1.

B
2. A
3. C
4. D
5. C
6. B
7. A
8. D
9. D
10. A

11. C
12. B
13. B
14. D
15. C
16. A
17. A
18. B
19. C
20. D

21. B
22. A
23. C
24. D
25. A
26. C
27. B
28. D
29. B
30. C

31. D
32. A
33. A
34. D
35. B
36. C
37. B
38. D
39. A
40. C

41. C
42. D
43. B
44. A
45. C
46. A
47. B
48. D
49. A
50. B

51. D
52. C
53. B
54. C
55. A
56. B
57. B
58. C
59. D
60. C

61. D
62. A
63. B
64. A
65. D
66. C
67. A
68. C
69. D
70. A

71. B
72. B
73. A
74. B
75. D
76. C
77. B
78. C
79. A
80. D

81. A
82. C
83. D
84. A
85. A
86. B
87. C
88. D
89. B
90. D

91. B
92. A
93. D
94. B
95. A
96. D
97. C
98. D
99. A
100. C

Test II.
1. Yes, ABs contention is correct.
The contention provides that no decision shall be rendered by the court without distinctly
stating the facts and the law on which it is based.
In the case at bar, the RTC only mentioned the facts of the case before it reached to the said
court. It does not provide a legal justification on upholding the judgment of the lower court.
Therefore, the RTC did not comply the said constitutional requirement.
2. A. Yes, the prohibition is Section 13 Art. VII of the 1987 constitution.
The constitution provides that the President, Vice-President, the members of the cabinet,
and their deputies and assistants shall not, unless otherwise provided in this constitution,
hole any other office or employment during their nature.
In the case at bar, ME belongs specifically to the class of cabinet members by his
appointment as a PCGG chairman. His subsequent then in unconstitutional because it does
not fall the exception-unless otherwise provided in this constitution; there being an
incompatibility of the two positions.
Comment: PICI vs. Elma
B. Yes, the concurrent holding of the positions of PCGG chairman and CPLC is covered by the
prohibition in Section 1 of Art. XI.
The constitution provides that unless otherwise allowed by law or by the primary function of
his position, no appointive official shall hold any other office or employment in the
government or any subdivision or agency or instrumentality thereof, including GOCC or their
subsidiary.
Though the said law mentioned an appointive official in general or broad manner, the
position of a PCGG chairman belongs to the category since a cabinet is appointed by the
President. Thus, such position occupied by him may be declared unconstitutional by reason
of incompatibility of the two offices which is not allowed by law or there is incompatibility
of the nature of his function as a cabinet member and a chief presidential legal counsel.

Comment: Why so?

C. No, both appointments will not be rendered void.
The test of incompatibility is that one office is subordinate of that of the other in a sense
that one office can interfere with the function of other office. The CPLC will be the one to
check each executive department offices and may render such act prohibited.
However, either of the two offices be chosen by ME while withdrew the other. In this, way,
the acceptance of one office and the forfeiture with the incompatible position is valid.
Comment: Which office would it be? Chairman of PCGG or CPLC?
3. A. The constitution provides that decision, final orders, and rulings of the constitutional
commission may be reviewed by the Supreme Court on certiorari. The Supreme Court can
only exercise its judicial review when such decisions, final orders or rulings are adjudicated
by the commission in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions.
The Supreme Court may review on question of law or by virtue of its expanded judicial
power the said court may determine whether there has been a grave abuse of discretion or
the part of the Comelec which amounts to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

B. The contention of AR is not correct.

The constitution provides that each constitutional commission shall decide by a majority
vote of all its members, any case of matter brought before it.
In the case at bar, the 2-1 decision from the Comelec 1st division is valid, favoring RD. Upon
filing a motion for reconsideration, there are only 6 remaining members while the one
member abstained, thereby constituting only five who voted thereon. Thus, 3-2 division
constitute the majority and it will render a valid decision. Even assuring that the last 6 th
member did not abstain and the vote resulted to 3-3, it will not make any difference at all
because there was already a decision made in the first division. In such a case, the first
decision will be upheld in favor of RD.
4. A. If I were the counsel for the ombudsman, I will argue that such complaints is violates to
the one-year bar rule.
Under the constitution, no impeachment proceeding shall be initiated on the same public
officer more than once with the period of one year.
Since there were two distinct impeachment complaints being filed and referred to the
committee,It would fall on the constitutional prohibition and therefore it is not allowed.
Comment: More explanation in the latter or referral.

