At the height of worsening conflict between China and the Philippines over Kalayaan group of Islands, Chinese

Navy boats fired shots at the Philippine Navy Ships patrolling the area, although the latter were not hit. Showing
its support for the Philippines, the US decided to send an aircraft carrier to patrol the southeast asia pacific
region but it needs to dock in Subic Bay for refueling purposes. The Philippines Congress, in solidarity with the
President of the Philippines, passed a resolution supporting the decision of the President to allow the docking of
the US Aircraft Carrier which the US Fleet Commander admitted to be carrying nuclear weapons. Several law
professors opposed the docking of the aircraft carrier on the ground that it violates the freedom from nuclear
weapon provisions of the Constitution. Is there objection valid and constitutional? Reason out.

The objection of several law professors on the docking of the aircraft carrier on the ground
that it violates the freedom from nuclear weapons provision of the Constitution is not valid
and constitutional because Article 2, Section 8 of the 1987 Constitution is not an absolute ban
of nuclear weapons in our territory. There could be deviation from such provision if it can be
justified on the basis and the test of national interest. Whether or not to allow nuclear
weapons would be decided on the basis of what is best for the national interest, to be
determined by the executive and legislative branches. In the case at bar, the President and
the Congress have already decided to allow the docking of the US Aircraft for refueling
purposes, hence it could be inferred that the legislative and executive branches already
determined that it is what is best for our national interest.

Petitioners are members of the media. They requested information from the respondent as General Manager of
the GSIS regarding clean loans granted to members of congress on the guaranty by President Arroyo shortly
before the May 2010 election. The request was refused on the ground of confidentiality and that the right to
information is not absolute. The state policy of full disclosure is also limited to transactions involving public
interest and is subject to reasonable conditions provided by law. Was the refusal of GSIS in accordance with the
constitution? Explain your answer.

The refusal of GSIS is not in accordance with the constitutional provisions. Article 2, Section 8
of the Constitution states the policy of full public disclosure which complements the right of
the access to information on matters of public concern found in the Bill of Rights. the records
requested by members of media are matters of public concern. The right to information in
matters of public concern may be asserted even against GOCC like GSIS because their
function, analogues to that of government agencies, is to serve the people. Consequently,
that the GSIS in granting the loans was exercising a proprietary function would not justify the
exclusion of the transactions from the coverage and scope of the right to information.

Pedro Penduco is a graduate of the University of the East with a degree of BS Zoology. He took the NMAT three
times but he failed. The CHED has implemented a policy that those who want to enter medical school can only
take NMAT three times and once an applicant fails, he can no longer be allowed to take it for the fourth time.
When he was not allowed to take the NMAT again, Penduco filed a case before the RTC of Valenzuela to compel
his admission to the test. After the hearing the RTC Judge rendered a decision declaring that the three funk rule
of the CHED to be invalid and granting the petition of Penduco to be allowed to take the exam on the ground
that Penduco is being deprived of his right to pursue a medical education through an arbitrary exercise of police
power. It violates Section 17, Article 2 in relation to Article 14, Section 1 of the constitution. Is the decision of
the court in accordance with the constitution?

No, the decision of the court is not in accordance with the constitution. The rights to
education are not absolute since the Constitution also provides that “every citizen has the
right to choose a profession or course of study, subject to fair, reasonable and equitable
admission and academic requirements. The medical profession directly affects the very lives
of people, unlike other careers which for this reason do not require more vigilant regulation.
It is the right and indeed the responsibility of the state to insure that the medical profession
is not infiltrated by incompetents to whom patients may unwarily entrust their lives and
health. The state needs to implement decisive steps to regulate system of education by
directing students to the course where he is best suited through initial test and evaluation.
The decision of the RTC judge should be reversed.

Congress passed a law known as National Defense Act which requires all male citizens from age 18 to 65 to
render military service in times of ware and invasion by a foreign country. The law is principally based on
Section 4, Article 2 of the Constitution. Juan Palakol is a devout member of the Kingdom of God, a religion that
strictly prohibits all its members from joining military and holding any firearms much worst firing them. Palakol
argues that the law is unconstitutional because it does not respect the articles of their religion and the free
exercise thereof. Furthermore, according to him in the hierarchy of rights and values under the constitution,
freedom of religion should be rank higher than the defense of the state. Is the argument of Palakol valid?
Reason out.

No, the argument of Palakol is not valid. The National defense Act is a faithful compliance of
Article 2, Section 4. It is the duty of the government to serve and protect the people and this
duty cannot be performed except through an army. To leave the organization of an army to
 the will of the citizens would be to make the duty of the government excusable should there
would be no sufficient men who volunteer to enlist therein. The right of the government to
require compulsory military service is a consequence of its duty to defend the state and is
reciprocal with its duty to defend the life, liberty and property of the citizen. Without violating
the constitution, a person may be compelled by force, if need be against his will, pecuniary
interest and even against his religious or political convictions, to take his place in the ranks of
the army of his country, and risk the chance of being shot down in its defense. What justifies
compulsory military service is the defense of the state whether actual or in preparation to
make it more effective in case of need. Some accommodation may be allowed.

