Political Law FAQs 2021

San Beda College Alabang School of Law
Centralized Bar Operations
Frequently Asked Questions
SYLLABUS FOR THE 2021 BAR EXAMINATIONS

POLITICAL AND INTERNATIONAL LAW
Centralized Bar Operations 2021

1
SAN BEDA COLLEGE ALABANG

CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
Dr. Ulpiano P. Sarmiento III

Dean and Adviser
Atty. Anna Marie Melanie B. Trinidad

Vice Dean
Atty. Carlo D. Busmente

Prefect of Student Affairs

2
2021 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS

Christian Boy Benedict R. Tiangco
Overall Chairperson
Maria Angela Alexandria Albotra

Chairperson for Operations
Fiona Criscelle Federico

Chairperson for Academics
Angelica Felise Manalo

Jolykha Toa L. Sanchez
Deputy for Academics
Joseph Librojo
Chairperson for Academics Operation
Ma. Veronica Malabanan

Chairperson for Secretariat
Maria Concepcion Bañas

Chairperson for Finance
Kate Capulong
Chairperson for Logistics
Marie Czel Ongtangco

Chairperson for Recruitment and Membership
John Argie Mortel

Chairperson for Electronic Data Processing
Kurt Jairus Tañada

Chairperson for Communications
Anna Akiko Abad

Chairperson for Bar Mentoring Program
Louie Ann Someros

Chairperson for Bar Matters

3
2021 POLITICAL LAW TEAM 2020 POLITICAL LAW TEAM
John Roland P. Mabbun Carlo Antipuesto

Subject Head Subject Head
Antonio Luis C. Duran Gabby Bangkil

Assistant Subject Head Rhaymund Gratela
Assistant Subject Heads
Members Members
Alamarez, Adrian Bangkil, Maria Gabrielle
Bryan P. Francesca T.
Atencia, Alannah T. Cortez, Charisse Iva R.
Campang, Crystalline R.
Daniel, Zen Deane Danielle S.
Co, Darryl John L.
Dela Rosa, Francis Malig-on, Ma. Clarissa S.
Albert V. Marcaida, Angela
Gonzales, Phillip Emmanuelle S.
Joshua D. Napiza, Jose Miguel M.
Lidasan Settie Hajohrea I Pagdanganan, Stephanie
Mercado, Kaye Ann G.
Alexandhra M.
Pangilinan, Miguel Carlos P.
Nadayag, Loruel Kyle V.
Panopio, Alain Terencio, William Jay L
Jerome A.
Romano, Gian Loudes B.
Sambat, Ezekiel
Dwight G.
Whigan, Eunice Joy S.

4
I. THE 1987 CONSTITUTION

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. Amendments and Revisions There are two basic steps in this process:
QUESTION: (1) Proposal - A revision of the Constitution

A proposal to change a provision of the may be proposed by:
1987 Constitution has been put forth as
follows: (a) the Congress, upon a vote of three-
fourths of all its Members; or
Original Text: "The Philippines is a
democratic and republican State. (b) a constitutional convention. The
Sovereignty resides in the people and all Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of
government authority emanates from all its Members, call a constitutional
them" convention, or by a majority vote of all its
Members, submit to the electorate the
Proposed Text: "The Philippines is a question of calling such a convention;
democratic and socialist State. and
Sovereignty resides in the party and all
government authority emanates from it.” (2) Ratification - the revision shall be valid
when ratified by a majority of the votes
(A) Is this an amendment or a revision? cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not
Explain. (2019 Bar Question) earlier than sixty days nor later than ninety
days after the approval of such
SUGGESTED ANSWER: amendment or revision. (Article XVII,
It is a revision. The qualitative test is used to Sections 1, 3 & 4, 1987 Constitution)
determine this. When using the qualitative
test, it can be found that the proposal will QUESTION:
accomplish such far reaching changes in True or False. An amendment to the
the nature of the basic governmental plan Constitution shall be valid upon a vote of
as to amount to a revision, and a change three-fourths of all the Members of the
in the nature of the basic governmental Congress. (2007 Bar Question)
plan also includes changes that
jeopardize the traditional form of SUGGESTED ANSWER:
government and the system of check and False. Two requirements must be met
balances. (Lambino v. Comelec, G.R. No. before an amendment to the Constitution
174153, October 25, 2006) is considered valid:
QUESTION: (1) An amendment proposed by Congress

(B) Briefly explain the process to revise the must be approved upon a vote of three-
1987 Constitution. (2019 Bar Question)

5
fourths of all its Members; (Article XVII, nations. The 1987 Constitution did not
Section 1[1], 1987 Constitution) envision a hermit-type isolation of the
country from the rest of the world. In its
(2) Such amendment must be ratified by a Declaration of Principles and State
majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite Policies, the 1987 Constitution "adopts the
which is held not earlier than sixty (60) days generally accepted principles of
nor later than ninety (90) days after the international law as part of the law of the
approval of the amendment. (Article XVII, land, and adheres to the policy of peace,
Section 4, 1987 Constitution) equality, justice, freedom, cooperation
and amity, with all nations." By the
doctrine of incorporation, the country is
II. BASIC CONCEPTS bound by generally accepted principles
of international law, which are considered
A. Declaration of Principles and State to be automatically part of our own laws.
Policies Pacta sunt servanda, which means
"international agreements must be
QUESTION: performed in good faith," emphasizes that
The Philippines has become a member of a treaty is not merely a moral obligation
the World Trade Organization (WTO) and but rather a binding obligation between
resultantly agreed that it "shall ensure the parties. (Tañada v. Angara, G.R. No.
conformity of its laws, regulations and 118295, May 2, 1997)
administrative procedures with its
obligations as provided in the annexed QUESTION:
Agreements." This is assailed as Article II, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution
unconstitutional because this undertaking expresses, in part, that the "Armed Forces
unduly limits, restricts and impairs of the Philippines is the protector of the
Philippine sovereignty and means among people and (of) the State." Describe briefly
others that Congress could not pass what this provision means. Is the Philippine
legislation that will be good for our National Police covered by the same
national interest and general welfare if mandate? (2003 Bar Question)
such legislation will not conform with the
WTO Agreements. Refute this argument. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(2000 Bar Question) Article II, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution
means that the Armed Forces of the
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Philippines should not serve the interest of
Sovereignty, while traditionally been the President but of the people and
deemed and all-encompassing on the should not commit abuses against the
domestic level, is still subject to restrictions people. (Record of the Constitutional
and limitations voluntarily agreed to by Commission, Vol. V, p. 133.)
the Philippines, either expressly or
impliedly, as a member of the family of

6
This provision is specifically addressed to (B) The doctrine of immunity from suit in
the Armed Forces of the Philippines and favor of the State extends to public
not to the Philippine National Police, officials in the performance of their official
because the latter is separate and distinct duties. May such officials be sued
from the former. (Record of the nonetheless to prevent or to undo their
Constitutional Commission, Vol. V, p. 296; oppressive or illegal acts, or to compel
Manalo v. Sistoza. 312 SCRA 239 [1999].) them to act? Explain your answer. (2017
Bar Question)
B. State Immunity SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, they may be sued to prevent or to
QUESTION: undo their oppressive or illegal acts. Suing
(A) Under the doctrine of immunity from a public officer when they are acting in
suit, the State cannot be sued without its the discharge of their official functions is in
consent. How may the consent be given effect an indirect suit against the state by
by the State? Explain your answer. (2017 which the immunity may be applied.
Bar Question) Some exceptions to state immunity are:
(1) when compelling a public officer to do
SUGGESTED ANSWER: an obligation; (2) when prohibiting a
There are two (2) forms of consent, the public officer from enforcing an
express consent and implied consent. unconstitutional law; (3) when compelling
a public officer to comply with a
Express consent may be manifested judgment that he may satisfy himself
through a general law or a special law. It without the government itself having to do
must be embodied in a duly enacted a positive act to assist him; and (4) when
statute and may not be given by mere ordering the public official to undo an
counsel of the government. (United States oppressive or illegal act.
of America, et al. v. Guinto, G.R. No.
76607, February 26, 1990). QUESTION:
(C) Do government owned or controlled
There is implied consent when the state corporations also enjoy the immunity of
itself commences litigation by which the the State from suit? Explain your answer.
State must be asking for affirmative relief, (2017 Bar Question)
when it enters into a contract which must
be entered into in its proprietary function, SUGGESTED ANSWER:
or when the State enters into a business It depends. Government-Owned and
operation and such is not merely Controlled Corporations (GOCCs) are
incidental to the performance of a incorporated agencies which are created
governmental function. either through a legislative charter or
under the Corporation Code.
QUESTION:

7
If the legislative charter provides that the a citizen. A donor, with the Republic or
GOCC can sue and be sued, then the suit any of its agency being the donee, is
will lie, including one for tort. The provision entitled to go to court in case of an
in the charter constitutes express consent alleged breach of the conditions of such
in the part of the State to be sued. donation. He has the right to be heard.
Under the circumstances, the
A GOCC incorporated under the fundamental postulate of non-suability
Corporation Code is suable, regardless of cannot stand in the way. (Santiago vs.
the function discharged. (Sec. 35(a), Republic, G.R. No. L-48214, December 19,
Revised Corporation Code) 1978)
QUESTION: C. Separation of Powers

Annika sued the Republic of the
Philippines, represented by the Director of QUESTION:
the Bureau of Plant Industry, and asked for Congress enacted an appropriation law
the revocation of a deed of donation containing a provision that gives
executed by her in favor of said Bureau. individual legislators the discretion to
She alleged that, contrary to the terms of determine, post-enactment, how much
the donation, the donee failed to install funds would go to a specific project or
lighting facilities and a water system on beneficiary which they themselves also
the property donated, and to build an determine. Consequently, disbursements
office building and parking lot thereon, were made in the interim pursuant thereto.
which should have been constructed and Eventually, Mr. Z filed a petition
made ready for occupancy on or before questioning the constitutionality of the
the date fixed in the deed of donation. statutory provision on the ground that it
violates the separation of powers
The Republic invoked state immunity and principle. On the other hand, certain
moved for the dismissal of the case on the Congressmen argued that there was
ground that it had not consented to be nothing wrong with the provision because,
sued. Should the Republic’s motion be after all, the power to appropriate belongs
granted? (2018 Bar Question) to Congress. Rule on the arguments of the
parties. (2019 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the motion should be denied. Article SUGGESTED ANSWER:
XVI, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution Mr. Z's contention is correct. The case at
provides that “the State may not be sued bar is similar to the pork barrel system
without its consent.” This provision admits which the Supreme Court declared
of exceptions, one of which is the case at unconstitutional. Insofar as it has allowed
bar. The doctrine of governmental legislators to wield, in varying gradations,
immunity from suit cannot serve as an non-oversight, post-enactment authority
instrument for perpetrating an injustice on in vital areas of budget execution, the

8
system has violated the principle of QUESTION:

separation of powers; insofar as it has The City of San Rafael passed an
conferred unto legislators the power of ordinance authorizing the City Mayor,
appropriation by giving them personal, assisted by the police, to remove all
discretionary funds from which they are advertising signs displayed or exposed to
able to fund specific projects which they public view in the main city street, for
themselves determine, it has similarly being offensive to sight or otherwise a
violated the principle of non-delegability nuisance. AM, whose advertising agency
of legislative power; insofar as it has owns and rents out many of the billboards
created a system of budgeting wherein ordered removed by the City Mayor,
items are not textualized into the claims that the City should pay for the
appropriations bill, it has flouted the destroyed billboards at their current
prescribed procedure of presentment market value since the City has
and, in the process, denied the President appropriated them for the public purpose
the power to veto items; insofar as it has of city beautification. The Mayor refuses to
diluted the effectiveness of congressional pay, so AM is suing the City and the Mayor
oversight by giving legislators a stake in for damages arising from the taking of his
the affairs of budget execution, an aspect property without due process nor just
of governance which they may be called compensation. Will AM’s suit prosper?
to monitor and scrutinize, the system has Reason briefly. (2004 Bar Question)
equally impaired public accountability;
insofar as it has authorized legislators, who SUGGESTED ANSWER:
are national officers, to intervene in affairs No, the suit of AM will not prosper. The
of purely local nature, despite the power of eminent domain involves a
existence of capable local institutions, it property which is wholesome and
has likewise subverted genuine local intended for a public use, while property
autonomy; and again, insofar as it has condemned under the police power is
conferred to the President the power to noxious or intended for a noxious purpose.
appropriate funds intended by law for The confiscation of such property is not
energy-related purposes only to other compensable, unlike the taking of
purposes he may deem fit as well as other property under the power of
public funds under the broad expropriation, which requires the
classification of "priority infrastructure payment of just compensation to the
development projects," it has once more owner.
transgressed the principle of non-
delegability. (Belgica vs. Ochoa, Jr, G.R. In the case of Churchill v. Rafferty (G.R.
No. 208566, November 19, 2013) No. L-10572, December 21, 1915), the
Supreme Court stated that the removal of
D. Fundamental Powers of the State: the billboards is not an exercise of the
Police Power power of eminent domain but of police
power. As well as under the case of

