1.

The argument of the prosecution that there was no violation to substantive

due process because Peter was duly heard is not tenable.
Under the Due Process Clause, substantive due process requires the intrinsic
validity of law in the restraint or interference of the State with the fundamental
rights of life, liberty or property which must not be oppressive, whimsical,
arbitrary or unreasonable. The other aspect of the clause is the procedural due
process which requires proper observance of procedures for the enforcement and
protection of one’s rights or prevention or redress of a wrong.
Here, the ground raised by the prosecution is that there was no violation to
substantive due process because Peter was duly heard which tackled an issue of
procedural due process. The court must resolve whether the law is intrinsically
valid and whether it injures the fundamental protected rights.
Thus, the argument of the prosecution is not tenable.

2.
The memorandum issued by LEB requiring all independent bar review
centers to be operated or affiliated with a duly recognized law school and to meet
performance benchmarks as a precondition for the grant of permit is not valid.
Under the Equal Protection Clause, to have a valid classification, it must be
based on substantial distinction and should apply equally to members belonging to
same class.
Here, the classification in the Memorandum requiring all independent bar
review centers to be operated or affiliated with a duly recognized law school and to
meet performance benchmarks as a precondition for the grant of permit is
unreasonable and oppressive. There is no substantial distinction in the independent
bar review centers to comply with additional requirements and as to those bar
review centers who are affiliated with recognized law schools and those that have
established performance benchmarks.
As such, the memorandum issued by LEB is not valid.
 3.
No, the stance of the prosecutor that Mayor Naiyette cannot be granted bail
because the crime charged against her is a complex crime which is punishable of
reclusion perpetua where the evidence of guilt is strong is not correct.
The Supreme Court held that in granting petitions for bail in cases of
complex crimes, the basis should be in the prescribed penalty of the crime and not
the imposable penalty without complexing the crimes if there are any.
Here, the basis of the grant of bail should be the prescribed penalty of the
crimes of malversation or falsification which neither carries the penalty of
reclusion perpetua. Thus, Mayor Naiyette’s right to bail is available.
Thus, the prosecutor is not correct.
4.
The bill is not valid.
Under the Completeness Test, a legislative measure should be complete in
all its terms and conditions that nothing is left to the executive branch except to
implement it, otherwise it is not valid.
Here, the Department of Finance has been delegated the legislative power to
determine the entities to be subjected to said enforced contributions as well as the
beneficiaries of the subject loan facilities and granting of exemptions from the
enforced contributions. It should be determined before it may passed into law and
not otherwise.
Hence, the bill is not valid.

5.
(1) Under the 1987 Constitution, voluntary renunciation of office during
the tenure will not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of the term of
office of which one has been elected.
Here, resignation of Congressman Mel Makapal as a party-list
representative will not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of the term
of office of which he has been elected.
 (2) No, Congressman Makapal’s nomination by his new party is not valid.
Under the 1987 Constitution, a party-list representative may not sit for
more than three consecutive terms.
Here, Congressman Makapal could no longer be nominated because
he already served for three consecutive terms as a party-list representative.
6.
No, Congressman Mas Makapal may not be qualified for nomination
by his new sector.
Under the Omnibus Election Code, one of the qualifications for one to
be nominated as party-list representative is that he must be a bona fide member of
such party-list.
Here, Congressman Makapal remains to his political party Youth
Sector.
Thus, he may not be qualified.
7.
Yes, Manny Mandirigma is qualified to run again for the same office after
his last term.
Under the Local Government Code, when an elective official replaces
another in a public office due to a recall election, it shall not be counted as a term
and shall have a fresh three consecutive terms that he will be allowed to run.
Here, Mayor Mandirigma has served one full term after the recall elections.
Thus, he can still run for two consecutive terms.
Hence, Mayor Mandirigma can run again.
8.
The proposed revision of the Rules of Court is not valid.
Under the 1987 Constitution, it is the Congress that has power to prescribe,
amend and apportion jurisdiction of lower courts.
 Here, the revising power was exercised by the sub-committee formed by the
Supreme Court, thus, usurping and encroaching the legislative power that is lodged
in the Congress.
Hence, the proposed revision is not valid.
9.
(a) Yes, the CA acted correctly in downgrading Rolando’s conviction to
homicide.
Under the 1987 Constitution, an accused shall be considered innocent
of a crime until proven guilty and he has the right to be informed the nature and the
cause of accusation against him.
Here, the Rolando cannot be convicted with the crime of murder
because the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not proven due to lack of
particularity in the information. Thus, the only crime proved is the crime of
Homicide.
Hence, the CA is correct.
(b) Yes, the prosecution may appeal the CA decision to the Supreme
Court for the purpose of upholding the RTC’s conviction of Rolando for murder.
Under the 1987 Constitution, the Supreme Court has the power to
review, revise, reverse, modify or affirm final decisions of lower courts such as
when a question of law or question of jurisdiction of the court is involved.
Thus, the prosecution may appeal to the Supreme Court.
(c) No, the Supreme Court cannot modify the CA decision by affirming
Rolando’s conviction for murder.
Under the 1987 Constitution, the accused is guaranteed the right
against excessive punishments.
Here, Rolando cannot be convicted with the crime of Murder where
he shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of Reclusion Perpetua when the only
crime that was proved is Homicide having a lower penalty.
Thus, the Supreme Court may not modify the decision.
 10.
No, Daniel is not correct.
Under the Doctrine of Diplomatic Immunity, only officials conferred with
immunity may invoke such privilege as long as the acts committed where in
relation to his official duty.
Here, Daniel is an American citizen who is just a tourist in the Philippines.
The fact that the incident took place inside the US embassy is of no moment as he
may still be arrested and prosecuted by the local authorities of the Philippines.
As such, Daniel is not correct.