Pido sardinas had always voted in every election since he turned 18 on May 19, 1996. He always believes that
sovereignty really resides in the people. in March 2011, he graduated from CPU College of Law and passed the
Bar Examination the following year. After his admission to the Bar, he was awarded a full scholarship by the
Ford Foundation International Fellowship Program. In August 2012, he left the US to pursue his Master of Laws
degree from the University of Michigan Law School in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Just before his graduation on May
2013, he hurriedly returned to the Philippines in order to file his Certificate of Candidacy for Senator under
Ladlad Party. Pedro Baraco opposed his candidacy on the ground that Pido Sardinas does not meet the
minimum qualification provided by the Constitution.

a. Is the opposition of Pedro supported by the constitution? Explain.

Pedro’s opposition to the candidacy of Pido Sardinas is duly supported by the Constitution since
Pido has not met the age requirement for he is not yet 35 years old at the time of 2013 election,
his birthday is still on May 15 and the election is May 13. But as to the residency requirement
and other requirements he is qualified. Residency does not mean actual presence but the mere
intention to return to the place of domicile.

b. Supposed Pido Sardinas was elected senator and was reelected after his first term, when will his second
term end?

June 30, 2025

c. In December 2022, he resigned as a senator in order to accept a job in the UN as High Commissioner of
Human rights. His tenure at the UN lasted for 2 years. Can he run as a senator in the election of 2025?

Under the Constitution, the term of office of a Senator shall be 6 years and no senator can serve
more than 2 consecutive terms. Furthermore, it is also stated in the Constitution that voluntary
renunciation of his office shall not be considered as termination of his term.

In the case at bar, Pido Sardinas cannot run as a senator in the election of 2025 because it
would be violative of the Constitutional provision that no senator can serve 2 consecutive terms.
The resignation of Pido Sardinas does not limit his term of office as a senator but only his tenure
that even though he resigned in 2022 and does not fully serve his second term, he still is
considered to have performed the said term.

d. In December 2022 during his second term as a senator, while Congress is not in session, he was
appointed by the President as the first Chairman of the Office of Gay Affairs, an Office created by law
on July 2, 2019. He resigned from his seat in Congress, took his oath and assumed office. Is his
appointment and assumption into office constitutional?

Yes, the appointment and assumption into office is constitutional.

e. During his second term, as a senator while he was having snacks at the canteen after conducting a
committee hearing, he was arrested by the police by virtue of the warrant issued by the court because
he was charged of abusing minor (penalty of 6 years and 1 day). Was the arrest in accordance with the
Constitution?

Yes the arrest is in accordance with the constitution. Privilege from arrest applies only to
offenses punishable to not more than 6 years. Hence, even though the Congress is in session or
not, an arrest is still constitutional if the offense is punishable by more than 6 years.

f. During his first term as a senator, he sponsored a bill increasing the salary of the senators and the
same bill was introduced in the House of Representatives. The bil became a law in June of 2014. In
what month and year will the law take effect presuming that there was also publication in two
newspapers of general circulation in the Philippines?

July 2019
RA 9335 was enacted to optimize the revenue generation capability and collection of the Bureau of Internal
Revenue and the Bureau of Customs. Section 12 provides the setting up of a Joint Congressional Oversight
Committee the purpose of which is the approval of the implementing rules and regulations to be formulated by
the Department of Finance, Department of Budget and Management, NEDA, BIR, BOC and the Civil Service
Commission. After the Oversight Committee will have approved the implementing rules and regulations it shall
become functus officio and therefore cease to exist. Maria Bulag assails the creation of a congressional
oversight committee on the ground that it violates the doctrine of separation of powers. According to her, while
the legislative function is deemed accomplished and completed upon the enactment and approval of the law,
the creation of the congressional oversight committee permits legislative participation in the implementation and
enforcement of the law. Is the argument of Bulag valid?

Congressional oversight is not unconstitutional per se, it does not necessarily constitute
encroachment of the executive power to implement laws or undermine the separation of
powers under the Constitution.
However, to forestall the danger of Congressional encroachment beyond the legislative
power, the constitution imposes two basic and related limitations to congress. (1) the
Congress may not vest itself, any of its committee or any of its members executive or judicial
powers. (2) that in the implementation or exercise of its legislative power, it must follow the
single, finely wrought, exhaustively considered procedures in the Constitution including the
procedures for the enactment of laws and presentment.

Thus, any post-enactment measure by the Congress should be limited to scrutiny and
investigation. Any act or step beyond scrutiny and investigation such as legislative veto will
undermine separation of powers under the Constitution.
In the case at bar, the argument of Bulag is valid since the Oversight committee exercises
legislative veto which is an encroachment to the Presidents power to implement the law.
Legislative veto is a statutory provision requiring the president or an administrative agency to
present proposed implementing rules and regulations to which congress or through a
committee formed by it, retain the power or right to approve or disapprove such regulations
before they will take effect.

Section 12 of the said law is therefore, unconstitutional.

The scope of judicial power under the 1987 Constitution was expanded, thus resulting to the abolition of the
political question doctrine. True or false.

