Sie sind auf Seite 1von 188

SUGGESTED

ANSWERS
TO BAR EXAMINATION
IN
FORWARD

This work is not intended for sale or commerce. This work is

freeware. It may be freely copied and distributed. It is primarily

intended for all those who desire to have a deeper understanding of

the issues touched by the Philippine Bar Examinations and its trend.

POLITICAL LAW
It is specially intended for law students from the provinces who,

very often, are recipients of deliberately distorted notes from other


ARRANGED BY TOPIC
unscrupulous law schools and students. Share to others this work

and you will be richly rewarded by God in heaven. It is also very

We
goodwould (1987 – 2006)
like to seek the indulgence of the reader for some Bar
karma.

Questions which are improperly classified under a topic and for


Edited and Arranged by:
some topics which are improperly or ignorantly phrased, for the
Atty. Janette Laggui-
authors are just Icao and
Bar Reviewees whoAtty. Alex
have prepared this work while
(Silliman University College of
Andrew26,
Law)July P. Icao
2005
reviewing for the Bar Exams under time constraints and within their

Updated
limited knowledge of the law. We would like to seek the reader’s
by:
Romualdo L. Señeris II, LLB.
indulgence for a lot of typographical errors in this work.
April 19, 2007
The Authors

From the ANSWERS TO BAR EXAMINATION


QUESTIONSin POLITICAL LAW by theUP LAW
COMPLEX and
PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW
SCHOOLS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1987 CONSTITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES ................................................................... 14
Phil Con 87; New Features (1991)..................................................................................... 14 Phil
Con 87; People Power (1987)..................................................................................... 14 Phil Con
87; People Power (2000)..................................................................................... 15 Phil Con 87;
People Power (2003)..................................................................................... 15 Nature of the
Constitution: Constitutional Supremacy (2004) ....................................... 15 Government
Presidential Form vs. Parliamentary Form (Q6-2006)............................. 15 ARTICLE I
National Territory........................................................................................... 16 Archipelagic
Doctrine (1989)............................................................................................... 16 Contiguous Zone
vs. Exclusive Economic Zone (2004)................................................. 16 Exclusive Economic
Zone; Rights of the Coastal State (1994)..................................... 16 Exclusive Economic Zone;
Rights of the Coastal State (Q1-2005) .............................. 17 Flag State vs. Flag of
Convenience (2004) ...................................................................... 17 Territory & Government
(1996)........................................................................................... 17 Territorial Sea vs. Internal
Waters (2004)......................................................................... 17 ARTICLE II Declaration of
Principles and State Policies.......................................... 18 Armed Forces; Servant of the
People (2003)................................................................... 18 Doctrine of Incorporation;
Constitutional Law (1997)...................................................... 18 Doctrine of Incorporation; Pacta
Sunt Servanda (2000)................................................. 18 Freedom from Nuclear Weapons;
Foreign Military Bases (1988)................................. 18 Philippine Flag (Q4-
2006).................................................................................................... 19 Principle of Civilian
Supremacy (Q6-2006)....................................................................... 19 State Immunity from Suit
(1991)......................................................................................... 19 State Immunity from Suit
(1996)......................................................................................... 20 State Immunity from Suit
(1989)........................................................................................ 20 State Immunity from Suit
(1994)......................................................................................... 21 State Immunity from Suit
(1992)......................................................................................... 21 State Immunity from Suit
(1999)......................................................................................... 22 State Immunity from Suit
(1999)......................................................................................... 22 State Immunity from Suit
(1987)......................................................................................... 22 State Immunity vs. Waiver of
Immunity (1997) ................................................................ 22 State Immunity from Suit
(1993)......................................................................................... 23 State Principles & Policies
(1994)...................................................................................... 23 Transparency; Matters of Public
Interest (1989).............................................................. 24 Transparency; Matters of Public
Interest (2000).............................................................. 25 ARTICLE III Bill of Rights
................................................................................................... 25 Bill of Attainder
(1987).......................................................................................................... 25 Bill of Attainder
(1990).......................................................................................................... 26 Custodial
Investigation; Extrajudicial Confession (2001) ............................................... 26 Custodial
Investigation; Extrajudicial Confession; Police Line-Up (1994) ................... 26 Custodial
Investigation; Police Line-Up (1997)................................................................ 27 Custodial
Investigation; Right to Counsel (1988) ............................................................ 27 Custodial
Investigation; Right to Counsel (1993) ............................................................ 27 Custodial
Investigation; Right to Counsel (2000) ............................................................ 28 Custodial