11.
I will file for petition for annulment of judgement on the ground of lack of
due process.
Under the 1987 Constitution, no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or
property without due process of law.
Here, Alavio Jacor was deprived of liberty without due process because he
was not able to exercise his right to meet the witnesses against him face to face.
12.
The motion to quash should be denied.
Supreme Court held that double jeopardy attaches when a complaint or
information is filed in a court of competent jurisdiction where the defendant has
been arraigned or pleaded and final judgment of conviction or acquittal has been
rendered, and another set of complaint or information is filed involving the same
parties, issues and reliefs.
Here, two separate cases were filed independently which involve two
different law violations. The violation of right based from the E-commerce Act is
distinct and separate from that of the Cybercrime Prevention Act. Thus, there is no
double jeopardy.
13.
 The objection of Congresswoman Ruff to the offer of evidence on the
ground that the emails are inadmissible for having been obtained in violation of her
constitutional right to privacy of communication and correspondence is not correct.
Supreme Court held that constitutional guarantees under the Bill of Rights
may only be directed and invoked against governmental offices and its agents and
not to private individuals or institutions.
Here, it is not the Philippine Government or its agent who hacked the
computer files of Mossack Fonseca but unknown persons. Thus, the constitutional
safeguard of right to privacy of communication and correspondence may not be
invoked by Congresswoman Ruff.
Thus, Congresswoman Ruff is not correct.
14.
The possible legal challenge of the ASEAN Charter to our national law is
that there arises a conflict of laws.
Our national law prescribes standards and qualifications of those who may
practice law in the Philippines wherein one must be duly admitted as a member of
the bar and must be admitted in accordance with the provision of the Rules of
Court who must be in good and regular standing.
Here, allowing other nationals to practice law in the Philippines is affront
and anathema to the current rules upheld in our country.
15.
(a) Yes, Ramon is ipso facto considered resigned on the date of filing of
the certificate of candidacy.
Under the Omnibus Election Code, an appointive official is ipso facto
considered resigned on the date of his filing of certificate of candidacy.
Here, Ramon as a City legal officer is an appointive official, thus, he
is considered ipso facto resigned.
(b) No, Cyrus is not ipso facto resigned and shall continue his tenure until
the end of his term.
 Supreme Court held that an elective official shall not be considered
ipso facto resigned when he files a certificate of candidacy in any position and
shall continue his tenure until the end of his term.
Here, Cyrus shall not be considered ipso facto resigned and he may
still perform his function as a Vice Mayor until the end of his term.
16.
Yes, there is a basis for the quo warranto petition.
Under the 1987 Constitution, a person who was borne of a Filipino mother
before January 17,1973 who elected Filipino citizenship upon reaching the age of
majority shall be considered as a natural-born Filipino citizen.
Here, Stursky was borne of a Filipino mother before January 17, 1973 but
failed to elect Filipino citizenship upon reaching the age of majority.
Thus, he lacks qualification to run as Congressman.
17.
Yes, the COMELEC is correct.
The Supreme Court held that the only anti-political dynasty legislation that
we have here in the Philippines is that in the Sangguniang Kabataan Level wherein
one cannot run in the SK position present a relative within the second degree of
consanguity or affinity who are running the same locality.
Here, Polneo has no valid right of action as he has not indicated that the
complained officials were part of the Sangguniang Kabataan.
18.
Yes, the Philippines may hail China before the International Court of Justice
for its invasion to the Philippine Territory.
Supreme Court held when both countries in conflict are signatories in the
International Court of Justice (ICJ), the latter may hear the hear the case, among
others, of territorial disputes among the countries involved.
Hence, ICJ may acquire jurisdiction over the case of Philippines and China.