False. The expanded power of the judiciary department under Section 1 of Article 8 of
the 1987 Constitution does not mean the abolition of the political question doctrine but
merely a review whether the act was committed with grave abuse of discretion as will
amount to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The establishment principle still remains that if a
certain or particular act is one which a question of policy, to be decided by the people in
the exercise of its sovereign power, the court will not intrude. The court can intervene
only when there is grave abuse of discretion.

Congress enacted a law disqualifying for elective offices all those with pending appeal criminal case for
rebellion. In a case filed by former members of the New People’s Army, the RTC of Iloilo City, Branch 27
declared the law unconstitutional. Government lawyers appealed the decision of the court arguing that it is null
and void because the RTC has no jurisdiction to declare a law unconstitutional. Only the Supreme Court has the
jurisdiction to do so. Is the contention of the government lawyers valid?

The contention of the government lawyers is not valid.

Sec 5 par. 2 (a) provides that the SC shall have the following powers:
Review, revise, reverse, modify or affirm on appeal or certiorari as the law or the Rules of
Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in: all cases in which the
constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive agreement, law,
presidential decree, proclamation order, instruction, ordinance or regulations is in question.

The two petitions filed by Haring Aswang and Juan Dela Cruz in their capacities as concerned citizens and
taxpayers, prayed for the nullification of House Resolution No. 1109 entitled “A resolution calling upon the
members of Congress to convene for the purpose of considering proposals to amend or revise the constitution,
upon ¾ votes of all the members of congress.” House Resolution No. 1109 resolved that the House
Representative shall convene at a future time for the purpose of proposing amendments or revisions to the
constitution. Two law students opposed the petitions on the ground that there is yet no case or controversy.
How are you going to decide on the petitions of Haring Aswang and Juan De la Cruz?

In constitutional law the power of judicial review comes into plan upon the presence of these
requisites:
1. There must be an actual case or controversy
2. Legal standing (locus standi) of the persons
 3. The question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity
4. The court will not touch the issue of unconstitutionality unless it is unavoidable or is the
very lis mota.

Applying these requisites, it can be concluded that the first requisite of actual case or
controversy is not present because the assailed resolution is merely a resolution addressed to
members of Congress. No vested rights are neither violated nor any legal rights that were
hampered by the passing of the assailed resolution. Hence the petition should be dismissed.

Due to the prevalent smuggling of rice from other countries, the Senate passed a resolution calling for an
investigation in aid of legislation under section 21 of the Constitution. The Senate Committee issue subpoena to
the Commissioner of Customs, the administrator of the National Food Authority, and to businessmen engaged
in the business of importing rice for them to appear before the committee during the investigation. The
Customs commissioner and NFA administrator refused to appear before the committee because the EO 464
they are listed among those officials who cannot appear before Congress if they don’t have the consent of the
President. According to them, as officials of Executive Department, they are entitled to Executive Privilege. Is
their argument and refusal to appear before the committee valid?

The argument and refusal to appear before the committee by the Customs Commissioner and
NFA Administrator is not valid because:
(1) Executive Privilege or the right to withhold information to the Congress, the Judiciary and
ultimately to the public can only be claimed by the President or the Executive Secretary
acting for the President.
(2) the legislative power of inquiry in aid of legislation is one among those plenary; powers
granted to the legislative department subject on to these limitations:
1. Must be in aid of legislation
2. in accordance with duly published procedures
3. The rights of the persons appearing therein must be respected.

Enumerate the 3 ways by which the exercise of emergency powers by the President may terminate or may be
terminated.

1. Expiration of its period

2. Withdrawal by Congress through a resolution
3. Upon the next adjournment of Congress

Due to rebellion raging all over the country, President Pinoy proclaimed martial law throughout the country and
suspended the privilege of writ of habeas corpus. Ramsey Supsup, who is a suspect in the rape of the newly
crowned Miss Universe, Leila Lopes, was arrested by the police, without a warrant of arrest, while he was
jogging along the banks of Tangyan Riven in Igbaras, Iloilo. After gus arrest, he was brought to Camp Delgado
in Iloilo City and he was detained while the police was preparing the documents needed for the filing of the
complaint before the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor. After 40 hours of detention, Ramsey Supsup was not
yet charged in court, so his lawyer, Atty Clasey Supsup, filed a petition for habeas corpus before the RTC of
guimbal seeking for the immediate release of her client.

a. If you were the judge, would you dismiss or grant the petition? Why?

If I were the judge, I would grant the petition because the suspension of the writ of habeas
corpus does not apply to Ramsey Supsup. It must be noted that Ramsey was arrested for a
crime not in any way related to rebellion.

Moreover, when he was arrested without a warrant of arrest for the crime of rape, he was
not under any of those circumstances enumerated for warrantless arrest: inflagrante
delicto, has just committed the crime, escape from prison or avoidance of sentence.
The suspect was not doing anything unlawful, he was jogging when he was arrested and
there was nothing wrong or unlawful with jogging at the time of martial law.

b. Would it make a difference in your answer if the petition for habeas corpus was filed after the lapse of
74 hours of detention and no case was yet filed in court?

There would be no difference in my answer, for the same reason above discussed in
subsection a.

c. Suppose the offense committed by Ramsey was rebellion and the petition for habeas corpus was filed
on the 36th hour of detention, would you grant or dismiss the petition? Why?