9
Association of Small Landowners in the means employed are reasonably

Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian necessary for the accomplishment of the
Reform (G.R. No. 78742, July 14, 1989), the purpose and not unduly oppressive upon
abatement of a nuisance in the exercise individuals. In the case at bar, the total
of police power does not constitute taking prohibition of gambling is an invalid
of property and does not entitle the owner exercise of police power for the total
of the property involved to compensation. prohibition on gambling is unduly
oppressive. Hence, the law can be validly
QUESTION: attacked as an invalid exercise of police
To address the pervasive problem of power.
gambling, Congress is considering the
following options: (1) prohibit all forms of QUESTION:
gambling; (2) allow gambling only on (B) If Congress chooses the last option and
Sundays; (3) allow gambling only in passes the corresponding law imposing a
government-owned casinos; and (4) 30% tax on all winnings and prizes won
remove all prohibition against gambling from gambling, would the law comply with
but impose a tax equivalent to 30% on all the constitutional limitations on the
winnings. exercise of the power of taxation? Explain.
(2009 Bar Question)
(A) If Congress chooses the first option and
passes the corresponding law absolutely SUGGESTED ANSWER:
prohibiting all forms of gambling, can the No, the law does not comply with the
law be validly attacked on the ground that constitutional limitation on the exercise of
it is an invalid exercise of police power? the power of taxation. It is a settled rule
(2009 Bar Question) that taxes may be imposed to attain the
objective of police powers (Lutz v.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Araneta, G.R. No. L-7859, December 22,
Yes, the law can be validly attacked as an 1955), but is inevitably subject to certain
invalid exercise of police power. While it is limitations. One of such limitations is that
true that Congress may enact law to the means must be lawful. In the instant
interfere with personal liberty and case, the 30% tax on all winnings and
property, such power must be exercised in prizes won from gambling does not
accordance with the two tests of a valid comply with the lawful means test as such
exercise of police power, which are the method unduly oppresses the individuals.
lawful subject and lawful means test. As Therefore, the law does not comply with
held in the case of Southern Luzon Drug the constitutional limitations on the
Corporation v. DSWD (G.R. No. 199669, exercise of the power of taxation.
April 25, 2017), they require that: 1) the
interest of the public generally, as E. Fundamental Powers of the State:
distinguished from those of particular Eminent Domain
class, requires its exercise; and 2) the

10
QUESTION: public purpose of redevelopment of slum

Congress passed a law authorizing the areas.
National Housing Authority (NHA) to
expropriate or acquire private property for QUESTION:
the redevelopment of slum areas, as well Filipinas Computer Corporation (FCC), a
as to lease or resell the property to private local manufacturer of computers and
developers to carry out the computer parts, owns a sprawling plant in
redevelopment plan. Pursuant to the law, a 5,000-square meter lot in Pasig City. To
the NHA acquired all properties within a remedy the city’s acute housing shortage,
targeted badly blighted area in San compounded by a burgeoning
Nicolas, Manila except a well-maintained population, the Sangguniang Panlungsod
drug and convenience store that poses no authorized the City Mayor to negotiate for
blight or health problem itself. Thereafter, the purchase of the lot. The Sanggunian
NHA initiated expropriation proceedings intends to subdivide the property into
against the store owner who protested that small residential lots to be distributed at
this property could not be taken because cost to qualified city residents but the FCC
it is not residential or slum housing. He also refused to sell the lot. Hard pressed to find
contended that his property is being a suitable property to house its homeless
condemned for a private purpose, not a residents, the City filed a complaint for
public one, noting the NHA’s sale of the eminent domain against FCC.
entire area except his property to a
private party. If you were the judge, how (A) If the FCC hires you as lawyer, what
would you decide the case? (2008 Bar defenses would you set up in order to resist
Question) the expropriation of the property? Explain.
(2009 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
If I were the judge, I would rule in favor of SUGGESTED ANSWER:
the store owner. The power of If I were the lawyer, I would set up the
expropriation cannot be used to benefit defense that there was no prior valid and
private parties (Pascual vs. Secretary, G.R. definite offer made. It is a settled rule
No. L-10405, Dec. 29, 1960). In this case, under Section 19 of the Local Government
the main beneficiary would be the private Code that before an LGU would be able
realty company. The taking of private to exercise the power of eminent domain,
property and then transferring it to private there must first be a valid and definite offer
persons under the guise of public use is not previously made to the owner of the
within the power of eminent domain and property to be expropriated, and that
exceeds the delegated power of the such offer was refused. In the case at bar,
NHA. (Heirs of Moreno vs. Mactan Airport, since no offer was first given, the
G.R. No.156273, August 9, 2005). The complaint is premature. Furthermore, I
power of the NHA is strictly construed would also raise the defense that under
against its holder and is limited to the Section 9 of R.A. 7279, private properties

11
are the last in the order of properties to be

expropriated for socialized housing. The SUGGESTED ANSWER:
government must first prove that there Yes, FCC can legally demand repurchase
were no other lands to expropriate, thus of the property. It was held in the case of
resorting to the private property. Lastly, I Vda. de Ouano v. Republic (G.R. No.
would also raise the defense that under 168770, February 9, 2011) that a
Section 10 of R.A. 7279, expropriation shall condemner should commit to use the
only be resorted to when the other modes property pursuant to the purpose stated in
of land acquisition have been exhausted. the petition for expropriation. In case of
failure to do so, it should file another
QUESTION: petition for the new purpose. If not, then it
(B) If the court grants the City’s prayer for behooves the condemner to return the
expropriation, but the City delays said property to its private owner, if the
payment the amount determined by the latter so desires. In the given case, as the
court to adjust compensation, can the property expropriated was abandoned,
FCC recover the property from Pasig city? and there being no new petition for it to
(2009 Bar Question) be devoted to another public use, FCC
can thus legally demand that it be
SUGGESTED ANSWER: allowed to repurchase the property.
No, the FCC cannot recover the property
from Pasig City. It is settled in the case of
Reyes v. National Housing Authority (G.R. III. NATIONAL TERITORY
No. 147511, January 20, 2003) that non-
payment of just compensation does not QUESTION:
entitle the private landowners to recover Under the archipelago doctrine, the
possession of the expropriated lots. In the waters around, between, and connecting
case at bar, although the City did fail to the islands of the archipelago form part of
pay the just compensation, it does not the territorial sea of the archipelagic state.
warrant recovery of the property. Thus, (2009 Bar Question)
FCC cannot recover the property from
Pasig City. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
False. It is provided in Article I of the 1987
QUESTION: Constitution that "the waters around,
(C) Suppose the expropriation succeeds, between, and connecting the islands of
but the city decides to abandon its plan to the archipelago, regardless of their
subdivide the property for residential breadth and dimensions, form part of the
purposes having found a much bigger lot, internal waters of the Philippines."
can FCC legally demand that it be However, under the United Nations
allowed to repurchase the property from Convention on the Law of the Sea,
the city of Pasig? Why or why not? (2009 archipelagic waters consist mainly of the
Bar Question) “waters around, between, and

12
connecting the islands of the Philippine citizenship presupposes that the

archipelago, regardless of breadth or person electing is an alien. In this case,
dimension.” (Article 49, Section 1). It is thus however, Atty. Richard Chua is already a
not considered as part of the territorial Filipino citizen as his father became a
sea. naturalized Filipino citizen when Atty.
Richard Chua was still a minor. This means
that Atty. Richard Chua has already
IV. CITIZENSHIP become a Filipino before the age of
majority. Therefore, he will not be
A. Modes of Acquiring Citizenship disbarred.
QUESTION: QUESTION:
Atty. Richard Chua was born in 1964. He is Atty. Emily Go, a legitimate daughter of a
a legitimate son of a Chinese father and a Chinese father and a Filipino mother, was
Filipino mother. His father became a born in 1945. At 21, she elected Philippine
naturalized Filipino citizen when Atty. citizenship and studied law. She passed
Chua was still a minor. Eventually, he the bar examinations and engaged in
studied law and was allowed by the private practice for many years. The
Supreme Court to take the bar Judicial and Bar Council nominated her as
examinations, subject to his submission to a candidate for the position of Associate
the Supreme Court proof of his Philippine Justice of the Supreme Court. But her
citizenship. Although he never complied nomination is being contested by Atty.
with such requirements, Atty. Chua Juris Castillo, also an aspirant to the
practiced law for many years until one position. She claims that Atty. Emily Go is
Noel Eugenio filed with the Supreme Court not a natural-born citizen, hence, not
a complaint for disbarment against him on qualified to be appointed to the Supreme
the ground that he is not a Filipino citizen. Court. Is this contention correct? (2006 Bar
He then filed with the Bureau of Question)
Immigration an affidavit electing
Philippine citizenship. Noel contested it SUGGESTED ANSWER:
claiming it was filed many years after Atty. No, the contention is incorrect. It is
Chua reached the age of majority. Will provided under Article IV, Section 1(3) of
Atty. Chua be disbarred? Explain. (2006 the 1987 Constitution, Filipino citizens
Bar Question) included those who are born before
January 17, 1973 of Filipino mothers, who
SUGGESTED ANSWER: elect Philippine Citizenship upon reaching
No, Atty. Richard Chua will not be the age of majority. In the case at bar,
disbarred. There is no need for him to file Atty. Emily Go was born to a Filipino
an affidavit electing Filipino citizenship. As mother in 1945 and she elected Filipino
held in the case of Co v. HRET (G.R. Nos. citizenship upon reaching the age of 21. In
92191-92, July 30,1991), an election of addition, Article IV, Section 2 of the 1987

13
Constitution states that "x x x those who ZOZ's law, by taking an oath of allegiance,
elect Philippine citizenship in accordance she acquired her husband's citizenship.
with paragraph (3), Section 1 hereof shall ODH died in 2001, leaving her financially
be deemed natural-born citizens." secured. She returned home in 2002 and
Applying the law, Atty. Emily Go is a sought elective office in 2004 by running
natural-born Filipino citizen, and therefore, for Mayor of APP, her hometown. Her
qualified to be appointed to the Supreme opponent sought to have her disqualified
Court. because of her ZOZ citizenship. She
replied that although she acquired ZOZ's
B. Modes of Losing and Reacquiring citizenship because of marriage, she did
Citizenship not lose her Filipino citizenship. Both her
QUESTION: parents, she said, are Filipino citizens. Is
Juan Cruz was born of Filipino parents in TCA qualified to run for Mayor? (2004 Bar
1960 in Pampanga. In 1985, he enlisted in Question)
the U.S. Marine Corps and took an oath of
allegiance to the United States of SUGGESTED ANSWER:
America. In 1990, he was naturalized as an No, she is not qualified to run for mayor.
American citizen. In 1994, he was Due to the assumption that TCA took an
repatriated under Republic Act No. 2430. oath of allegiance to ZOZ to acquire the
During the 1998 National Elections, he ran citizenship of her husband. Under Section
for and was elected representative of the 1 [3], Commonwealth Act No. 63, she did
First District of Pampanga where he not become a citizen of ZOZ merely by
resided since his repatriation. Was he virtue of her marriage, she also took an
qualified to run for the position? Explain. oath of allegiance to ZOZ. By this act, she
(2003 Bar Question) lost her Philippine citizenship
SUGGESTED ANSWER: QUESTION:

Yes, Juan Cruz is qualified to run for the In 1990, Agripina migrated to Canada and
position. Since his parents were Filipino acquired Canadian citizenship. In 2008,
citizens, he was a natural-born citizen. Agripina retired and returned to the
Similar to the ruling of Bengson III v. HRET, Philippines to permanently reside in her
G.R. No. 142840, May 7, 2001, despite hometown of Angeles, Pampanga. A
becoming a naturalized American citizen, month after returning to the Philippines,
by virtue of his repatriation, Cruz was Agripina took her oath of allegiance and
restored to his original status as a natural- executed a sworn renunciation of her
born Filipino. Canadian citizenship in accordance with
R.A. No. 9225.
QUESTION:
TCA, a Filipina medical technologist, left in In 2009, Agripina filed her certificate of
1975 to work in ZOZ State. In 1988 she candidacy for Congress for the 2010
married ODH, a citizen of ZOZ. Pursuant to elections. Agripina’s political rivals lost no

14
time in causing the filing of various actions to run for Congress.

