting person or officer has proble cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts and
circumstances that the peson to be arrested has committed it. ( kahit hindi niya nakita, basta feel
niya meron< requisite, based on facts and circumstances)
A pre-taped TV program of the INC, upon review by the MTRC was found to be attacking
another religious group and was correspondingly classified as Rated X. In a petition before
the court the INC contended that its religious freedom is per se beyond review by the
MTRC and that it was grave abuse of discretion on the part of the MTRCB to classify its
pre-taped TV program as Rated x because it attacked another religion.
a. Rule on the 2 contention of the INC
The first contention of the INC that its religious freedom is per se beyond review
by the MTRCB is wrong because the public boardcast on TV of its religious programs
brings it out of the bossom of internal belief. Television is a medium that reaches even
the eyes and ears of children. The exercise of religious freedom can be regulated by the
State when it will bring about the clear and present danger of a substantive evil which
the State is duty-bound to prevent.
The second contention of the INC that MTRCB acted with grave abuse of
discretion in classifying its pre-taped TV program as rated X because it attacked another
religion is correct. The MTRC violated the nonestablishment clause of religious freedom
because by classifying the said TV program as rated X on the ground that INC is
attacking another religion is in effect favoring another religioin over the other.
b. What are purely ecclesiastical affairs of the Church?

An ecclesistical affair is on that concerns doctrine, creed, or form of worship of
the curch, or the adoption and enforcement within a religious association of needful laws
and regulations for the government of the membership, and the power of excluding from
such associations those deemed not worthy of membership. Moreover, purely
ecclesiastical affair is beyond the jurisdiction of the Court. (Austria v. NLRC)
23. X was an Amerian tourist who visited the country. On here way to the airport to check
in her luggage for her trip back to the US, she passed through a metal detector. The
detector sounded an alarm for which she was subjected to body frisking by a lady airport
guard. The lady guard felt something hard and blging in here abdominal area. She
explained that those were additional panty girdles as she just had an ectopic pregnancy
test. The lady guard apparently unconviced of her explanation reported the matter to her
police superior. The latter ordered X be brought to a nearby ladies comfort room by the
lady guard and a lady customs personnel and subject to strip search. Found tied up in her
belly were bags of shabu, for which she was arrested and the shabu confiscated.
a. Was the warrantless search valid?

Yes. In the case of People v. Leila Johnson, it was held that a person may lose the
protection of the search and seizure clause by exposure of their person or property to the public
in a manner reflecting a lack of subjective expectation of privacy, which expectation society is
prepared to recognize as reasonable. Such recognition is implicit in airport security procedures.
In this case, X was searched as a matter of precaution because the detector sounded an
alarm. Moreover, travelers are often notified through airport public address systems, signs, and
notices in their airline tickets that they are subject to search and, if any prohibited materials or
substances are found, such would be subject to seizure. Hence, warrantless searches made to X is
valid.
b. If the warrantless search was subsequently ruled by the court to be invalid, should the
bags of shabu be returned to X?
No. It should not be returned to X, instead, they should be promptly disposed of in the
manner provided by law in order to insure that the same do not fall into the wrong hands who
might use the illegal drugs underground.
In Gerona v. Sec of Education, the SC justified the expulsion the children of Jehovah’s
witnesses from the public elementary and secondary schools where they were enrolled
because of their refusal to salute the flag, sing the national anthem and recite the patriotic
pledge during the flag ceremony invoking their religious freedom. More than 30 years later,
the SC abandoned the Gerona ruling in the case of Ebranilag and held that their expulsion
is unjustified. Explain why the Gerona ruling was abandoned?
The Gerona ruling was abandoned because there is violation of free exercise of religious
profession and worship. The idea that one may be compelled to salute the flag, sing the national
anthem, and recite the patriotic pledge during a flag ceremony on fear of being dismissed on
one’s job or being expelled from a school, this idea is alien to the conscience of present
generation of the Filipino who cut their their teeth on the bill of rights which guarantees their
rights of free speech and free exercise of religious profession and worship. Religious freedom is
a fundamental right which is entitle to the highest priority and the amplest protection among
human rights, for it involves the relationship of man to his Creator and because of that the sole
justificiation for a prior restraint or limitation in the exercise of freedom of religion is the
existence of a grave and present danger of a serious evil to public safety, public morals, public
health or any other legitimate public interest that the state has a right and duty to prevent.
Absence of such threat to public safety, the expulsion of the petitioners from the school they are
enrolled is not justified.