No. I will dismiss the petittion for habeas corpus. If the arrest was legal then he must wait for
36 hours before filing the petition of writ of habeas corpus.
 d. Name three ways by which the proclamation of martial law can be terminated

1. Revocation of Congress
2. When the president will lift before expiration
3. Expiration of Period
4. The Supreme Court will nullify

Petitioners before the SC sought to declare as unconstitutional the various Presidential Decrees (PD Nos. 1117
and 1967) approved during the time of President Marcos authorizing automatic appropriation of amounts to be
used for payment of foreign debt. They based their arguments on two grounds. First, appropriation bills under
Section 24 of the 1987 Constitution must originate exclusively from the House of Representatives, and second,
there must be definiteness, certainty and exactness in an appropriation. Are the arguments of the petitioners
valid based on the provisions of the constitution? Explain your answer by addressing the two issues raised by the
petitioners.

The argument of the petitioners that the said presidential decrees did not meet the
requirement and are inconsistent with Sections 24 of Article 6 of the Constitution is
untenable. The framers of the Constitution did not contemplate that existing laws in the
statute books including existing presidential decrees appropriating public money are reduced
to mere Bills that must again go through the legislative mill. The reasonable interpretation of
said provision is that they mean appropriation measures still to be passed by Congress, if the
intention of the framers were otherwise, they should have expressed their decision in a more
direct or express manner.

Although the subject PD did not state specific amounts to be paid, the amounts nevertheless
are made certain by the legislative parameters provided in the decrees. The legislative intent
of the said PD is that the amount needed should be automatically set aside in order to enable
the Republic of the Philippines to pay the principal, interest, taxes and other banking charges
on the loans, credits or indebtedness incurred as guaranteed by it when they shall become
due without the need to enact a separate law appropriating funds as the need arises.

Hence, PD 1117 and 1967 constitute lawful authorizations or appropriations unless they are
repealed or otherwise amended by Congress.

Guigona v Carague

Atleast 1/3 of the total membership of the House of Representative signed a verification complaint against the
presiding justice of the Sandiganbayan for betrayal of public trust and for graft and corruption. The complaint
was no longer referred to the committee on justice of the house instead it was con sidered already as
constituting the articles of impeachment to be forwarded to the Senate for trial.

a. Was the non-referral to the committee on justice valid?

Yes, the non-referral to the committee on justice is valid because the constitution clearly
provides that once the impeachment complaint is signed by at least 1/3 of all the members
of the House of Representatives it will be considered as the Articles of impeachment to
which it will be forwarded to the Senate for trial without need of referral to the Committee
on Justice.

b. Was the filing of the impeachment complaint against the presiding justice valid?

The policy of the impeachment complaint against the presiding justice was not valid
because a presiding justice of Sandiganbayan is not among thse impeachable officials
enumerated in the Constitution so there is no impeachment complaint to speak of in the
first place.

Can a private citizen file an impeachment complaint against the President of the Republic of the Philippines?

Yes a private citizen can file an impeachment complaint against the president if the
Republic of the Philippines for grounds enumerated in the Constitution such as culpable
violation of the Constitution, treason, graft and corruption, other high crimes and betrayal
of public trust. The said verified complaint for impeachment should be endorsed by any
member of the House of Representatives and will be referred to the Committee on Justice of
which deliberations will be made to whether pursue the complaint or dismiss. A vote of at
least 1/3 of all members of the House of Representaives is needed to affirm the favorable
recommendation of the committee then it shall be forwarded to the Senate for trial.
Is a non-governmental organization subject to the auditing powers of the Commission on Audit? Explain.

Yes, non-governmental organizations are subject to the auditing powers of the Commission
on Audit for as long as NGOs received funds from public treasury. As such they shall be
obliged to adhere to COA requirements n the proper disbursements of those funds received
by them coming from the public treasury.

Juan filed a case against Philippine Virginia Tabacco Administration, a chartered GOCC. The RTC rendered a
favorable judgment in favor of Juan ordering PVTA to pay Juan the amount of 2 Million Pesos. The judgment
has already final and executory. Consequently, the lawyer of Juan filed a motion for garnishment of the funds of
PVTA deposited with the PNB, Iloilo City Branch. PVTA and PNB objected to the garnishment of the said funds
invoking the doctrine of non-suability because such funds are considered public funds, and therefore cannot be
garnished, attached or levied upon. Furthermore, suability does not mean liability. Is the argument of PVTA and
PNB correct?

The argument of PVTA and PNB is not correct. The law provides that indeed the power of the
court ends when the judgment is rendered, but funds belonging to a public corporation or
GOCC which is clothed with a personality on its own, then the funds are not exempt from
garnishment. When the government enters into commercial business, it abandons its
sovereign capacity and is to be treated like any other corporation.
Thus, PVTA is a chartered GOCC, its funds are not exempt from garnishment or execution.

Explain at least two limitations on the authority of the SC to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice and
procedure and admission to the practice of law

1. Provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases
2. Uniform in all courts of the same grade
3. Must not diminish, increased or modify substantive rights

Congress passed a law mandating that all cases affecting ambassadors must now be heard by the CA and no
longer by the SC in order to give the highest tribunal more time to focus on cases of nation importance. Is the
law constitutional?