to question her candidacy. They
questioned her eligibility to run as a C. Dual Citizenship and Dual
member of Congress. Since Agripina had Allegiance
to take an oath under RA No. 9225, it
meant that she needed to perform an act QUESTION:
to perfect her Philippine citizenship. They The 2016 mayoralty race in the City of
claimed, therefore, that Agripina could Ardania included Arnaldo and Anacleto
not be considered a natural-born citizen. as contenders. Arnaldo filed a petition
Agripina raised the defense that, having with the Comelec to cancel Anacleto’s
complied with the requirements of RA No. Certificate of Candidacy (CoC) for
9225, she had reacquired, and was misrepresenting himself as a Filipno
deemed never to have lost her Philippine citizen. Arnaldo presented as evidence a
citizenship. copy of Anacleto’s Spanish passport and
a certification from the Bureau of
Is Agripina disqualified to run for Congress Immigration (BI) showing that Anacleto
for failing to meet the citizenship used the same passport several times to
requirement? (2018 Bar Question) travel to and from Manila and Madrid or
Barcelona. In his Comment, Anacleto
SUGGESTED ANSWER: claimed that, a year prior to filing his CoC,
No, Agripina is not disqualified to run for he had complied with all the requirements
Congress. Rather, she is eligible to run for of R.A. No. 9225 (Citizenship Retention and
Congress due to the reacquisition of her Re-acquisition of Act of 2003) to reacquire
Filipino citizenship under RA No. 9225. his Philippine citizenship by taking an oath
Repatriation results in the recovery of a of allegiance and executing a sworn
person’s original nationality. This means renunciation of his Spanish citizenship. He
that a naturalized Filipino who lost his defended the use of his Spanish passport
citizenship will be restored to his prior status subsequent to taking his oath of
as a Filipino citizen. If she were originally a allegiance to the Philippines as a practical
natural-born citizen before she lost her necessity since he had yet to obtain his
Philippine citizenship, she would be Philippine passport despite reacquiring his
restored to her former status as a natural- Philippine citizenship. Even after he
born Filipino. (Bengson III v. HRET, G.R. No. secured his Philippine passport, he said he
142840, May 7, 2001). In the case at bar, had to wait for the issuance of a Schengen
Agripina was originally a natural-born visa to allow him to travel to Spain to visit
Filipino citizen before she acquired his wife and minor children.
Canadian citizenship. By complying with
the requirements of RA No. 9225, Based on the allegations of the parties, is
Agripina’s status as a natural-born Filipino there sufficient ground to cancel
citizen was restored. Hence, being a Anacleto’s CoC (2018 Bar Question)
natural-born Filipino citizen, she is eligible

15
SUGGESTED ANSWER: empowered the corporation to raise funds

Yes, there is sufficient ground to cancel in its own name and set aside a parcel of
Anacleto’s CoC. As held in the case of land in Malate for the memorial site. The
Maquiling v. Comelec (G.R. No. 195649, charter set the corporate life of MWMC at
April 16, 2013), “the use of a foreign 50 years with a proviso that Congress may
passport after renouncing one’s foreign not abolish MWMC until after the
citizenship is a positive and voluntary act completion of the memorial. Forty-five
of representation as to one’s nationality (45) years later, the memorial was only 1/3
and citizenship; it does not divest Filipino complete, and the memorial site itself had
citizenship regained by repatriation but it long been overrun by squatters. Congress
recants the Oath of Renunciation required enacted a law abolishing the MWMC and
to qualify one to run for an election requiring that the funds raised by it be
position.” In the case at bar, Anacleto’s remitted to the National Treasury. The
use of his Spanish passport does not divest MWMC challenged the validity of the law
him of his Filipino citizenship which he arguing that under its charter its mandate
acquired by repatriation. However, by is to complete the memorial no matter
using such foreign passport, he is how long it takes. Decide with reasons.
representing himself as a Spanish citizen, (2008 Bar Question)
thereby voluntarily and effectively
reverting Anacleto of his status as a dual SUGGESTED ANSWER:
citizen. By being a dual citizen, he is The law abolishing the MWMC is valid.
therefore disqualified to run for an elective Under its plenary powers, Congress can
position. Hence, there is sufficient ground create, as well as destroy what is created
to cancel Anacleto’s CoC. after determining that its purpose could
no longer be attained by subsequent
circumstances. The power to create also
V. LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT carries with it the power to destroy so long
as it was done in good faith and consistent
A. Legislative Power: Scope and with the purpose of promoting the general
Limitations welfare. (CAAP-EU v. CAAP, G.R. No.
190120, November 11, 2014)
QUESTION:
In 1963, Congress passed a law creating a QUESTION:
government-owned corporation named Congress enacted a law exempting
Manila War Memorial Commission certain government institutions providing
(MWMC), with the primary function of social services from the payment of court
overseeing the construction of a massive fees. Atty. Kristopher Timoteo challenged
memorial in the heart of Manila to the constitutionality of the said law on the
commemorate victims of the 1945 Battle ground that only the Supreme Court has
of Manila. The MWMC charter provided an the power to fix and exempt said entities
initial appropriation of P1,000,000 from the payment of court fees.

16
decided to participate under the party-list

Congress, on the other hand, argues that system. When the election results came in,
the law is constitutional as it has the power it only obtained 1.99 percent of the votes
to enact said law for it was through cast under the party -list system.
legislative fiat that the Judiciary Bluebean, a political observer, claimed
Development Fund (JDF) and the Special that Greenpeas is not entitled to any seat
Allowance for Judges and Justices (SAJJ), since it failed to obtain at least 2% of the
the funding of which are sourced from the votes. Moreover, since it does not
fees collected by the courts, were represent any of the marginalized and
created. Thus, Congress further argues underrepresented sectors of society,
that if it can enact a law utilizing court fees Greenpeas is not entitled to participate
to fund the JDF and SAJJ, a fortiori it can under the party-list system. How valid are
enact a law exempting the payment of the observations of Bluebean? (2014 Bar
court fees. Question)
Discuss the constitutionality of the said SUGGESTED ANSWER:

law, taking into account the arguments of Bluebean's observations are incorrect. The
both parties? (2014 Bar Question) additional seats, that is, the remaining
seats after allocation of the guaranteed
SUGGESTED ANSWER: seats, shall be distributed to the party-list
It is unconstitutional. The 1987 Constitution organizations including those that
took away the power of Congress to received less than two percent of the total
repeal, alter, or supplement the Rules of votes. (Barangay Association for National
Court. The 1987 Constitution recognized Advancement and Transparency vs
the authority of the Supreme Court to levy, COMELEC, G.R. No. 179271 & 179295, July
assess and collect fees (Article VIII, Section 8, 2009). This means, in the case at bar,
3). Congress, therefore, cannot amend Greenpeas may still be entitled to a seat
the rules promulgated by the Supreme after the allocation of the guaranteed
Court. In this case, Congress cannot enact seats. Secondly, it has been already made
a law amending the rules for the payment clear that in cases of sectoral parties or
of legal fees. (In re Petition for Recognition organizations, "it is enough that their
of Exemption of the GSIS from Payment of principal advocacy pertains to the special
Legal Fees, A.M. No. 08-2-01-0, February interest and concerns of their sector."
11, 2010) Sectoral parties or organizations may
either be "marginalized and
B. House of Representatives: Party-list underrepresented" or lacking in "well-
System defined political constituencies." (Atong
Paglaum v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 203766,
QUESTION: April 2, 2013)
Greenpeas is an ideology-based political
party fighting for environmental causes. It QUESTION:

17
The Partido ng Mapagkakatiwalaang suspend the Senator relying on Section 5

Pilipino (PMP) is a major political party of the Plunder Law. According to the
which has participated in every election prosecution, the suspension should last
since the enactment of the 1987 until the termination of the case. Senator
Constitution. It has fielded candidates Lis vigorously opposes the motion
mostly for legislative district elections. In contending that only the Senate can
fact, a number of its members were discipline its members; and that to allow
elected, and are actually serving, in the his suspension by the Court would violate
House of Representatives. In the coming the principle of separation of powers. Is
2016 elections, the PMP leadership intends Senator Lis's contention tenable? Explain.
to join the party-list system. (2015 Bar Question)
Can PMP join the party-list system without SUGGESTED ANSWER:

violating the Constitution and Republic No, the Senator’s contention is not
Act (R.A.) No. 7941? (2015 Bar Question) tenable. In the case of Santiago v.
Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 128055, April 18,
SUGGESTED ASNWER: 2001), it was ruled that the order of
Yes, the PMP can join the party-list system. suspension prescribed by R.A. No 3019 is
Political parties can participate in party-list distinct from the power of Congress to
elections provided they register under the discipline its own ranks. The Plunder Law
party-list system and do not field does not exclude from its coverage the
candidates in legislative district elections. members of Congress. Hence, in this case,
A political party, whether major or not, there is no violation of the principle of
that fields candidates in legislative district separation of powers.
elections can participate in party-list
elections only through its sectoral wing D. Electoral tribunals and the
that can separately register under the Commission on Appointments
party-list system. The sectoral wing is by
itself an independent sectoral party and is QUESTION:
linked to a political party through a Candidate X, a naturalized Filipino citizen,
coalition. (Atong Paglaum v. COMELEC, ran for Congressman for the Lone District
G.R. No. 203766, 02 April 2013) of Batanes. After a close electoral contest,
he won by a slim margin of 500 votes. His
C. Discipline of Members sole opponent, Y, filed an election protest
before the Commission on Elections
QUESTION: (COMELEC), claiming that X should be
Senator Fleur De Lis is charged with disqualified to run for said position
plunder before the Sandiganbayan. After because he is not a natural-born citizen.
finding the existence of probable cause, While the case was pending, X was
the court issues a warrant for the Senator's proclaimed by the Provincial Election
arrest. The prosecution files a motion to Supervisor of Batanes as the duly elected

18
Congressman of the province. and the Comelec retains its jurisdiction

until it decides the case. The same goes
Did X's proclamation divest the COMELEC with a petition for quo warranto. But if the
of its jurisdiction to decide the case and case filed was for the denial of due course
vest the House of Representatives to or cancellation of COC, proclamation
Electoral Tribunal (HRET) jurisdiction to would ipso jure divest the Comelec of its
hear the case? Explain. (2019 Bar jurisdiction in favor of the House of
Question) Representatives Electoral Tribunal
provided the winner, aside from
SUGGESTED ANSWER: proclamation, has taken the proper oath,
There are several errors in this question and assumed the office. Otherwise, the
which may confuse the examinee. Comelec may still continue in hearing and
deciding the case (Reyes v. Comelec,
First, an election protest or a quo warranto G.R. No. 207264, June 25, 2013).
can only be filed AFTER proclamation,
within 10 days therefrom. In this case, it E. Electoral tribunals and the
was filed before proclamation. Commission on Appointments:
Powers
Second, ineligibility such as in citizenship is
a ground for a petition for quo warranto or QUESTION:
a petition for the denial of due course to Mr. Yellow and Mr. Orange were the
or cancellation of certificate of leading candidates in the vice-
candidacy (COC). It is not a proper presidential elections. After elections,
ground for an election protest. Yellow emerged as the winner by a slim
margin of 100,000 votes. Undaunted,
Third, the issue involves eligibility of a Orange filed a protest with the Presidential
candidate and the case was filed before Electoral Tribunal (PET). After due
proclamation, the case must have consideration of the facts and the issues,
referred to a petition for the denial of due the PET ruled that Orange was the real
course to or cancellation of COC. This is winner of the elections and ordered his
filed within five (5) days from the last day immediate proclamation.
for filing of COC, but not later than twenty-
five (25) days from the time of filing of the (A) Aggrieved, Yellow filed with the
COC subject of the petition. Supreme Court a Petition for Certiorari
challenging the decision of the PET
In the given set of facts, it appears that the alleging grave abuse of discretion. Does
case was filed way after the prescribed the Supreme Court have jurisdiction?
period or after the election but before Explain. (2012 Bar Question)
proclamation. If the case is an election
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
protest filed within 10 days from
No, the Supreme Court does not have
proclamation, then there will be no issue
jurisdiction. The Presidential Electoral

19
Tribunal (PET) is intended to be an QUESTION:

institution that is independent, but not Is the concept of People Power
separate from the judicial department. recognized in the Constitution? Discuss
The PET is neither inferior nor superior to the briefly. (2000 & 2003 Bar Question)
Supreme Court since it is the same Court
although the functions peculiar to said SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Tribunal are more limited in scope than Yes, it is recognized in the 1987
those of the Supreme Court in the exercise Constitution, specifically in Article VI,
of its ordinary functions. It merely imposes Section 32, Article XIII, Section 16, and
additional duties upon the Members of Article XVII, Section 2.
the Supreme Court. Hence, the Supreme
Court does not have jurisdiction. Article VI, Section 32 states that the system
(Macalintal v. Presidential Electoral of initiative and referendum is one where
Tribunal, G.R. No. 191618, November 23, "the people can directly propose and
2010) enact laws or approve or reject any act or
law or part thereof passed by the
QUESTION: Congress or local legislative body after the
(B) Would the answer in (a.) be the same if registration of a petition therefor signed by
Yellow and Orange were contending for a at least ten per centum (10%) of the total
senatorial slot and it was the Senate number of registered voters, of which
Electoral Tribunal (SET) who issued the every legislative district must be
challenged ruling? (2012 Bar Question) represented by at least three per centum
(3%) of the registered voters thereof."
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, in this case, the Supreme Court would Article XIII, Section 16 provides for the right
have jurisdiction. The 1987 Constitution of the people and their organizations to
provides that the Senate Electoral Tribunal effective and reasonable participation at
is the “sole judge of all contests relating to all levels of social, political, and economic
the election, returns, and qualifications of decision-making which shall not be
their respective members” (Article VI, abridged.
Section 17). It is only when the Tribunal
acted with grave abuse of discretion Lastly, Article XVII, Section 2 states that
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction amendments to the 1987 Constitution
can the Supreme Court exercise its may be directly proposed by the people
jurisdiction over the Tribunal’s decision through initiative upon "a petition of at
and orders. (Locsin v. HRET and least twelve per centum (12%) of the total
Lagdameo, G.R. No. 204123, March 19, number of registered voters, of which
2013) every legislative district must be
represented by at least three per centum
F. Initiative and Referendum (3%) of the registered voters therein.”