Political Law Samplex

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Political Law Samplex

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Political Law Samplex

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

POLITICAL LAW [2019]- ATTY.

4. The president may not directly propose amendments to the Constitution.

15. Appointments of judges and justices require confirmation by the commission on

16. “Pork barrel” simply means lump-sum discretionary fund.

Before conviction, bail is a matter of discretion if on is charged of an offense punishable by

Only Congress may validly waive state immunity from suit.

Our bicameral legislature consists of the Senate and the Congress.

The President may validly exercise emergency power motu proprio.

Judicial power is vested in the Supreme Court alone

There is no constitutional right to appeal as appeal is merely statutory

a. Briefly discuss the significance of RA No. 9522 from the standpoint of

No, the SC did not agree with petitioners.

c. What comprises the National Territory of the Philippines?

The State immunity from suit may be waived expressly or impliedly.

2. Explain the Restrictive Doctrine of State Immunity.

Sovereignty is no absolute; International Law

By the doctrine of incorporation, the country is bound by generally accepted principles of

The following are limitations on sovereignty in the field of international relation:

In a domestic sphere, sovereignty is absolute, but not in the international field.

Alternative Short answer - depende sa question type (2016; 2015) 10 pts

The following are the grounds for impeachment:

Under this non-establishment clause of freedom of religion, the COMELEC, as an agency

Party-List System Procedure (2015)

To illustrate the given problem:

Total number of partylist representatives = 60

The SC declared the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) as a form of

Q regarding Preventive Suspension

Preventive Suspension is different from suspension as a penalty. Preventive suspension is

The Following are its varieties:

a) Jurisprudence tells us that Preamble is not an essential part of an act as it is an

Ad interim appointment (2016; 2016

The Constitution imposes no condition on the effectivity of an ad interim

Thus, absent such decision, the President is free to reappoint Congressman X as

Q: Emergency Power (Sec 23(2) Art VI) (2016)

Thus, the proclamation issued by the President xxxxx

Q: Calling out power (Art VII, Sec 18)

A proposal to change our government from unitary-presidential to federalism will require

2. An Executive Order issued by the president creating constitutional commission to draft

3. 3⁄4 vote of all the Senators and Congressmen? (2.5 pts.)

alternative: Yes, it may be done through a concom

1. People's Initiative on the Constitution

May the People directly enact an Anti-Political Dynasty Law?

PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

What is the Principle of Complementarity in the Statute of the International Criminal

The principle of complementarity gives primacy to national jurisdiction x x x.

The concept of Opinio Juris

The Auto-limitation on sovereignty in international law

The Concept of an Association or Associated State - (Poli 1 Prelims 2016,\) 10 pts

In international law practice, an associated state arrangement as been usually used by

MOA-AD Unconstitutional (2015)

Executive Agreement (2016)

As it is, EDCA is not constitutionally infirm. As an executive agreement, it remains

b. Is an executive agreement an equally binding international obligation considering

Furthermore, in international law, there is no distinction between a treaty and an

A. Comment on the merits of the argument raised by the Diocese of Bacolod

If the restriction is content-neutral, the Government may justify the restriction by

Is the Public Assembly Act (BP 880) a content-based restriction or content-neutral?

BP 880 is a content-neutral regulation. Its provision pertains to the manner, or procedural

a. Comment on the constitutionality of said CPR policy vis-à-vis the “maximum