The law is unconstitutional. Sec 5 of Article 8 of the Constitution provides that the SC has the
exclusive original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and
consuls, over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas
corpus.

What is the vote required in the SC sitting en banc in order to declare a law or the official act of the President
unconstitutional?

Section 4 (2) of Article 8 of the Constitution provides that all cases involving constitutionality
of a treaty, international or executive agreement or law which shall be heard by the SC en
banc, and all other cases which under the rules of Court are required to be heard en banc,
including those involving the constitutionality, application or operation of presidential
decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances and other regulations, shall be
decided with the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the
deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon.

Several victims of flooding caused by the simultaneous opening of the three floodgates of Angat Dam, filed a
case for damages against National Power Corporation, a chartered government owned and controlled
corporation which operates the dam, it is operating a purely governmental function, therefore immune from
suit. Decide on the motion.

National Power Corporation being a chartered GOCC has a personality distinct and separate
from that of the state. The case is not a case against the state and the NPC is not covered by
the immunity from suit enjoyed by the state because what determines immunity from suit is
the character of the objectives to which such corporation is formed. NPC was formed for
proprietary objectives and being a chartered corporation it is governed by the Corporation
Code of the Philippines that every corporation has a “sue-sue” provisions which is a form of
express consent to sue and be sued. The motion therefore of NPC to dismiss the case is
untenable.

The Philippine Navy entered into a contract with ABC Corporation for the repair of wharves and facilities at
Sangley Fort in Cavite, wherein most of its ships are docking. Due to several disagreements arising from the
contract, ABC Corporation sued the Philippine Navy for damages. The Philippine Navy moved for the dismissal
of the case because it enjoys immunity from suit. Rule on the motion.
(US Vs Ruiz)
 A suit is against the state, regardless of who is named as the defendant, if it produces adverse
consequence to the public treasury in terms of disbursement of public funds and loss of
government property.

In the case at bar, the ultimate liability to pay for the damages should the case prosper, will
fall on the state which requires appropriation and expenditure of public funds. Therefore, it is
a case against the state. Since it is a case against the state, it is necessary to determine
whether the state represented by the Philippine Navy (an unincorporated agency) by entering
into contract with ABC Corporation, impliedly waived its immunity from suit.

To constitute waiver of immunity, the contract entered into by the government must be
business contracts. Give the facts of the case, the contract for the repair of wharves and
facilities at Sangley Fort in Cavite is a governmental function for government purpose and not
utilized or intended for business. As such, the contract entered into between Philippine Navy
and ABC Corporation does not constitute waiver of immunity or consent. The Philippine navy’s
moved for the dismissal of the case is upheld.

Haring Aswang, a businessman engaged in the importation of textiles sued the Bureau of Customs for damages
he suffered in the handling of his goods by the Customs Arrastre Services, which is being run by the Bureau of
Custom. Aswang argued that in operating the arrastre services, the Bureau is performing a proprietary function,
therefore it cannot claim immunity from suit. The Bureau on the other hand insists it does not lose its immunity,
therefore the suit must be dismiss. Which argument is correct?

The argument of the Bureau of Customs is correct because a proprietary function is incidental
to the performance of governmental function does not constitute waiver of immunity. In the
case at bar, how could the Bureau of Customs performs its function of imposing custom duties
if the goods are not delivered to its office for inspection, assessment and actual check
whether it conforms with what is stated in the delivery forms? Hence, the operation of
arrastre services is incidental to the performance of the bureaus function.

Due to the attacks of the Maute Group in Marawi City President Duterte issued Proclaimation No. 216 declaring
a state of martial law and suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in Mindanao. Members of the
minority block in the House of Representatives filed a petition before the Supreme Court questioning the
declaration and suspension as unconstitutional based on Section 18, Article 7 of the Constitution. The office of
the Solicitor General (OSG) moved for the dismissal of the case on the ground that the petitioners have no locus
standi considering that they are not from Mindanao and that they have not suffered due to the issuance of
Proclamation 216. – lagman v medialdea

a. Is the argument of OSG correct?

The argument of OSG is incorrect. The petitioners have Locus standi. One of the requisite of
Judicial Review is locus standi, “the constitutional question is brought before the court by a
party having the requisite ‘standing’ to challenge it. The challenger must have a personal
and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained direct injury as a result of its
enforcement.

Sec 18 of Article 8 provides that any citizen may file the appropriate proceeding to assail
the sufficiency of the factual basis on the declaration of martial or suspension of the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. The only requisite to challenge the validity of the
suspension is that the challenger must be a citizen.

The petitioners herein did not mention that they are suing as citizens but referred
themselves as duly elected representatives. They are suing in their official capacities as
members of congress could have elicited a vigorous discussion. Provided that as duly
elected representative, one of the requirement for them to be elected is that they must be a
citizen of the Philippines. Thus they can be considered as suing in their own behalf as
citizens of this country.

b. The petitioners also argued that Proc No. 216 is unconstitutional for being vague because there are no
implementing guidelines or operational parameters that must be followed within Mindanao. Thus, the
decree can be facially challenged based on void for vagueness rule. Can facial challenged be applied to
determine the validity of Proc No. 216

There is no vagueness because the clauses of the Proclamation explain the meaning of
"other rebel groups." Also, the vagueness doctrine is an analytical tool developed for testing
"on their faces" statutes in free speech cases or, as they are called in American law, First
Amendment cases. Vagueness doctrine applies only in free speech cases.