Investigation; Right to Counsel; Receipt of Property Seized (2002)........... 28 Custodial
Investigation; Rights (1990)............................................................................... 29 Custodial
Investigation; Rights (1993)............................................................................... 29 Custodial
Investigation; Rights (1996)............................................................................... 30
Double Jeopardy (1988) ...................................................................................................... 30
Double Jeopardy (1993) ...................................................................................................... 31
Double Jeopardy (1997) ...................................................................................................... 31
Double Jeopardy (1999) ...................................................................................................... 32
Double Jeopardy (1999) ...................................................................................................... 32
Double Jeopardy (2000) ...................................................................................................... 32
Double Jeopardy (2001) ...................................................................................................... 32
Double Jeopardy (2002) ...................................................................................................... 33
Double Jeopardy; Requisites (1999) ................................................................................. 33
Due Process; Absence of Denial (1999)........................................................................... 33
Due Process; Deportation (1994)....................................................................................... 34
Due Process; Forfeiture Proceedings (1993)................................................................... 35
Due Process; Media Coverage during Hearing (1996)................................................... 35
Due Process; Meeting vs. Hearing (1999)........................................................................ 35
Due Process; Notice by Publication (1988)...................................................................... 35
Due Process; Permit to Carry Firearm Outside Residence (Q6-2006)........................ 36
Due Process; PPA-Pilots (2001) ........................................................................................ 36
Due Process; Procedural vs. Substantive (1999)............................................................ 37
Due Process; Provisional Order (1991) ............................................................................ 37
Due Process; Public School Teachers (2002) ................................................................. 37
Due Process; Radio Station (1987) ................................................................................... 38
Due Process; Represented by a Non-Lawyer (1988) ..................................................... 38
Due Process; Substantive (2003) ...................................................................................... 38
Due Process; Suspension of Driver's License (1992)..................................................... 38
Due Process; Urgent Public Need (1987)......................................................................... 39
Eminent Domain; Garnishment (1994).............................................................................. 39
Eminent Domain; Garnishment (1998).............................................................................. 40
Eminent Domain; immunity from suit (2001) .................................................................... 40
Eminent Domain; Indirect Public Benefit (1990).............................................................. 40
Eminent Domain; Just Compensation (1988) .................................................................. 40
Eminent Domain; Just Compensation (1989) .................................................................. 41
Eminent Domain; Just Compensation (1998) .................................................................. 41
Eminent Domain; Legal Interest (1993) ............................................................................ 41
Eminent Domain; Non-observance of the policy of "all or none" (2000)...................... 42
Eminent Domain; Power to Exercise (2005) .................................................................... 42
Eminent Domain; Public Use (1987).................................................................................. 42
Eminent Domain; Socialized Housing (1996)................................................................... 43
Eminent Domain; Writ of Possession (1993).................................................................... 43
Equal Protection; Alien Employment (1989)..................................................................... 44
Equal Protection; Invidious Discrimination (1987)........................................................... 44
Equal Protection; Invidious Discrimination (1987)........................................................... 45
Equal Protection; Police Power (2000).............................................................................. 45
Equal Protection; Right to Education (1994) .................................................................... 45
Equal Protection; Subsidiary Imprisonment (1989)......................................................... 45
Freedom of Expression; Censorship (2003)..................................................................... 46
Freedom of Expression; Prior Restraint (1988) ............................................................... 46
Freedom of Religion; Convicted Prisoners (1989) .......................................................... 46
Freedom of Religion; Flag Salute (1997).......................................................................... 47
Freedom of Religion; Flag Salute (2003).......................................................................... 48
Freedom of Religion; Non-Establishment Clause (1988)............................................... 48
Freedom of Religion; Non-Establishment Clause (1992)............................................... 48
BAR Q&A (as arranged by Topics) – POLITICAL LAW (1987-2006)
Freedom of Religion; Non-Establishment Clause (1997)............................................... 49
Freedom of Speech; Ban on Tobacco AD (1992) ........................................................... 49
Freedom of the Press; Actual Malice (2004).................................................................... 50