20
Hence, while not directly indicated as of the 1987 Constitution provides that “the
"people power," the 1987 Constitution spouse and relatives by consanguinity or
recognizes the same in its provisions. affinity within the fourth civil degree of the
President shall not during his tenure be
appointed as Members of the
VI. EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT Constitutional Commissions, or the Office
of the Ombudsman, or as Secretaries,
A. President’s Power of appointment: Undersecretaries, chairmen or heads of
In general bureaus or offices, including government-
owned or controlled corporations and
QUESTION: their subsidiaries.” The said provision does
Margie has been in the judiciary for a long not include appointments to the judiciary.
time, starting from the lowest court. Twenty Had it been the intention to include such
(20) years from her first year in the appointments, the framers of the 1987
judiciary, she was nominated as a Justice Constitution would have expressly done so
in the Court of Appeals. Margie also from the beginning.
happens to be a first-degree cousin of the
President. The Judicial and Bar Council B. Power of Control and Supervision:
included her in the short-list submitted to Doctrine of Qualified Political
the President whose term of office was Agency
about to end – it was a month before the
next presidential elections. Can the QUESTION:
President still make appointments to the Presidential Decree (PD) No. 402 provided
judiciary during the so-called midnight health services for the employees of
appointment ban period? Assuming that Philippine Institute for Development
he can still make appointments, could he Studies (PIDS). Despite this, PIDS, with the
appoint Margie, his cousin? (2014 Bar approval of The DOH, PhilHealth,
Question) Department of Budget and Management,
and the Office of The President through the
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Senior Deputy Executive Secretary,
Yes, the President can still make executed an agreement with PhilamCare
appointments to the judiciary during the for hospitalization and out-patient
midnight appointment ban period. The emergency services for 54 employees in
ban on presidential appointments during 2005. The CoA through its Adjudication
the period stated in Article VII, Section 15 Office-Corporate issued a Notice of
of the 1987 Constitution does not include Disallowance for said agreement, stating
appointments to the judiciary as it was not that it violates Resolution 2005-001 and PD
expressly enumerated thereto. 402. PIDS counter argues that it is exempt
from strict compliance with PD 402 for they
Likewise, the President can still appoint had the approval of the Senior Deputy
Maggie, his cousin. Article VII, Section 13 Executive Secretary. Is PIDS exempt from

21
strict compliance from PD 402 by virtue of SUGGESTED ANSWER:

the doctrine of qualified political agency In the case of David v. Arroyo (G.R. No.
for their agreement was approved by the 171409, May 3, 2006), it was stated that the
executive secretary? President’s authority to declare a “state of
rebellion” emanates from the President’s
SUGGESTED ANSWER: power as Chief Executive which is allowed
No, the Executive Secretary does not carry under Section 4, Chapter 2, Book II of the
the power to exempt from strict Revised Administrative Code of 1987. It is
compliance with a PD, let alone the Senior merely an act declaring a status or
Deputy Executive Secretary. The authority condition of public moment or interest. On
to issue an exemption must be done upon the other hand, in declaring a state of
the express designation and delegation national emergency, the relevant
by the president through a presidential or provisions are: (1) Section 18, Article VII of
executive issuance. The doctrine of the Constitution in which the AFP are
Qualified Political Agency lays down the called to prevent and suppress lawless
principle that each head of a department violence, invasion, and rebellion; and (2)
is, and must be, the President's alter ego in Section 17, Article XII of the Constitution
the matters of that department where the which states that the State has extra
President is required by law to exercise ordinary power to take over privately-
authority. Never has it been stated that owned public utility and business affected
executive secretaries have their own alter with public interest.
egos. While the Court has at times
expanded the application of the doctrine QUESTION:
of qualified political agency, the doctrine (B) What are the limitations, if any, to the
remains limited to the President's pardoning power of the President? (2015
executive secretary and other Cabinet Bar Question)
secretaries. It does not extend to deputy
executive secretaries or assistant deputy SUGGESTED ANSWER:
secretaries. (Philippine Institute for The following are the limitations to the
Development Studies v. Commission on pardoning power of the President:
Audit, G.R. No. 212022, August 20, 2019)
(a) Cannot be granted for
C. Executive Clemency: Nature and impeachment. (Article VII, Section
Limitations 19, 1987 Constitution)
(b) Cannot be granted in cases of
QUESTION: violation of election laws without the
(A) Distinguish the President's authority to favorable recommendation of the
declare a state of rebellion from the COMELEC. (Article IX-C, Section 5,
authority to proclaim a state of national 1987 Constitution)
emergency. (2015 Bar Question) (c) Can be granted only after
conviction by final judgment (People

22
v. Salle, G.R. No. 103567, December corporations with or without independent

4, 1995) charters are not exempt from the
(d) Cannot absolve the convict of civil payment of legal fees. In a case decided
liability. (People v. Nacional, G.R. by the Supreme Court, it was held that
Nos. 111294-95, September 7, 1995) since the payment of legal fees is a vital
(e) Cannot be granted to cases of component of the rules promulgated by
legislative contempt or civil this Court concerning pleading, practice,
contempt. and procedure, it cannot be validly
(f) Cannot restore public offices annulled, changed, or modified by
forfeited, even if pardon restores the Congress (A.M. No. 12-2-03-0, March 13,
eligibility for said offices. (Monsanto 2012). Hence, R.A. 14344 impairs the
v. Factoran, G.R. No. 78239, February Court’s guaranteed fiscal autonomy and
9, 1989) erodes its independence.
QUESTION:
VII. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT Congress enacted a law providing for trial
by jury for those charged with crimes or
A. Judicial Power offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua
or life imprisonment. The law provides for
QUESTION: the qualifications of members of the jury,
Congress enacted R.A. No. 14344 creating the guidelines for the bar and bench for
the City of Masuwerte which took effect on their selection, the manner a trial by jury
September 25, 2014. Section 23 of the law shall operate, and the procedures to be
specifically exempts the City of followed.
Masuwerte from the payment of legal fees
in the cases that it would file and/or Is the law constitutional? (2013 Bar
prosecute in the courts of law. In two (2) Question)
cases that it filed, the City of Masuwerte
was assessed legal fees by the clerk of SUGGESTED ANSWER:
court pursuant to Rule 141 (Legal Fees) of No, the law is unconstitutional. The law
the Rules of Court. The City of Masuwerte would be contrary to the judicial power
questions the assessment claiming that it which includes the “duty of the courts of
is exempt from paying legal fees under justice to settle actual controversies which
Section 23 of its charter. Is the claim of are legally demandable and
exemption tenable? Explain. (2015 Bar enforceable, and to determine whether
Question) or not there has been a grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess
SUGGESTED ANSWER: jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
No, the claim is not tenable. Under Rule instrumentality of the Government.”
141, Sec. 21 ROC, local government and (Article VIII, Section1[2], 1987 Constitution).
government-owned or controlled A trial by jury would divest the courts of its

23
judicial power as it would transfer the duty by the Constitution. Is COA entitled to
of settling actual controversies to the jury. receive the rest of its appropriations even
without complying with the DBM policy?
VIII. CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS (2014 Bar Question)
A. Composition and Qualifications of SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Members Yes, the Commission on Audit is entitled to
receive the rest of its appropriations even
QUESTION: without complying with the Department of
State whether or not the following acts are Budget and Management’s policy. The
constitutional: approved annual appropriations of
Constitutional Commissions shall be
The designation by the president of an automatically and regularly released.
acting Associate Commissioner of the (Article IX-A, Section 5, 1987 Constitution)
Civil Service Commission. (2018 Bar By parity of construction, "automatic
Question) release" of approved annual
appropriations to petitioner, a
SUGGESTED ANSWER: constitutional commission which is vested
Unconstitutional. It is provided under the with fiscal autonomy, should thus be
1987 Constitution that “no person shall be construed to mean that no condition to
appointed or designated in any of the fund releases to it may be imposed. (Civil
constitutional commissions in a temporary Service Commission v. Department of
or acting capacity.” (Articles IX-B, Section Budget and Management, G.R. No.
1(2), IX-C, Section 2 and IX-D, Section 2) 158791, July 22, 2005)
B. Commission on Audit
IX. BILL OF RIGHTS
QUESTION:
Towards the end of the year, the A. Right Against Unreasonable
Commission on Audit (COA) sought the Searches and Seizures: Warrantless
remainder of its appropriation from the Searches
Department of Budge t and Management
(DBM). However, the DBM refused QUESTION:
because the COA had not yet submitted a Around 12:00 midnight, a team of police
report on the expenditures relative to the officers was on routine patrol in Barangay
earlier amount released to it. And, Makatarungan when it noticed an open
pursuant to the "no report, no release" delivery van neatly covered with banana
policy of the DBM, COA is not entitled to leaves. Believing that the van was loaded
any further releases in the meantime. COA with contraband, the team leader flagged
counters that such a policy contravenes down the vehicle which was driven by
the guaranty of fiscal autonomy granted Hades. He inquired from Hades what was

24
loaded on the van. Hades just gave the a vehicle looked suspicious simply
police officer a blank stare and started to because it is not common for such to be
perspire profusely. The police officers then covered with leaves, it does not constitute
told Hades that they will look inside the "probable cause" as would justify the
vehicle. Hades did not make any reply. conduct of a search without a warrant. It
The police officers then lifted the banana cannot likewise be said that the
leaves and saw several boxes. They contraband found in the petitioner's
opened the boxes and discovered several vehicle were in plain view, making its
kilos of shabu inside. Hades was charged warrantless seizure valid. Neither can
with illegal possession of illegal drugs. petitioner's passive submission be
After due proceedings, he was convicted construed as an implied acquiescence to
by the trial court. On appeal, the Court of the warrantless search. (Caballes v. Court
Appeals affirmed his conviction. of Appeals, G.R. No. 136292, January 15,
2002)
In his final bid for exoneration, Hades went
to the Supreme Court claiming that his In this case, the police officers have no
constitutional right against unreasonable probable cause to justify an extensive
searches and seizures was violated when search of petitioner’s vehicle without his
the police officers searched his vehicle consent and without the benefit of a
without a warrant; that the shabu search warrant. Thus, the seized boxes of
confiscated from him is thus inadmissible shabu must inadmissible as evidence
in evidence; and that there being no being obtained as the product of an
evidence against him, he is entitled to an unreasonable search and seizure. There
acquittal. being no other evidence against the
accused, he is entitled to an acquittal.
For its part, the People of the Philippines
maintains that the case of Hades involved QUESTION:
a consented warrantless search which is A witnessed two hooded men with
legally recognized. The People adverts to baseball bats enter the house of their next
the fact that Hades did not offer any door neighbor B. after a few seconds, he
protest when the police officers asked him heard B shouting, “Huwag Pilo babayaran
if they could look inside the vehicle. Thus, kita agad.” Then A saw the two hooded
any evidence obtained in the course men hitting B until the latter fell lifeless. The
thereof is admissible in evidence. assailants escaped using a yellow
motorcycle with a fireball sticker on it
Whose claim is correct? Explain. (2015 Bar toward the direction of an exclusive
Question) village nearby. A reported the incident to
PO1 Nuval. The following day, PO1 Nuval
SUGGESTED ANSWER: saw the motorcycle parked in the garage
The claim of Hades is correct. In a similar of a house at Sta. Ines Street inside the
case, the Supreme Court held that when exclusive village. He inquired with the

25
caretaker as to who owned the reddish and glassy eyes walking

motorcycle. The caretaker named the unsteadily towards them, but he
brothers Pilo and Ramon Maradona who immediately veered away upon seeing
were then outside the country. PO1 Nuval the policemen. The team approached the
insisted on getting inside the garage. Out man, introduced themselves as peace
of fear, the caretaker allowed him. PO1 officers, then asked what he had in his
Nuval took 2 ski masks and 2 bats beside clenched fist. Because the man refused to
the motorcycle. Was the search valid? answer, a policeman pried the fist open
What about the seizure? Decide with and saw a plastic sachet with crystalline
reasons. (2010 Bar Question) substance. The team then took the man
into custody and submitted the contents of
SUGGESTED ANSWER: the sachet to forensic examination. The
No, both the warrantless search and Crystalline substance in the sachet turned
seizure were not valid for three reasons. out to be shabu. The man was accordingly
First, according to People v. Baula (G.R. charged in court. During the trial, the
No. 132671, November 15, 2000), the accused: (Decide with reasons)
search and seizure were not made as an
incident to a lawful warrantless arrest. (A) Challenged the validity of his arrest;
Second, as held in People v. Damaso (2009 Bar Question)
(G.R. No. 93516, August 12, 1992), the
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
caretaker had no authority to waive the
Yes, the arrest is valid. Under Section 5(a),
right of the brothers Pilo and Ramon
Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Maradona against unreasonable search
Procedure, a valid warrantless arrest may
and seizure. Lastly, as held in the case of
be effected by a peace officer or private
People v. Bolasa (G.R. No. 125754,
person when in his presence, the person to
December 22, 1999), the warrantless
be arrested has committed, is actually
seizure of the ski masks and bats cannot
committing, or is attempting to commit an
be justified under the plain view doctrine
offense. In the case at bar, the man was
because they were seized after invalid
caught by the peace officers in possession
intrusion into the house.
of shabu, pursuant to a valid stop-and-frisk
search, given the suspicious
B. Right Against Unreasonable
circumstances such as the fact that they
Searches and Seizures: Warrantless
were somewhere the use and sale of
Arrests and Detention
drugs were rampant, the fact that the
accused had glassy, red eyes, and lastly,
QUESTION:
the fact that the accused veered away
Crack agents of the Manila Police Anti-
upon seeing the policemen. Possession of
Narcotics unit were on surveillance of a
shabu is a crime under R.A. 9165. Thus, the
cemetery where the sale and use of
arrest is valid.
prohibited drugs were rumored to be
rampant. The team saw a man with
QUESTION:

26
(B) Objected to the admission in evidence second police team was waiting.
of the prohibited drug, claiming that it was
obtained in an illegal search and seizure. Upon confirmation by radio report from
(2009 Bar Question) the first police team that the kidnappers
were heading towards their direction, the
SUGGESTED ANSWER: second police team proceeded to
The objection should be overruled. It has conduct surveillance on the car of the
been settled in the case of Manalili v. kidnappers, eventually saw it enter Ayala
Court of Appeals (G.R No. 113447, Commercial Center in Makati City, and
October 9, 1997) that warrantless the police team finally blocked it when it
searches and seizures may be validly slowed down. The members of the second
made with probable cause alone. In the police team approached the vehicle and
case at bar, the peace officer observed proceeded to arrest the kidnappers.
that the accused had red eyes and was
walking unsteadily towards them in the Is the warrantless arrest of the kidnappers
cemetery which was a popular hangout by the second police team lawful? (2018
of drug addicts. All these taken together Bar Question)
would raise a reasonable ground of
suspicion that the accused was under the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
influence of drugs. The policemen Yes, the warrantless arrest is lawful. Before
therefore had a valid reason to a warrantless arrest can be effected, two
investigate the accused. There being a requisites must be present: (1) an offense
valid warrantless search, the objection has just been committed, and (2) the
should therefore be denied. person making the arrest has personal
knowledge of facts indicating that the
QUESTION: person to be arrested has committed it.
Two police teams monitored the payment (Rule 113, Section 5 [b], Rules of Court). In
of ransom in a kidnapping case. the instant case, both requisites are
present. The first police team was able to
The bag containing the ransom money witness the retrieval of the bag containing
was placed inside an unlocked trunk of a the ransom money by the kidnappers.
car which was parked at the Angola Next, the second police team, who made
Commercial Center in Mandaluyong City. the arrest, has personal knowledge as
they are informed by the first police team
The first police team, stationed in an area of the fact that the kidnappers’ car was
near where the car was parked, witnessed headed toward their direction. They had
the retrieval by the kidnappers on the bag enough time to conduct surveillance on
from the unlocked trunk. The kidnappers the car of the kidnappers before making
thereafter boarded their car and the arrest. Hence, the warrantless arrest is
proceeded towards the direction of lawful.
Amorsolo St. in Makati City where the

27
C. Privacy of Communications and

Correspondence: Intrusions, When SUGGESTED ANSWER:
and How Allowed Content-based restraint or censorship
refers to restrictions "based on the subject
QUESTION: matter of the utterance or speech."
In criminal prosecution for murder, the Content-based regulation bears a heavy
prosecution presented, as witness, an presumption of invalidity, and this court
employee of the Manila Hotel who has used the clear and present danger
produced in court a videotape recording rule as measure. In contrast, content-
showing the heated exchange between neutral regulation includes controls merely
the accused and the victim that took on the incidents of the speech such as
place at the lobby of the hotel barely 30 time, place, or manner of the speech.
minutes before the killing. The accused (Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC, G.R.
objects to the admission of the videotape No. 205728, January 21, 2015)
recording on the ground that it was taken
without his knowledge or consent, in E. Freedom of Speech and
violation of his right to privacy and the Expression: Freedom of Assembly
Anti-Wire Tapping law. Resolve the
objection with reasons. (2009 Bar QUESTION:
Question) Batas Pambansa 880, the Public Assembly
Law of 1985, regulates the conduct of all
SUGGESTED ANSWER: protest rallies in the Philippines.
The objection should be overruled. The
Anti-Wire Tapping Law prohibits the Salakay, Bayan! held a protest rally and
overhearing, intercepting and recording planned to march from Quezon City to
of private communication. In the case at Luneta in Manila. They received a permit
bar, the exchange of the heated word is from the Mayor of Quezon City, but not
not private, as it took place in a hotel from the Mayor of Manila. They were able
lobby which is considered a public area. to march in Quezon City and up to the
Therefore, its videotape recording is not boundary separating it from the City of
prohibited by law and is not a violation of Manila. Three meters after crossing the
his privacy. (Navarro vs. Court of Appeals, boundary, the Manila Police stopped
G.R. No. 121087, August 26, 1999) them for posing a danger to public safety.
Was this a valid exercise of police power?
D. Freedom of Speech and (2007 Bar Question)
Expression: Content-based and
Content-neutral SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, it is a valid exercise of police power.
QUESTION: The Manila Police has the power to stop
Define content-based regulations and the marchers who do not possess a permit.
content-neutral regulations. However, the mere exercise of the right to

28
peaceful assembly is not considered as (B) Does the availability of a Freedom Park
danger to public safety. (Bayan v. Ermita, justify the denial of SM's application for a
G.R. No. 169848, April 25, 2006). permit? (2006 Bar Question)
QUESTION: SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The Samahan ng mga Mahihirap (SM) filed No, it does not justify the denial of SM’s
with the Office of the City Mayor of Manila application for a permit. A denial may
an application for permit to hold a rally on only be justified if there is clear and
Mendiola Street on September 5, 2006 convincing evidence that the public
from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. to protest the assembly will create a clear and present
political killings of journalists. However, the danger to public order, public safety,
City Mayor denied their application on the public convenience, public moral or
ground that a rally at the time and place public health. (Bayan Muna v. Ermita, G.R.
applied for will block the traffic in the San No. 169838, April 25, 2006). The availability
Miguel and Quiapo Districts. He suggested of another venue to hold the public
the Liwasang Bonifacio, which has been assembly will not justify the denial of the
designated a Freedom Park, as venue for permit.
the rally.
QUESTION:
(A) Does the SM have a remedy to contest (C) Is the requirement to apply for a permit
the denial of its application for a permit? to hold a rally a prior restraint on freedom
(2006 Bar Question) of speech and assembly? (2006 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, SM has a remedy. Under the Public SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Assembly Act of 1985 (Batas Pambansa The requirement to apply for a permit to
Blg. 880), the applicant may contest the hold a rally is not a prior restraint on the
decision in an appropriate court of law in freedom of speech and assembly. The
the event of the application’s denial, regulation of time, place and manner of
wherein the court must decide within holding public assemblies are subject of
twenty-four (24) hours from the date of the permit requirement. The contents of
filing. Such decision may also be the speech in public assemblies are not
appealed to the appropriate court within the subject of the permit requirement.
forty-eight (48) hours after the receipt of Thus, there is no prior restraint, since the
the decision. Lastly, these may also be content of the speech is not relevant to
appealed to the Supreme Court. (Bayan the regulation. (Bayan Muna v. Ermita,
Muna v. Ermita, G.R. No. 169838, April 25, G.R. No. 169838, April 25, 2006)
2006)
QUESTION:
QUESTION: (D) Assuming that despite the denial of
SM's application for a permit, its members

29
hold a rally, prompting the police to arrest reciting the patriotic pledge. The students
them. Are the arrests without judicial and their parents assail the expulsion on
warrants lawful? (2006 Bar Question) the ground that the school authorities
have acted in violation of their right to free
SUGGESTED ANSWER: public education, freedom of speech, and
No, the arrests without judicial warrants religious freedom and worship. Decide the
are unlawful. What B.P. Blg. 880 prohibits is case. (2003 Bar Question)
"the holding of any public assembly as
defined in this Act by any leader or SUGGESTED ANSWER:
organizer without having first secured that The students cannot be expelled from
written permit where a permit is required school. As held in Ebralinag v. The Division
from the office concerned…xxx Provided, Superintendent of Schools of Cebu (G.R.
however, that no person can be punished No. 95770, March 1, 1993), to compel
or held criminally liable for participating in students to take part in the flag ceremony
or attending an otherwise peaceful when it is against their religious beliefs will
assembly." (Sections 13[a] and 14[a]) violate their religious freedom. Their
expulsion also violates the duty of the
Hence, it is only the leader or organizer of State under Article XIV, Section 1 of the
the rally without a permit may be arrested Constitution to protect and promote the
without a warrant. The members, right of all citizens to quality education
however, may not be arrested nor may and make such education accessible to
they be punished or held criminally liable all. (UP Law Center)
for attending the rally.
G. Liberty of Abode and Freedom of
However, B.P. Blg. 880 also provides that in Movement: Scope and Limitations
the event a public assembly is held
without a permit, when it is required, the QUESTION:
said assembly may be peacefully Juan Casanova contracted Hansen's
dispersed. (Section 12) disease (leprosy) with open lesions. A law
requires that lepers be isolated upon
F. Freedom of Religion: Free Exercise petition of the City Health Officer. The wife
Clause of Juan Casanova wrote a letter to the City
Health Officer to have her formerly
QUESTION: philandering husband confined in some
Children who are members of a religious isolated leprosarium. Juan Casanova
sect have been expelled from their challenged the constitutionality of the law
respective public schools for refusing, on as violating his liberty of abode. Will the
account of their religious beliefs, to take suit prosper? (1998 Bar Question)
part in the flag ceremony which includes
playing by a band or singing the national SUGGESTED ANSWER:
anthem, saluting the Philippine flag and

30
No, the suit will not prosper. The liberty of produce certain documents as
abode is subject to the police power of proofs he is guilty of illegal
the State. Requiring the segregation of recruitment. (2006 Bar Question)
lepers is a valid exercise of police power.
In Lorenzo v. Director of Health (G.R. No. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
27484, September 1, 1927), the Supreme The best answer is (c). It is provided under
Court held that "judicial notice will be Article III, Section 17 of the 1987
taken of the fact that leprosy is commonly Constitution, “no person shall be
believed to be an infectious disease compelled to be a witness against
tending to cause one afflicted with it to be himself.” The said provision prohibits
shunned and excluded from soci-ety, and compulsory testimonial incrimination;
that compulsory segregation of lepers as therefore, it includes both oral and written
a means of preventing the spread of the testimonies. Writing is not a purely
disease is supported by high scientific mechanical act as it requires the
authority." application of intellectual faculties.
Ordering the accused to produce a
H. Rights against Self-Incrimination: sample of his handwriting is akin to
Scope and Coverage furnishing missing evidence necessary for
the accused conviction, which is
QUESTION: prohibited by the said right under the 1987
An accused’s right against self- Constitution.
incrimination is violated in the following
cases: QUESTION:
PO1 Adrian Andal is known to have taken
a. When he is ordered by the trial bribes from apprehended motorists who
court to undergo a paraffin test to have violated traffic rules. The National
prove he is guilty of murder; Bureau of Investigation conducted an
entrapment operation where PO1 Adrian
b. When he is compelled to was caught red-handed demanding and
produce his bankbooks to be used taking PhP500.00 from a motorist who
as evidence against his father supposedly beat a red light.
charged with plunder;
After he was apprehended, PO1 Adrian
c. When he is ordered to produce a was required to submit a sample of his
sample of his handwriting to be urine. The drug test showed that he was
used as evidence that he is the positive for dangerous drugs. Hence, PO1
author of a letter wherein he Adrian was charged with violation of
agreed to kill the victim; Section 15, Article II of RA No. 9165 or the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
d. When the president of a 2002.
corporation is subpoenaed to

31
PO1 Adrian argues against the the invitation but during the committee
admissibility of the urine test results and hearing, she stated that she will not answer
seeks its exclusion. He claims that the any question unless she be provided with
mandatory drug test under RA No. 9165 is the assistance of a counsel. The PNP
a violation of the accused’s right to officials denied her request; hence, she no
privacy and against self-incrimination. longer participated in the investigation.
Are PO1 Adrian’s contentions correct? What is a custodial investigation? Under

(2018 Bar Question) the 1987 Constitution, what are the rights
of a person during custodial investigation?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: (2019 Bar Question)
Yes, PO1 Adrian Andal's contentions are
correct. His rights to privacy and against SUGGESTED ANSWER:
self-incrimination have been violated. Custodial investogation is the stage where
Republic Act No. 9165 expressly provides an investigation ceases to be a general
that a drug test can be made upon inquiry into an unsolved crime; the
persons who are apprehended or direction is then aimed upon a particular
arrested for unlawful acts listed under suspect who has been taken into custody
Article II of the law. In the case at bar, PO1 and to whom the police would then direct
Adrian Andal's unlawful act, which is interrogatory questions which tend to elicit
extortion, is not among those enumerated incriminating statements (People v. Dela
under the law. Hence, the drug test was a Cruz, G.R. No. 118866-68, September 17,
violation of PO1 Adrian Andal's right to 1997). Custodial investigation also
privacy and right against self- includes the practice of issuing an
incrimination. (De la Cruz v. People, G.R. "invitation" to a person who is investigated
No. 200748, July 23, 2014) in connection with an offense he is
suspected to have committed. This is
I. Rights of Persons under Custodial without prejudice to the liability of the
Investigation "inviting" officer for any violation of law
(Republic Act No. 7438).
QUESTION:
Mrs. W supplies the Philippine National A person under custodial investigation has
Police (PNP) with uniforms every year. Last the following rights: (1) to remain silent; (2)
month, he and two (2) other officers of the to have competent and independent
PNP conspired to execute a "ghost counsel preferably of his own choice and
purchase', covered by five (5) checks if he cannot afford the services of counsel,
amounting to P200,000.00 each, or a total he must be provided with one; (3) to be
of P1,000,000.00. An investigating informed of such rights; (4) waiver of these
committee within the PNP, which was rights not allowed except in writing and in
constituted to look into it, invited Mrs. W, the presence of counsel; (5) no torture,
among others, for an inquiry regarding the force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any
anomalous transaction. Mrs. W accepted