Moreover, lack of guidelines/operational parameters does not make Proclamation No. 216
 vague. Clearly, therefore, there is no need for the Court to determine the constitutionality
of the implementing and/or operational guidelines, general orders, arrest orders and other
orders issued after the proclamation for being irrelevant to its review. Thus, any act
committed under the said orders in violation of the Constitution and the laws, such as
criminal acts or human rights violations, should be resolved in a separate proceeding.
Finally, there is a risk that if the Court wades into these areas, it would be deemed as
trespassing into the sphere that is reserved exclusively for Congress in the exercise of its
power to revoke.

c. While resting at the relocation center, Pogi was arrested without warrant by the army of Marawi City
two days after a complaint for rape was blottered. After 24 hours of detention, a PAO lawyer
representing Pogi filed a petition for habeas corpus contending that Pogi’s arrest is illegal, thus there is
no basis for his detention. The prosecutor opposed the petition on the ground that clearly the privilege
of writ is suspended. Decide who has a valid argument

The PAO lawyer has the valid argument. The arrest was illegal. The crime of Rape is
does not suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. Thus, the petition for habeas
corpus is applicable.

d. Suppose the crime committed in letter c above is terrorism and under the same facts, what will be your
answer?

The purpose of terrorism is distinct and the objective of a terrorist is to sow and create a
condition of widespread fear among the populace in order to coerce the government to give
in to an unlawful demand. It traditionally achieved through bombing, kidnapping, mass
killing and among others. However, it will not in any manner affect Proclamation No. 215.
Section 2 of RA 9372 otherwise known as the Human Security Act of 2007 expr4essly
provides that nothing in this Act shall be interpreted as curtailment, restriction or
diminution of constitutionality recognized powers of the executive branch of the
government. Thus, as long as the president complies with all the requirements of Sec 18 of
Article 7, the existence of terrorism cannot prevent him from exercising his extraordinary
power of proclaiming martial law or suspending the privilege of writ of habeas corpus.

Enumerate the ways by which a bill becomes a law even without the signature of the President.

1. Lapse of 30 days from receipt

2. Veto was overridden by 2/3. Votes
3. Statue propose by initiative and referendum and approved by the people
4. Bill calling for special election for the vacancy in the office of the president.

Mia filed before the Civil Service Commission a complaint against Mama for violation of RA 6713 with grave
conduct, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and violation of Civil service Law, rules and
regulations. Mama is the Director of the Human Resources Management Department of the PUP, a government
owned and controlled corporation with an original charter. Mama avers that the CSC does not have jurisdiction
to hear and decide on the complaint. Is the contention of Mama correct? Explain.

The contention of Mama is not correct. The CSC have jurisdiction to hear and decide on the
complaint. Section 7, Article IX provides that “No elective official shall be eligible for
appointment or designation in any capacity to any public office or position during his tenure.

Atty. Lovely De la Torre challenged the constitutionality of EO 864 which designated the Chairman of Civil
Service Commission (CSC) as ex officio member if the Board of Trustees of GSIS, Philheath, ECC, and HMDF
because it impairs the independence of the CSC and violates the constitutional prohibition against the holding
dual or multiple offices for members of the Constitutional Commissions. Gov’t lawyers argued CSC Chairman
being an appointive official, does not occupy a Cabinet position and he is allowed by law or the primary function
of his office. Rule on the constitutionality of EO 864.

It is necessary to determine whether the designation as Board Member of GSIS is accordance

with the Constitution. These GOCC are vested by their respective charters with various
powers and functions to carry out purposes for which they are created.

When CSC sits as Board Member of GSIS, he may exercise powers that are not anymore
derived from his position as CSC such as imposing interest on unpaid or unremitted
contribution. The board of said GOCC entitles him to receive per diem – form of additional
compensation disallowed by the concept of ex officio. Thus be held unconstitutional.

Due to the death of one of the Commissioners of the CSC, on July 8, 2013, President Aquino nominated Vilma
Santos Recto, 49 years old, to be the next commissioner of the CSC. She is the multi-awarded governor of
Batangas and her capacity for public administration is already proven. Santos decided to accept the nomination,
thus she step down as governor and took her oath as the next commissioner of the CSC. Is her appointment
valid?

No, the appointment of Vilma Santos Recto is not valid. The law provides that the two
Commissioners of the Civil Service shall be a natural born citizen of the Philippines and at the
time of their appointment, at least 35 years of age, with proven capacity for public
administration and must not been candidates for any elective position in the elections
immediately preceding their appointment. Also, all appointment made by the President shall
be consented by the Commission on Appointments.
In the case at bar, the last qualification was not applicable to Vilma Santos Recto since at the
time of her appointment, she is the multi-awarded governor of Batangas.

Will it make a difference in your answer if the nomination and appointment is for the commissioner of the
Commission on Elections?