Freedom of the Press; Wartime Censorship (1987)........................................................ 50
Impairment Clause; Basic Human Rights (1992) ............................................................ 51
Involuntary Servitude (1993)............................................................................................... 51
Liberty of Abode; Limitations (1998).................................................................................. 51
Liberty of Abode; Temporary (1996).................................................................................. 52
Non-Imprisonment for Non-Payment of Debt (1993) ...................................................... 52
Police Power; Abatement of Nuisance (2004) ................................................................. 52
Police Power; Ban on Tobacco AD (1992) ....................................................................... 52
Police Power; Zoning Ordinance vs. Non-Impairment of Contracts (1989) ................ 53
Police Power; Zoning Ordinance vs. Non-Impairment of Contracts (2001) ................ 53
Privacy of Communication (2001)...................................................................................... 53
Privacy of Correspondence (1998) .................................................................................... 54
Privacy of Correspondence; Jail (1989)............................................................................ 54
Right to Assembly; Permit Application; Freedom Parks (Q2-2006).............................. 54
Right to Assembly; Permit Requirements (1992) ........................................................... 55
Right to Assembly; Public Teachers (2000) ..................................................................... 55
Right to Assembly; Public Teachers (2002) ..................................................................... 56
Right to Travel; Order of Arrest (1991).............................................................................. 56
Rights of the Accused; Counsel of his Choice (Q8-2005).............................................. 56
Rights of the Accused; Presumption of Innocence vs. Presumption of Theft (2004) 57
Rights of the Accused; Right to Bail (1993)...................................................................... 57
Rights of the Accused; Right to Bail; Capital Offense (Q4-2006) ................................. 58
Rights of the Accused; Right to Bail; Deportation Case (1989) .................................... 58
Rights of the Accused; Right to Bail; Matter of Right or a Matter of Discretion (Q7-
2005)....................................................................................................................................... 58
Rights of the Accused; Right to Speedy Trial (2000)...................................................... 59
Rights of the Accused; Self-Incrimination (1988) ............................................................ 59
Rights of the Accused; Self-Incrimination (1990) ............................................................ 59
Rights of the Accused; Self-Incrimination (1992) ............................................................ 60
Rights of the Accused; Self-Incrimination (2000) ............................................................ 60
Rights of the Accused; Self-Incrimination (Q7-2006)...................................................... 61
Searches and Seizure; Private Individuals (Q8-2005)................................................... 61
Searches and Seizures; Aliens (2001).............................................................................. 61
Searches and Seizures; Breathalyzer Test (1992).......................................................... 62
Searches and Seizures; Immediate Control (1987) ........................................................ 62
Searches and Seizures; Incidental to Valid Search (1990) ........................................... 62
Searches and Seizures; Place of Search (2001)............................................................. 63
Searches and Seizures; search made by a private citizen (1993)................................ 63
Searches and Seizures; search made by a private citizen (2002)................................ 64
Searches and Seizures; Valid Warrantless Search (2000)............................................ 64
Searches and Seizures; Visual Search (1992) ................................................................ 65
Searches and Seizures; Waiver of Consent (1989)........................................................ 65
Searches and Seizures; Warrantless Arrests (1993)...................................................... 66
Searches and Seizures; Warrants of Arrest (1991) ........................................................ 66
ARTICLE IV Citizenship ..................................................................................................... 66
Action for Cancellation; Prescription & Effect of Death (1994)...................................... 66
Citizenship; Elected Official (1993).................................................................................... 67 Dual
Allegiance vs. Dual Citizenship (1987) .................................................................... 67
BAR Q&A (as arranged by Topics) – POLITICAL LAW (1987-2006)
Dual Allegiance vs. Dual Citizenship (1988) .................................................................... 68
Dual Citizenship (1994)........................................................................................................ 68
Effect of Marriage; Filipino (1989)..................................................................................... 69
Effect of Oath of Allegiance (2004).................................................................................... 69
Effect of Repatriation (1999) ............................................................................................... 70
Effect of Repatriation (2002) ............................................................................................... 70
Effect of Repatriation (2003) ............................................................................................... 70
Effects of Marriages (1999)................................................................................................. 70
Effects of Philippine Bill of 1902 (2001) ............................................................................ 71
Elected Official (1992).......................................................................................................... 71