32
other means which vitiate the free will can valid unless made with the assistance of
be used against him; (6) secret detention counsel. Any statement obtained in
places, solitary, incommunicado, or other violation of the procedure herein laid
similar forms of detention are prohibited; down, whether exculpatory or
and (7) Any confession or admission inculpatory, in whole or in part, shall be
obtained in violation of these rights are inadmissible in evidence. (Morales v.
inadmissible in evidence against him. Ponce Enrile, G.R. Nos. 61016 and 61107,
April 26, 1983)
QUESTION:
On October 1, 1985, Ramos was arrested J. Rights of the Accused: Bail
by a security guard because he appeared
to be "suspicious" and brought to a police QUESTION:
precinct where in the course of the State whether or not the law is
investigation he admitted he was the killer constitutional.
in an unsolved homicide committed a Explain briefly.
week earlier. The proceedings of his
investigation were put in writing and dated A law denying persons charged with
October 1, 1985, and the only crimes punishable by reclusion perpetua
participation of counsel assigned to him or death the right to bail. (2006 Bar
was his mere presence and signature on Question)
the statement. The admissibility of the
statement of Ramos was placed in issue SUGGESTED ANSWER:
but the prosecution claims that the The law is unconstitutional. Article III,
confession was taken on October 1, 1985 Section 13 of the 1987 Constitution which
and the 1987 Constitution providing for the provides that "all persons, except those
right to counsel of choice and opportunity charged with offenses punishable by
to retain, took effect only on February 2, reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt
1987 and cannot be given retroactive is strong, shall, before conviction, be
effect. Rule on this. (2000 Bar Question) bailable by sufficient sureties, or be
released on recognizance as may be
SUGGESTED ANSWER: provided by law." An accused cannot be
Ramos' confession is inadmissible as his deprived of his constitutional right to bail
assigned counsel failed to advise him of even if he is charged with crime a
his rights. It is immaterial that the punishable by reclusion perpetua or
confession was taken before the 1987 death, where the evidence of guilt is not
Constitution took effect. The Supreme strong.
Court, in the case of People v. Galit (G.R.
No. L-51770, March 20, 1985), already laid K. Rights of the Accused: Assistance
down strict rules on the waiver of the rights of Counsel
during investigation. The right to counsel
may be waived but the waiver shall not be QUESTION:

33
Mr. Brown, a cigarette vendor, was invited fundamental and statutory laws to
by PO1 White to a nearby police station. persons suspected of having committed a
Upon arriving at the police station, Brown crime. (People of the Philippines v.
was asked to stand side-by-side with five Legaspi, G.R. No. 117802, April 27,
(5) other cigarette vendors in a police line- 2000)
up. PO1 White informed them that they
were looking for a certain cigarette (C) Briefly enumerate the so-called
vendor who snatched the purse of a "Miranda Rights". (2012 Bar Question)
passer-by and the line-up was to allow the
victim to point at the vendor who SUGGESTED ANSWER:
snatched her purse. No questions were to The Miranda doctrine requires that: (a)
be asked from the vendors. any person under custodial investigation
has the right to remain silent; (b) anything
(A) Brown, afraid of a "set up" against him, he says can and will be used against him
demanded that he be allowed to secure in a court of law; (c) he has the right to talk
his lawyer and for him to be present during to an attorney before being questioned
the police line-up. Is Brown entitled to and to have his counsel present when
counsel? Explain (2012 Bar Question) being questioned; and (d) if he cannot
afford an attorney, one will be provided
SUGGESTED ANSWER: before any questioning if he so desires.
No, Mr. Brown is not entitled to counsel. (People of the Philippines v. Cabanda,
Police line-up is not part of the custodial G.R. No. 221424, July 19, 2017)
investigation; hence, the right to counsel
guaranteed by the Constitution cannot L. Rights to Speedy Disposition of
yet be invoked at this stage. (People of Cases
the Philippines v. Pepino, G.R. No. 174471,
January 12, 2016) QUESTION:
On February 10, 2003, The Office of the
(B) Would the answer in (A) be the same if Ombudsman received an anonymous
Brown was specifically invited by White complaint alleging that certain public
because an eyewitness to the crime officials committed graft and corruption.
identified him as the perpetrator? Explain. Several years later, an information was
(2012 Bar Question) filed against the petitioner regarding the
complaint. Petitioner now contends that
SUGGESTED ANSWER: the inordinate delay of 7 years in the filing
No, in this case, Mr. Brown is entitled to the of information violated his constitutional
assistance of counsel. Brown was invited rights to due process and to speedy
with the premise that he was identified to disposition of cases. Decide the case.
be the perpetrator and thus, was treated
as a suspect. At this point, Mr. Brown is SUGGESTED ANSWER:
entitled to the rights accorded by both

34
Petitioner’s rights to due process and to acquittal or conviction or in any other

speedy disposition of cases were not manner without his consent, he cannot
violated. When an anonymous complaint again be charged with the same or
is filed or the Ombudsman conducts a identical offense. (Melo v. People, G.R.
motu proprio fact-finding investigation, No. L-3580, March 22, 1950)
the proceedings are not yet adversarial.
With respect to fact-finding at the level of QUESTION:
the Ombudsman, the Ombudsman must (B) What are the requisites of double
provide for reasonable periods based jeopardy? 1999 Bar Question)
upon its experience with specific types of
cases, compounded with the number of SUGGESTED ANSWER:
accused and the complexity of the To raise the defense of double jeopardy,
evidence required. Delay is not three requisites must be shown: (1) a first
determined through mere mathematical jeopardy has attached prior to the
reckoning but through the examination of second; (2) the first must have terminated;
the facts and circumstances surrounding and (3) the second jeopardy must be for
each case. Courts should appraise a the same offense as that of the first. (The
reasonable period from the point of view 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the
of how much time a competent and Philippines: A Commentary, Bernas, S.J.
independent public officer would need in 2009)
relation to the complexity of a given case.
Also, while there was delay, petitioner has QUESTION:
not shown that he asserted his rights (C) On October 21, 1986, 17 year old
during this period, choosing instead to Virginia Sagrado brought a complaint
wait until the information was filed against against Martin Geralde for consented
him with the Sandiganbayan. (Cagang v. abduction. With the accused pleading not
Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 206438, 206458 guilty upon ar-raignment, trial ensued.
& 210141-42, July 21, 2018) After trial, a judgment of convic-tion was
rendered against Geralde. When the case
M. Right Against Double Jeopardy: was ap-pealed to it, the Court of Appeals
Requisites and Scope reversed the judgment of the Trial Court,
ratiocinating and ruling as follows: “This is
QUESTION: not to say that the appellant did nothing
(A) Discuss the right of every accused wrong...she was seduced by the appellant
against double jeopardy? (1999 Bar with promises (of marriage) just to
Question) accomplish his lewd designs.” Years later,
Virginia brought another complaint for
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Qualified Seduction. Geralde presented a
The rule of double jeopardy means that Motion to Quash on the ground of double
when a person was charged with an jeopardy, which motion and his
offense and the case was terminated by subsequent motion for reconsideration

35
were denied: Question: May Geralde be valid the pardon of the offender by the
validly invoke double jeop-ardy in offended party must be expressly given.
questioning the institution of the case for (UP Law Center)
Qualified Seduction? He placed reliance
principally on the “same evidence” test QUESTION:
to support his stance. He asserted that the An Information for Estafa was filed against
offenses with which he was charged arose the accused, Mr. D. During the course of
from the same set of facts. Furthermore, he the trial, Mr. D filed a motion to dismiss for
averted that the complaint for Qualified failure to prosecute the case for a
Seduction is barred by waiver and reasonable length of time. Opposing the
estoppel on the part of the complainant, motion, the prosecution argued that its
she having opted to consider the case as failure to present its witnesses was due to
consented abduction. Finally, he argued circumstances beyond its control.
that her delay of more than eight (8) years Eventually, the trial court dismissed the
before filing the second case against him case with finality on the ground that Mr. D's
constituted pardon on the part of the right to speedy trial was violated. A month
of-fended party. How would you resolve after, the same criminal case for Estafa
Gerald’s contentions? Explain. (1999 Bar was refiled against Mr. D, prompting him to
Question) file a motion to dismiss invoking his right
against double jeopardy. The prosecution
SUGGESTED ANSWER: opposed the motion, arguing that the first
Martin Geralde cannot invoke double criminal case for Estafa was dismissed with
jeopardy. According to Perez v. Court of the express consent of the accused as it
Appeals, 168 SCRA 236, there is no identity was, in fact, upon his own motion.
between consented abduction and Moreover, it was already able to secure
qualified seduction. Consented the commitments of its witnesses to
abduction requires that the taking away appear; hence, it would be prejudicial for
of the offended party must be with her the State if the case were to be dismissed
consent, after solicitation or cajolery from without trial.
the offender, and the taking away of the
offended party must be with lewd (A) For double jeopardy to attach, what
de-signs. On the other hand, qualified requisites must exist? (2019 Bar Question)
seduction requires that the crime be
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
committed by abuse of authority,
To raise the defense of double jeopardy,
confidence or relationship and the
three requisites must be present: (1) a first
offender had sexual intercourse with the
jeopardy must have attached prior to the
woman.
second; (2) the first jeopardy must have
been validly terminated; and (3) the
The delay in filing the second case does
second jeopardy must be for the same
not consti-tute a pardon, according to
offense as that in the first. In relation to this,
Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code, to
the first jeopardy attaches only (a) upon a

36
valid complaint or information, (b) before to rape under the Revised Penal Code.
a competent court, (c) after arraignment However, the trial court convicted Udang
and a valid plea has been entered; and under 266-A of the RPC instead of sexual
(d) the accused was previously acquitted, abuse under RA 7610. It ratiocinated that
convicted or the case was dismissed or while the allegations in the first and
otherwise terminated without his express second informations satisfied the elements
consent. (Dimayacyac v. Court of of rape under the first and third
Appeals, G.R. No. 136264, May 28, 2004). paragraphs of Article 266-A, respectively,
the charges can only be one (1) for rape
QUESTION: under the first paragraph of Article 266-A
(B) Rule on Mr. D's present motion. (2019 because an accused cannot be
Bar Question) prosecuted twice for a single criminal act.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Was the Trial Court correct in saying that

The motion to dismiss should be granted. conviction of Udang of rape precludes his
The rule that the right against double prosecution for sexual abuse under RA
jeopardy cannot be invoked if the 7610?
dismissal of the original case was with the
express consent of the accused admits of SUGGESTED ANSWER:
two exceptions, namely: insufficiency of No, a single act may give rise to multiple
evidence and denial of the right to offenses. Thus, charging an accused with
speedy trial (Philippine Savings Bank v. rape, under the Revised Penal Code, and
Bermoy, G.R. No. 151912, September 26, with sexual abuse, under Republic Act No.
2005). Hence, Mr. D may invoke his right 7610, in case the offended party is a child
against double jeopardy. 12 years old and above, will not violate
the right of the accused against double
QUESTION: jeopardy. Double jeopardy will not attach
AAA alleges that Udang raped her while when a single act constitutes multiple
she was drinking with the latter’s child. The crimes or offenses. The Bill of Rights under
same incident happened a year later our Constitution states that “No person
where AAA drank with Udang himself and shall be twice put in jeopardy of
his child. As AAA got sleepy, she went into punishment for the same offense. If an act
one of the rooms to sleep but Udang is punished by a law and an ordinance,
followed her and successfully raped her. conviction or acquittal under either shall
Four months later, AAA had herself constitute a bar to another prosecution for
examined by Dr. Revelo who found out the same act.” The first sentence of the
that AAA had hymenal lacerations and provision speaks of "the same offense,"
reddish superficial scratched marks in her which the SC has interpreted to mean
genital area, which were already healed. offenses having identical essential
Two informations for child abuse under RA elements. Rape and Sexual abuse have
7610 were filed against Udang, in relation different elements. They are two distinct

37
and separate crimes with distinct the 1987 Constitution. Therefore, it is not
elements. Rape is a felony, and Sexual subject to confirmation by the
Abuse is an offense under a special law. Commission on Appointments.
(People v. Udang, Sr., G.R. No. 210161,
January 10, 2018) B. Accountability of Public Officers:
The Ombudsman and the Office of
X. LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS the Special Prosecutor
A. Modes and Kinds of Appointment QUESTION:

Director WOW failed the lifestyle check
QUESTION: conducted by the Ombudsman’s Office
While Congress was in session, the because WOW’S assets were grossly
President appointed eight acting disproportionate to his salary and
Secretaries. A group of Senators from the allowances. Moreover, some assets were
minority bloc questioned the validity of the not included in his Statement of Assets and
appointments in a petition before the Liabilities. He was charged with graft and
Supreme Court on the ground that while corrupt practices and pending the
Congress is in session, no appointment completion of investigations, he was
that requires confirmation by the suspended from office for six months.
Commission on Appointments, can be
made without the latter's consent, and that Aggrieved, WOW petitioned the Court of
an undersecretary should instead be Appeals to annul the preventive
designated as Acting Secretary. suspension order on the ground that the
Ombudsman could only recommend but
Should the petition be granted? (2013 Bar not impose the suspension. Moreover,
Question) according to WOW, the suspension was
imposed without any notice or hearing, in
SUGGESTED ANSWER: violation of due process. Is the petitioner’s
No, the petition should not be granted. It contention meritorious? (2004 Bar
was held in the case of Sarmiento III v. Question)
Mison (G.R. No. 79974, December 17,
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1987) that in the 1987 Constitution, the
No, the contention of Director WOW is not
clear and expressed intent of its framers
meritorious. The suspension meted out to
was to exclude presidential appointments
him is preventive and not punitive. As
from confirmation by the Commission on
provided under Section 24 of Republic Act
Appointments, except appointments to
No. 6770 which grants the Ombudsman
offices expressly mentioned in the first
the power to impose preventive
sentence of Sec. 16, Article VII. In the case
suspension up to six months. Under the
at bar, the appointment of acting
case of Garcia v. Mojica (G.R. No. 139043,
secretaries is not expressly mentioned in
September 10, 1999), a preventive
the first sentence of Sec. 16, Article VII of
suspension may be imposed without any

38
notice or hearing. It is merely a preliminary

step in an administrative investigation and STEP TWO: A vote of at least one-third of all
is not the final determination of the guilt of the Members of the House shall be
the officer concerned. necessary either to affirm a favorable
resolution with the Articles of
QUESTION: Impeachment of the Committee or
Who are the impeachable officers under override its contrary resolution. The vote of
the 1987 Constitution? Briefly explain the each Member shall be recorded
process of impeaching them thereunder.
(2019 Bar Question) STEP THREE: In case the verified complaint
or resolution of impeachment is filed by at
SUGGESTED ANSWER: least one-third of all the Members of the
The following are the impeachable House, the same shall constitute the
officers under the 1987 Constitution (1) Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the
President (2) the Vice-President (3) the Senate shall forthwith proceed; and
Members of the Supreme Court (4) the
Members of the Constitutional STEP FOUR: The Senate shall have the sole
Commissions (5) and the Ombudsman power to try and decide all cases of
(Article XI, Section 2, 1987 Constitution). impeachment. When sitting for that
purpose, the Senators shall be on oath or
The process of impeachment is laid down affirmation. But when the President of the
in Article XI, Section 3, of the 1987 Philippines is on trial, the Chief Justice of
Constitution. the Supreme Court shall preside, but shall
not vote. No person shall be convicted
STEP ONE: Any Member of the House of without the concurrence of two-thirds of
Representatives of any citizen upon a all the Members of the Senate.
resolution or endorsement by any
Member thereof, may file a verified C. Impeachment
complaint for impeachment which shall
be included in the Order of Business within QUESTION:
ten session days, and referred to the Sec. 3, Art. XI of the Constitution states that
proper Committee within three session "[n]o impeachment proceedings shall be
days thereafter. After hearing, the initiated against the same official more
Committee, and by a majority vote of all than once within a period of one year."
its Members, shall submit its report to the
House within sixty session days from such What constitutes initiation of
referral, together with the corresponding impeachment proceedings under the
resolution. The resolution shall then be provision? (2017 Bar Question)
calendared for consideration by the
House within ten session days from receipt SUGGESTED ANSWER:
thereof;

39
An impeachment proceeding is initiated 198742, August 10, 2012)

when a verified complaint for
impeachment is filed and referred to the QUESTION:
Committee on Justice for Action. (B) Assuming that H is a dual citizen
(Francisco v. House of Representatives, because his parents are Filipino citizens
G.R. No. 160261, November 10, 2003) and he was born in California, USA, was
filing of a COC sufficient to renounce his
foreign citizenship? Explain. (2019 Bar
XI. ELECTION LAW Question)
A. Candidacy: Effect of Filing SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, it is sufficient. In this case, a COC
QUESTION: which states that he renounces any and
H, a naturalized American citizen who all foreign citizenship suffices. A dual
later became a dual citizen under citizen from birth seeking public office in
Republic Act No. 9225 (the Citizenship The Philippines does not need to execute
Retention and Re-acquisition Act), a personal and sworn renunciation of
decided to run for Congress and thus, filed foreign citizenship. This is because a
a certificate of candidacy (COC). A candidate who has Filipino parents and
citizen argued that H is ineligible for the later becomes a citizen of a foreign state
position because of his status as a dual due to the principle of jus soli has not
citizen. H responded that his act of filing a taken an oath of allegiance to said
COC amounted to his renunciation of foreign state. In this case, H’s dual
foreign citizenship, rendering him eligible citizenship is from birth, and he didn’t
for the position. need to perform any other act such as
swearing allegiance. (Cordora v.
(A) Was H's filing of a COC sufficient to Comelec, G.R. No. 176947, February 19,
renounce foreign citizenship? Explain. 2009; Valles v. Comelec, G.R. No. 137000,
(2019 Bar Question) August 9, 2000)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, it is not sufficient. RA No. 9225,
XII. LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
enacted August 29, 2003, provided for the
additional condition of a personal and
A. Municipal Corporations: Requisites
sworn renunciation of foreign citizenship
for Creation, Conversion, Division,
for those who desire to run for elective
Merger or Dissolution
public office in The Philippines. This law
supersedes the Supreme Court’s previous
QUESTION:
declaration that the filing done by a
From an existing province, Wideland,
person with dual citizenship of a
Congress created a new province,
certificate of candidacy is enough.
Hundred Isles, consisting of several
(Sobejana-Condon v. Comelec, G.R. No.

40
islands, with an aggregate area of 500 of Congress definitively show the clear
square kilometers. The law creating legislative intent to incorporate into the
Hundred Isles was duly approved in a LGC that exemption from the land area
plebiscite called for that purpose. Juan, a requirement, with respect to the creation
taxpayer and a resident of Wideland, of a province when it consists of one or
assailed the creation of Hundred Isles more islands, as expressly provided only in
claiming that it did not comply with the the LGC-IRR. Thereby, and by necessity,
area requirement as set out in the Local the LGC was amended by way of the
Government Code, i.e., an area of at least enactment of R.A. No. 9355. (Navarro v.
2,000 square kilometers. The proponents Ermita, G.R. No. 180050 April 12, 2011)
justified the creation, however, pointing
out that the Rules and Regulations B. Boundary Dispute
Implementing the Local Government
Code states that "the land area QUESTION:
requirement shall not apply where the Boundary disputes between and among
proposed province is composed of one municipalities in the same province may
(1) or more islands." Accordingly, since be filed immediately with the RTC. (2010
the new province consists of several Bar Question)
islands, the area requirement need not be
satisfied. How tenable is the position of the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
proponents? (2014 Bar Question) No, the statement is false. Boundary
disputes involving two (2) or more
SUGGESTED ANSWER: municipalities within the same province
Yes, it is tenable. When a province is shall be referred for settlement to the
composed of one or more islands, its sangguniang panlalawigan concerned.
creation need not comply with the (Section 118[b], Republic Act No. 7160)
required 2,000 square kilometer
contiguous territory under the Local C. Powers of Local Government Units:
Government Code (LGC). Article 9 (2) of Taxing Power
the Implementing Rules and Regulations
of the Local Government Code (LGC-IRR) QUESTION:
provided the exemption. Sections 442 and In 2005, the Province of Benguet enacted
450 of the Local Government Code a provincial tax ordinance which levied a
exempted municipalities and component 10% amusement tax on gross receipts
cities from the area requirement if they from admissions to "resorts, swimming
consist of one or more islands. In the case pools, bath houses, hot springs and tourist
at bar, there is no reason to not apply the spots." Pelizloy, owner of Palm Grove
exemption. The bill that eventually Resort located in Tube, Benguet,
became R.A. No. 9355 was filed and questioned the amusement tax for
favorably voted upon in both Chambers violating the limitations of the taxing
of Congress. Such acts of both Chambers powers of LGUs under the LGC.

41
No, it is not absolute. It is a general rule

Can the Province of Benguet impose such that local government units cannot levy
amusement tax? any taxes, fees, or charges of any kind on
the national government or its agencies
SUGGESTED ANSWER: and instrumentalities. The provision,
No, a province may only impose an however, also provides for an exception:
amusement tax to be collected from the "unless otherwise provided herein." The
“proprietors, lessees, or operators of implication, therefore, is that while a
theaters, cinemas, concert halls, circuses, government agency or instrumentality is
boxing stadia, and other places of generally tax-exempt, the Local
amusement.” However, resorts, swimming Government Code may provide for
pools, bath houses, hot springs, and tourist instances when it could be taxable.
spots are not among those places (Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage
expressly mentioned by Section 140 of the System v. Local Government of Quezon
LGC as being subject to amusement City, G.R No. 194388, November 7, 2018)
taxes, nor are they to be included in the
phrase “other places of amusement.” The D. Powers of Local Government Units:
LGC itself defines amusement places as to Term Limits
include theaters, cinemas, concert halls,
circuses and other places of amusement QUESTION:
where one seeks admission to entertain Atty. G ran for Governor of the Province of
oneself by seeing or viewing the show or Pampanga, while his close friend, Atty. M,
performances. Considering these, it is ran for Mayor of the Municipality of
clear that resorts, swimming pools, bath Guagua, Pampanga. They both won
houses, hot springs and tourist spots convincingly. Eventually, the losing
cannot be considered venues primarily candidates timely filed election protests.
"where one seeks admission to entertain The losing gubernatorial candidate, Mr. A,
oneself by seeing or viewing the show or filed his protest before the Regional Trial
performances.” Thus, they cannot be Court of Pampanga (RTC), whereas the
subject to an amusement tax. (Pelizloy losing mayoralty candidate, Mr. B, filed his
Realty Corporation v. The Province of protest before the Municipal Trial Court of
Benguet, G.R. No. 183137, April 10, 2013) Guagua, Pampanga (MTC).
QUESTION: What are the term limits for the positions of

Is the rule that local government units Atty. G and Atty. M? (2019 Bar Question)
cannot levy any taxes, fees, or charges of
any kind on the national government or its SUGGESTED ANSWER:
agencies and instrumentalities absolute? As provided by Section 43 of the Local
If no, what are its exceptions? Government Code of 1991, all local
elective officials shall only have a term of
SUGGESTED ANSWER: office of three years, starting from the
noon of June 30, 1992 or such date as may

42
be provided by law. Further, no local service cannot be counted in the

elective official shall serve for more than application of any term limit. If the official
three consecutive terms in the same runs again for the same position he held
position. prior to his assumption of the higher office,
then his succession to said position is by
QUESTION: operation of law and is considered an
In the May 1992 elections, Manuel Manalo involuntary severance or interruption.
and Segundo Parate were elected as (Abundo v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 201716,
Mayor and Vice Mayor, respectively. January 8, 2013). In the case at bar,
Upon the death of Manalo as incumbent Segundo Parate's service for the
municipal mayor, Vice Mayor Segundo unexpired portion of Manuel Manalo's
Parate succeeded as mayor and served term shall not be counted as one full term
for the remaining portion of the term of and should be considered an involuntary
office. In the May 1995 election, Segundo severance or interruption. Hence, by only
Parate ran for and won as mayor and then serving the mayoral position for only two
served for the full term. In the May 1998 full terms, the three-term limit shall not
elections, Parate ran for reelection as apply and therefore, the disqualification
Mayor and won again. In the May 2001 case will not prosper.
election, Segundo Parate filed his
certificate of candidacy for the same
position of mayor, but his rival mayoralty XIII. NATIONAL ECONOMY AND
candidate sought his disqualification PATRIMONY
alleging violation of the three-term limit for
local elective officials provided for in the A. Acquisition, Ownership, and
Constitution and in the Local Government Transfer of Public and Private Lands
Code.
QUESTION:
Decide whether the disqualification case A, a Filipino citizen, and his wife B, a
will prosper or not. (2001 Bar Question) Japanese national, bought a five-hectare
agricultural land from X, a Filipino citizen.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The couple later executed a deed of
The case will not prosper. When a donation over the same land in favor of
permanent vacancy occurs in an elective their only child C. A year later, however, C
position and the official merely assumed died in a vehicular accident without
the position pursuant to the rules on leaving a last will and testament.
succession under the Local Government
Code, then his service for the unexpired Now, X brought suit to recover the land on
portion of the term of the replaced official the ground that B, being an alien, was not
cannot be treated as one full term as qualified to buy the land when B and A
contemplated under the subject jointly bought the land from him and that,
constitutional and statutory provision that upon the death of C, the land was
inherited by his parents but B cannot

43
legally acquire and/or inherit it. grossly unreasonable rules that resulted in
the denial of admission. They argued that
How should the case be decided? If X filed these rules violated Bobby's human rights
the suit against C when the latter was still and the priority consideration that the
alive, would your answer be the same? Constitution gives to the education of the
Why? (2002 Bar Question) youth.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: You are counsel for the university. Explain