B. If I were the counsel of the House of Representatives, I will argue that filing of the two
complaints simultaneously is not prohibited.
Initiation may refer to both the filling of the impeachment complaint and the referral to the
committee of justice. Both complaints are sufficient in form and substance. Though the two
are filed on different dates, they are referred to the committee will amount to one. What is
prohibited is that one complaint is initiated on a different day within one year and another
proceeding is initiated following the first.
Since the case at bar does not fall on the prohibition, it will not amount to the violation of
one year bar rule.
5. A verified complaint or resolution of impeachment may be filed by a member of the house
of representatives or any citizen upon endorsement of resolution by a member of the house
thereof, then it shall be put into the order of business within 10 session days and It shall be
referred to the committee of justice, and by a vote of majority of all its members, said
verified complaint and resolution shall be delivered to the house of representatives. Upon
the vote of one third of all the members of the house favoring the said verified complaint
resolution, it shall constitute an articles of impeachment and in which case it shall be passed
to the senate for trial.
Comment: What if the committee instead voted that the complaint is not sufficient?

6. The teachers have the right to form unions but the fact that they form a union does not
imply, by any means, that they have the right to engage in strikes.
The law provides that the public officers and employees shall have the right to form a union.
The bill of rights also provides that the right to form an organization in a manner that is not
contrary to law shall not be abridged. However, the constitution does not expressly provide
that public employees shall have the right to strike. This is because they are, unlike workers
in a private company, governed by the civil service or by the government and the act of
engaging in strike will prejudice the government itself.
Comment: So?

B. If I were the counsel of the public school teachers, I will argue that such memorandum is a
violation of rights for it compels the public teachers to do an act which they are not
consulted. Such memorandum amounts to involuntary servitude in supervising the practice
sessions during Saturdays as mandatory. In this way, I will argue that said division
superintendent acted with abuse of discretion prejudicing the rights of public teachers.
Comments: So? Focus your argument more on the justification for the mere action.

C. If I were the counsel of the superintendent, I will argue that the administrative case is
justifiable because the public teachers violated their duty as a public employee. Those
public teachers are not allowed to strike because it would be contrary to law and they

exceed on the exercise of their rights of forming a union only, not the right to strike. The
denial of the return-to-work order is tantamount to circumventing the order of a superior
which will amount to administrative liability.

7. The assertion of YY and ZZ is not correct.

The constitution provides that the Supreme court en banc shall be the sole judge of all
contest relating to the election, qualifications of the president and the vice president. This
contemplates a post-proclamation scenario.
In the case at bar, FPJ is still a candidate and not yet a proclaimed president. Thus, the
Supreme Court will not yet that cognizance of the case but it shall be the comelec.

8. A. No. The grant of the president of the power to remove from office on deputy ombudsman
is not an impairment of the independence of the office of the ombudsman.
Though the ombudsman may exercise supervision over the deputy ombudsman act of 1989,
delegates to the president power to remove from office a deputy ombudsman.
In this case, there is a valid delegation of power.
Comment: You have not really explained why there is no impairment of the independence
B. The removal of the office of the deputy ombudsman is not proper. The law provides that a
special prosecutor may be removed from office on the same ground as that of the
ombudsman and after due process. The ombudsman may be removed on grounds, betrayal
of public trusts, culpable violation of the constitution, bribery, and treason, other & high
crime.
In this case at bar, the grounds for removal do not fall on the abovementioned ground.
Therefore, the removal is not valid.
Comment: Why so?

9. In case of rebellion, invasion or when public safety requires, the president may put the
Philippines or any part thereof under martial law. Such proclamation shall not exceed for a
period of 60 days. Within 48 hours of proclamation, the president shall submit a report to
congress in person or in writing about the proclamation of martial law. The congress may
revoke the proclamation by a vote of majority of all of the members in regular or special
session, in joint session assembled voting jointly.
Upon the initiation of the president, the congress may extend the proclamation in the same
manner of vote required and to be determined by congress. The declaration of martial law
does not make the operation of the constitution inoperative. The jurisdictions of the civil
courts remain in function.

Upon the resolution of the congress that the caused for the proclamation no longer exists,
such resolution shall not be set aside by the president.
Comment: Judicial Review?
10. The phrase directly proposed by people refers only to peoples initiative to amend the
constitution with a vote of 12% of registered voters in national level and 3% in each
legislative.
Comment: ?
11. The two tests are qualitative test and quantitative test. Quantitative test refers to how many
parts of the constitution will be changed. If the change is only one section of the
constitution, it is only an amendment but when the changed provision contains for example
3 articles, it is revision.
Qualitative test refers to the quality meaning of the result and it does not matter on how
many number of provisions are changed. Thus, if a word monarchy replaces the word
presidential, it will amount to revision. But if the procedural provisions in the constitution
but without changing the meaning it will just be an amendment.