No, the appointment is still not valid. The law provides the following qualifications to be a
Commissioner of the Commission on Election: natural born citizen of the Philippines and at
the time of their appointment, at least 35 years of age, holder of a college degree, and must
not have been candidates for any elective position in the immediately preceding elections.
However, majority thereof, including the Chairman shall be member of the Philippine Bar
who have been engaged in the practice of law for at least 10 years. The chairman and the
commissioner shall be appointed by the president with the consent of the Commission on
Appointments for the term of 7 years without reappointment.
Thus, in the case at bar, Vilma Santos Recto, who is the governor of Batangas does not
qualify her to be the commissioner of COMELEC.

Will it make a difference in your answer to number one if the nomination and appointment is for the
commissioner of the COA?

No, the appointment is not valid. The Constitution provides the following qualifications of
the commissioner of the Commission on Audit: natural born citizen of the Philippines and at
the time of their appointment, at least 35 years of age, CPA with not less than 10 years of
auditing experience, or members of the Philippine Bar who have been engaged in practice
of law for at least 10 years, and must not have been candidates of any elective position in
the elections immediately preceding their appointment. At no time shall all Members of the
Commission belong to the same profession. The appointment by the President shall be with
the consent of the Commission on Appointments. In the case at bar, Vilma Santos is the
governor of Batangas which disqualifies her to be one of the commissioners of Commission
on Audit.

Are the employees of the GOCC considered under the scope of Civil Service?

Yes. Sec 2 (1) of the Civil Service Commission provides, “The civil service embraces all
branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities and agencies of the Government, including
government owned and controlled corporations with original charters”.

Petra was dismissed as an accountant of the DA because of her conviction for malversation of public funds. She
was granted absolute pardon by the President when she was about to serve her sentence. Considering that the
pardon granted is absolute, Petra wrote the Secretary of DA seeking for her reinstatement to the same position
she held before her conviction. Can Petra validly reinstated to her former position? Explain

A bill was filed in the House of Representatives intending to impose additional taxes for cigarettes and liquor
products in order to raise more revenues for the anti-poverty initiatives of the government. The bill immediately
passed in the House. Upon receipt of the bill from the House, the Senate introduced its own version which is
substantially different form the House version. After the Senate approved its own version, it forwarded its own
version together with that of the house to the bicameral conference committee. The committee approved the
version of the Senate Rep. Patongpatong objected to the action of the Senate as violative of the Constitution
because revenue bills must originate exclusively from House of Representatives. Is the objection valid?

After conducting a preliminary investigation wherein all parties were given a chance to be heard, the Office of
the Ombudsman filed information for violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019) against Sen.
Ottos for alleged anomalous transactions he entered into while he was still a Commissioner of the BIR. After
determining that the information was valid and pursuant the provision of RA 3019, the Sandiganbayan issued
an order preventively suspending Sen. Ottos for 90 days, Sen. Ottos objected to the order of suspension
because under the constitution he cannot be suspended without the consent of his fellow senators. Is the
objection valid?

Yes. Objection is valid. santiago vs sandiganbayan - the congress has the power to discipline its own members
for disorderly behaviour, with the concurrence of 2/3 of all its members. A penalty of suspension when
imposed, shall not exceed 60 days.

The Torre family had been in actual, public, continuous, exclusive and adverse possession of a 1000 sq. m
piece of agricultural land located in Igbaras, Iloilo since 1990. In 2015, the family sold the land to ABC
Corporation, which is 60% Filipino owned. ABC Corp applied for judicial confirmation of their ownership over
the land before the RTC of Guimbal, Iloilo in 2016 arguing that their actual possession over the land including
that of the Torre Family was legal. The government opposed the application on the ground that ABC Corp has
not yet acquired any vested right over the land.

a. Can ABC validly register the land in its name? Reason out.

Ans: No. Director of lands vs IAC - 30 yrs possession of the land (in the case, 25 yrs) - the filipino citizen
must have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural
lands of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition or ownership, for at least thirty years.

b. In 2017, ABC Corp sold the land to Lively Dela Torre, a former Filipino citizen who is now married to a
Nauraun national whose national law mandates that upon marriage the alien spouse automatically
becomes a Nauruan citizen. Is the sale valid?

ans: No sale is not valid. Art. XII, SEC. 8 - Former natural-born Filipinos who are now naturalized citizens of
another country can buy and register, under their own name, land in the Philippines but limited in land area.
Under Republic Act 9225 (Philippines Dual Citizenship Law of 2003), former Filipinos who became naturalized
citizens of foreign countries are deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship, thus enabling them to
enjoy all the rights and privileges of a Filipino regarding land ownership in the Philippines.

For the purpose of communication and instruction, the official languages of the Philippines are Filipino and
English, unless otherwise provided by law. True or false. Explain.

False. Art. XIV, sec. 7 - For purposes of communication and instruction, the official languages of the Philippines
are Filipino and, until otherwise provided by law, English.

The congress cannot submit to the people the question of whether or not to call a constitutional convention.
True or false. Explain

False. Art. XVII, sec. 3 - The Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of all its Members, call a constitutional
convention, or by a majority vote of all its Members, submit to the electorate the question of calling such a
convention.

An amendment of the constitution cannot be done through initiative and referendum. True?