X cannot recover the land whether from C your arguments in support of the
or A and B. Under Article IV, Section 1(2) of university's case. (2013 Bar Question)
the Constitution, C is a Filipino citizen since
his father is a Filipino. When A and B SUGGESTED ANSWER:
donated the land to C, it became The arguments of Bobby's parents have no
property of a Filipino citizen. As held in merit. Academic freedom shall be
Halili v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 113539, enjoyed in all institutions of higher learning.
March 12, 1998), the sale of land to an (Article XIV, Section 5[2], 1987
alien can no longer be annulled if it has Constitution). From the standpoint of the
been conveyed to a Filipino citizen. Since educational institution, the university has
C left no will and his parents are his heirs, the freedom to determine “who may
in accordance with Article XII, Section 7 of teach; what may be taught, how it shall
the Constitution, B can acquire the land be taught; and who may be admitted to
by hereditary succession. (UP Law Center) study” (Sweezy v. State of New Hampshire,
354 U.S. 234).
XIV. EDUCATION, SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, QUESTION:

ARTS, CULTURE AND SPORTS The 1987 Constitution has increased the
scope of academic freedom recognized
A. Academic Freedom under the previous Constitution. (2007 Bar
Question)
QUESTION:
Bobby, an incoming third year college SUGGESTED ANSWER:
student, was denied admission by his False, the 1987 did not increase the scope
university, a premiere educational of academic freedom. Academic
institution in Manila, after he failed in three freedom shall be enjoyed in all institutions
(3) major subjects in his sophomore year. of higher learning. (Article XIV, Section
The denial of admission was based on the 5[2], 1987 Constitution). The said provision
university's rules and admission policies. is nothing new. The 1935 and the 1973
Constitution likewise provided for
Unable to cope with the depression that academic freedom or, more precisely, for
his non-admission triggered, Bobby the institutional autonomy of universities
committed suicide. His family sued the and institutions of higher learning. (U.P.
school for damages, citing the school's

44
Board of Regents v. Court of Appeals, G.R. honors. Likewise, because of academic

No. 134629, August 31, 1999) freedom, an institution of higher learning
can close a school. (UP Law Center)
B. Academic Freedom: Concept
QUESTION: XV. PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

What is Academic Freedom? Discuss the
extent of Academic Freedom enjoyed by A. Diplomatic and Consular Law:
institutions of higher learning. (1999 Bar Diplomatic Immunity
Question)
QUESTION:
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Under Section 6 of Article V (on Criminal
According to Reyes v. Court of Appeals Jurisdiction) of the Visiting Forces
(G.R. No. 94961, February 25, 1991), Agreement, (VFA), the custody of a United
academic freedom is the freedom of a States (US) personnel who becomes
faculty member to pursue his studies in his subject to criminal prosecution before a
particular specialty and thereafter to Philippine court shall be with the US
make known or publish the result of his military authorities, if the latter so requests.
endeavors without fear that retribution The custody shall begin from the
would be visited on him in the event that commission of the offense until the
his conclusions are found distasteful or completion of all judicial proceedings.
objectionable by the powers that be, When requested, the US military
whether in the political, economic, or authorities, however, shall make the US
academic establishments. personnel available to Philippine
authorities for any investigative or judicial
In Garcia v. Faculty Admission Committee proceedings relating to the offense which
(G.R. No. L-40779, November 28, 1975) , it the person has been charged with. In the
was held that the academic freedom of event that the Philippine judicial
an institution of higher learning includes proceedings are not completed within
the freedom to determine who may one year, the US shall be relieved of any
teach, what may be taught, how it shall obligation under Section 6.
be taught, and who may be admitted to
study. The constitutionality of Section 6, Article V
of the VFA is challenged on two grounds:
Because of academic freedom, an (1) it nullifies the exclusive power of the
institution of higher learning can refuse to Supreme Court to adopt rules of
re-enroll a student who is academically procedure for all courts in the Philippines;
deficient or who has violated the rules of and (2) it violates the equal protection
discipline. Academic freedom grants clause to the extent that it allows the
institutions of higher learning the discretion transfer of the custody of an accused to a
to formulate rules for the granting of foreign power as providing a different rule
of procedure for that accused. Rule on the

45
challenge. (2018 Bar Question) stored at Arshaine Corporation's

warehouse at Makati, pending Dr. Velen's
SUGGESTED ANSWER: relocation to his permanent quarters.
The challenge is without merit. Firstly, it
does not nullify the exclusive power of the At the instance of police authorities, the
Supreme Court to adopt rules of Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati issued
procedure for all courts in the Philippines. a warrant for the search and seizure of Dr.
The rule in international law is that foreign Velen's personal effects in view of an
armed forces allowed to enter one’s alleged violation of the Tariff and Custom's
territory is immune from local jurisdiction, Code. According to the police, the crates
except to the extent agreed upon. As a contained contraband items. Upon protest
result, the situation involved is not one in of WHO officials, the Secretary of Foreign
which the power of this Court to adopt Affairs formally advised the RTC as to Dr.
rules of procedure is curtailed or violated, Velen's immunity. The Solicitor General
but rather one in which, as is normally likewise joined Dr. Velen's plea of
encountered around the world, the laws immunity and motion to quash the search
(including rules of procedure) of one State warrant. The RTC denied the motion.
do not extend or apply – except to the
extent agreed upon – to subjects of Is the denial of the motion to quash
another State due to the recognition of proper? (2001 Bar Question)
extraterritorial immunity given to such
bodies as visiting foreign armed forces. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
There is nothing in the 1987 Constitution No, the denial of the motion to quash is
that prohibits agreements which improper. It is a recognized principle of
recognize immunity from jurisdiction or international law and under our system of
some aspects of jurisdiction. Secondly, the separation of powers that diplomatic
equal protection clause is also not immunity is essentially a political question
violated as there is a substantial basis for a and courts should refuse to look beyond a
different treatment of foreign military determination by the executive branch of
armed forces allowed to enter our territory the government, and where the plea of
and all other accused. (Nicolas v. Romulo, diplomatic immunity is recognized and
G.R. No. 175888, February 11, 2009). affirmed by the executive branch of the
government, it is then the duty of the
QUESTION: courts to accept the claim of immunity
Dr. Velen, an official of the World Health upon appropriate suggestion by the
Organization (WHO) assigned in the principal law officer of the government,
Philippines, arrived at the Ninoy Aquino the Solicitor General in this case, or other
International Airport with his personal officer acting under his direction. (World
effects contained in twelve crates as Health Organization v. Aquino, G.R. No. L-
unaccompanied baggage. As such, his 35131, November 29, 1972). In the case at
personal effects were allowed free entry bar, both the Secretary of Foreign Affairs
from duties and taxes, and were directly

46
and the Solicitor General recognized and Senator Maagap is incorrect insofar as the
affirmed the diplomatic immunity of Dr. first Executive Agreement is concerned.
Velen. Therefore, the RTC should have not The Executive Agreement regarding the
denied the motion to quash the search establishment of the embassy of Kroi Sha
warrant. need not be submitted to the Senate for
its concurrence. In a landmark case
B. Executive Agreements decided by the Supreme Court, it was
held that the right of the executive to
QUESTION: enter into binding agreements without the
The Philippines and the Republic of Kroi necessity of subsequent Congressional
Sha established diplomatic relations and approval has been confirmed by long
immediately their respective Presidents usage (Commissioner of Customs v.
signed the following: (1) Executive Eastern Sea Trading, G.R. No. L-14279,
Agreement allowing the Republic of Kroi October 31, 1961)
Sha to establish its embassy and consular
offices within Metro Manila; and (2) As to the second Executive Agreement,
Executive Agreement allowing the Senator Maagap is correct. International
Republic of Kroi Sha to bring to the agreements involving political issues or
Philippines its military complement, changes of national policy and those
warships, and armaments from time to involving international arrangements
time for a period not exceeding one of a permanent character usually take the
month for the purpose of training exercises form of treaties. In such cases, it must be
with the Philippine military forces and concurred by the Senate. (Article VI,
exempting from Philippine criminal Section 21, 1987 Constitution). In the case
jurisdiction acts committed in the line of at bar, the second Executive Agreement
duty by foreign military personnel, and involved political issues or changes of
from paying custom duties on all the national policy and those involving
goods brought by said foreign forces into international arrangements of a
Philippine territory in connection with the permanent character, and thus
holding of the activities authorized under should be deemed as a treaty. Hence,
the said Executive Agreement. there is a need for the Senate to ratify the
same.
Senator Maagap questioned the
constitutionality of the said Executive C. Law of the Sea: Convention on the
Agreements and demanded that the Law of the Sea
Executive Agreements be submitted to the
Senate for ratification pursuant to the QUESTION:
Philippine Constitution. Is Senator Maagap (A) A bill was introduced in the House of
correct? Explain. (2015 Bar Question) Representatives in order to implement
faithfully the provisions of the United
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

47
(UNCLOS) to which the Philippines is a measured. The coastal state

signatory. Congressman Pat Rio Tek exercises authority over that area to
questioned the constitutionality of the bill the extent necessary to prevent
on the ground that the provisions of infringement of its customs, fiscal,
UNCLOS are violative of the provisions of immigration or sanitation authority
the Constitution defining the Philippine over its territorial waters or territory
internal waters and territorial sea. Do you and to punish such infringement.
agree or not with the said objection? (Article 33 [1] and [2], UNCLOS)
Explain. (2015 Bar Question) (c) The exclusive economic zone is an
area beyond and adjacent to the
SUGGESTED ANSWER: territorial sea, subject to the specific
No, the objection has no merit. The legal regime established in this Part,
provisions of UNCLOS have nothing to do under which the rights and jurisdiction
with the acquisition (or loss) of territory. It is of the coastal State and the rights and
a multilateral treaty regulating, among freedoms of other States are
others, sea-use rights over maritime zones governed by the relevant provisions
and continental shelves that UNCLOS III of this Convention. (Article 55,
delimits. (Magallona v. Ermita, G.R. No. UNCLOS)
187167, August 16, 2011). It, therefore, (d) The continental shelf of a coastal
does not redefine the internal waters and State comprises the seabed and
territorial sea of the Philippines. subsoil of the submarine areas that
extend beyond its territorial sea
(B) Describe the following maritime throughout the natural prolongation
regimes under UNCLOS: (2015 Bar of its land territory to the outer edge
Question) of the continental margin, or to a
(a) Territorial sea distance of 200 nautical miles from
(b) Contiguous zone the baselines from which the breadth
(c) Exclusive economic zone of the territorial sea is measured
(d) Continental shelf where the outer edge of the
continental margin does not extend
SUGGESTED ANSWER: up to that distance. (Article 76 [1],
(a) The territorial sea is a belt of sea UNCLOS)
outwards from the baseline and up to
12 nautical miles beyond. (Articles 2
[1] and 3, United Nations Convention
on the Law of the Sea [herein referred
to as UNCLOS)
(b) The contiguous zone is an area of
water not exceeding 24 nautical miles
from the baselines from which the
breadth of the territorial sea is

Political Law FAQs 2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Political Law FAQs 2021

Uploaded by

Document Information

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 FAQs 2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

San Beda College Alabang School of Law

Centralized Bar Operations

Frequently Asked Questions

SYLLABUS FOR THE 2021 BAR EXAMINATIONS

Centralized Bar Operations 2021

SAN BEDA COLLEGE ALABANG

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Dr. Ulpiano P. Sarmiento III

Atty. Anna Marie Melanie B. Trinidad

Atty. Carlo D. Busmente

Centralized Bar Operations 2021

2021 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS

Maria Angela Alexandria Albotra

Fiona Criscelle Federico

Angelica Felise Manalo

Ma. Veronica Malabanan

Maria Concepcion Bañas

Marie Czel Ongtangco

John Argie Mortel

Kurt Jairus Tañada

Anna Akiko Abad

Louie Ann Someros

Centralized Bar Operations 2021

2021 POLITICAL LAW TEAM 2020 POLITICAL LAW TEAM

John Roland P. Mabbun Carlo Antipuesto

Antonio Luis C. Duran Gabby Bangkil

Centralized Bar Operations 2021

I. THE 1987 CONSTITUTION

QUESTION: (1) Proposal - A revision of the Constitution

QUESTION: (1) An amendment proposed by Congress

Centralized Bar Operations 2021

Centralized Bar Operations 2021

B. State Immunity SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Centralized Bar Operations 2021

QUESTION: C. Separation of Powers

Centralized Bar Operations 2021

system has violated the principle of QUESTION:

Centralized Bar Operations 2021

Association of Small Landowners in the means employed are reasonably

Centralized Bar Operations 2021

QUESTION: public purpose of redevelopment of slum

Centralized Bar Operations 2021

are the last in the order of properties to be

Centralized Bar Operations 2021

connecting the islands of the Philippine citizenship presupposes that the

Centralized Bar Operations 2021

SUGGESTED ANSWER: QUESTION:

Centralized Bar Operations 2021

time in causing the filing of various actions to run for Congress.

Centralized Bar Operations 2021

SUGGESTED ANSWER: empowered the corporation to raise funds

Centralized Bar Operations 2021

decided to participate under the party-list

Discuss the constitutionality of the said SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Centralized Bar Operations 2021

The Partido ng Mapagkakatiwalaang suspend the Senator relying on Section 5

Can PMP join the party-list system without SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Centralized Bar Operations 2021

Congressman of the province. and the Comelec retains its jurisdiction

Centralized Bar Operations 2021