False. Art. XVII, sec. 2 - Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the people
through initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters, of
which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum of the registered voters
therein. No amendment under this section shall be authorized within five years following the ratification of this
Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter.

There were only 6 commisioners when the Comelec sat en banc because the President had not yet appointed
the 7th commissioner. After the deliberation, the vote was 5-1 in favor of grating the appeal from the decision of
the RTC in an election protest filed before it. However before the case was promulgated by the commission,
two of the commissioners who voted to grant the appeal retired. At the time of the promulgation, there were
only 4 commissioners. Is the decision of the Comelec in this case valid?

Atty. Gorgeous Gid Siya, a private law practitioner filed an impeachment complaint against the Chairman of the
Comelec for betrayal of public trust on July 23, 2018. The day after the filing, the complaint was included in the
order of business of the HR. On July 25, 201, Rep. Buaya filed another complained against the Comelec
Chairman for graft and corruption. It was included in the order of business on the same day of filing. The
Chairman of the Comelec moved for the dismissal of the second complaint on the ground that the constitution
mandates that only one impeachment proceeding can be initiated against the same official in one year. Is the
contention of the Chairman correct?

Atty. Stunning Delecasa is the President and General Manager of the Igbaras Water District, a GOCC. A
complaint was filed against her before the CSC for violating the prohibition on nepotism because she appointed
her first cousin as a meter reader. Atty. Stunning filed a motion to dismiss the complaint because the CSC has
no jurisdiction over personnel of water districts considering they are only considered as a local water utility
company. Is the motion of Atty. Stunning meritorious?

August 3, 2018 - quiz

On august 18, 2017, President RRD appointed Sen. Recto, a CPA who was elected to the Senate in 2013, as the
new Chairman of the Commission on Audit due to the retirement of Chairman Aguinaldo after completing his 7
years term on August 25, 2017. Sen Recto gave up his seat in the Senate and took his oath of office after he
was confirmed by the Commission on Appointment on August 28, 2017. COA Commissioner Mabilang, who was
appointed as commissioner October 15, 2015 questioned the appointment of Sen Recto because it violates the
provisions of the 1987 Constitution. According to Mabilang, Recto is barred by the constitution from being
appointed to any constitutional commission.

a. Is the contention of Mabilang correct?

The contention of Mabilang is not correct. The disqualification being referred to is that he must not be a
candidate immediately preceding election (2016), therefore it does not apply because he did not run for
election last 2016. It is clear that he gave up his office

b. Supposed it was Mabilang who was appointed by the President to be Chairman of the COA, would the
appointment be valid?

The appointment is not valid. Promotional appointment is an appointment of an existing commissioner to be a

Chairman. It is valid only if the vacancy of the Chairman is due to death, resignation, impeachment or
permanent disability. It does not apply to expiration of term because it will disturb the 7 year rotational
scheme. Once the chairman is not able to finish his term, the one succeeding will only serve the remaining
term. Thus the promotional appointment cannot be applied if it is due to the expiration of the entire length of
the 7 year term. (Funa v Chairman of COA)

Administrative and criminal complaints were filed before the Office of the Ombudsman against Mayor Banda in
May 2014 for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act in connection with the construction of a
parking building in 2011. During the investigation of the administrative case, the Ombudsman issued an order
for the preventive suspension of Mayor Banda for 5 months pursuant to Section 24 RA 6770 or the Ombudsman
Act, Mayor Banda was elected in 2010 and he was re-elected in 2013. Arguing that the cases filed against him
is totally baseless, thus, his preventive suspension has no legal basis, Banda filed a petition for certiorari under
Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals asking for the issuance of a TRO and injunction. After taking the matter
into consideration, the CA issued a TRO and a writ of preliminary injunction to stop the Ombudsman in further
conducting an administrative investigation. The office of the ombudsman moved for the dismissal of the
petition pursuant to Sec 14 of RA 6770, No writ of injunction shall be issued by any court to delay an
investigation being conducted by the Ombudsman under this Act, unless there is a prima facie evidence that
the subject matter of the investigation is outside the jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman. No court shall
hear any appeal or application for remedy against the decision or findings of the Ombudsman, except the SC,
on pure question of law.

Decide which action or contention is constitutional, that of the CA or that of the Ombudsman?

Sec 14 of RA 6770 is unconstitutional in Morales v Binay, it violates the rule making power of the SC because
you cannot increase the appellate jurisdiction of the SC without its consent or concurrence. Congress cannot
make a law expanding that concurrence provision. Therefore, CA has the power to issue or to have jurisdiction
over cases of Certiorari against Ombudsman cases. The CA can issue injunction even in prevention suspension
not because the Ombudman failed to show the requisite of preventive suspension under sec 24 of RA 6770 but
because of the condonation doctrine. Based on the dates provided, at the time he committed the crime, he was
re-elect, therefore he cannot be investigated in an administrative complaint because of the Aguinaldo Doctrine.
So the ombudsman may stop because of the justified reason that Binay cannot be investigated since it was
already condoned. The condonation doctrine applies only to administrative cases.
(Morales v Binay) – no more condonation doctrine but the action is prospective in nature. No grave abuse of
discretion – Certiorari cannot be applied.