Electing Philippine Citizenship (Q8-2006) ........................................................................ 71
Electing Philippine Citizenship; When Proper (Q8-2006)............................................... 72
Natural Born Filipino (1989) ................................................................................................ 72
Natural Born Filipino (1998) ................................................................................................ 72
Natural-Born Filipino(1993) ................................................................................................. 73
Naturalization; Cancellation of Citizenship (1998)........................................................... 73
Residency Requirements; Elective Official (Q9-2005).................................................... 73
Status; Illegitimate Child (1990).......................................................................................... 74
Status; Illegitimate Child; Dual Citizenship (1996) .......................................................... 74
Status; Legitimate Child (2003) .......................................................................................... 74
Ways of Reacquiring Citizenship (2000)........................................................................... 75
ARTICLE VI Legislative Department .............................................................................. 75
Appropriation of Public Funds (1988)................................................................................ 75
Appropriation of Public Funds; Debt Servicing (1992).................................................... 75
Appropriation of Public Funds; Public Purposes (1988)................................................. 75
Commission on Appointments (2002) ............................................................................... 76
Delegation of Powers (2002) .............................................................................................. 76
Delegation of Powers; (Q6-2005)....................................................................................... 76
Delegation of Powers; Completeness Test; Sufficient Standard Test (Q6-2005) ...... 77
Discipline; Modes of Removal (1993)............................................................................... 77
Discipline; Suspension of a Member of the Congress (2002) ....................................... 77
Elected Official; De Facto Officer (2004) .......................................................................... 78
Electoral Tribunal; HRET Members’ Right & Responsibilities (2002) .......................... 78
Electoral Tribunal; Senate; Jurisdiction (1990) ................................................................ 79
Foreign Affairs; Role of House of Rep (1996).................................................................. 79
Foreign Affairs; Role of Senate (1994).............................................................................. 79
Investigations in Aid of Legislation (1992) ........................................................................ 79 Law
Making; Process & Publication (1993)...................................................................... 80 Law-
Making; Appropriation Bill (1996) .............................................................................. 80 Law-
Making; Appropriation Law; Automatic Renewal & Power of Augmentation
(1998)...................................................................................................................................... 80 Law-
Making; Appropriation Law; Rider Provision (2001) ............................................... 81 Law-
Making; Foreign Affairs; Treaties (1996).................................................................. 81 Law-
Making; Overriding the Presidential Veto (1991) .................................................... 81 Law-
Making; Passage of a Law (1988)............................................................................. 82 Legislative
Power; Pres. Aquino’s Time (1990) ............................................................... 82 Legislative
Powers (1989) ................................................................................................... 82 Loans Extended
to Members of Congress (1991)........................................................... 82 Multi-Party System
(1999)................................................................................................... 83 Non-Legislative Powers
(1988) .......................................................................................... 83 Non-Legislative Powers;
Emergency Powers; Requisites (1997)................................. 83
BAR Q&A (as arranged by Topics) – POLITICAL LAW (1987-2006)
Prohibitions and Inhibitions of Public Office (2004)......................................................... 83
Qualifications; Congressmen (1988) ................................................................................. 84
Qualifications; Congressmen; (1993) ................................................................................ 84
Qualifications; Congressmen; (1999) ................................................................................ 85
Separation of Powers (1988) .............................................................................................. 85
Separation of Powers (2003) .............................................................................................. 85
Three-Term Limit: Congressmen (1996)........................................................................... 86
Three-Term Limit; Congressmen (2001)........................................................................... 86
ARTICLE VII Executive Department ................................................................................ 86
Appointing Power; Acting vs. Permanent Appointment (2003) ..................................... 86
Appointing Power; ad interim appointments (1991) ........................................................ 86
Appointing Power; Ad Interim Appointments (1994) ....................................................... 87
Appointing Power; Appointments Requiring Confirmation; RA 6975-Unconstitutional
(2002)...................................................................................................................................... 87
Appointing Power; Categories of Officials (1999)............................................................ 88
Appointing Power; Kinds of Appointments (1994)........................................................... 88
Appointing Power; Limitations on Presidential Appointments (1997)........................... 89
Appointing Powers; Ad Interim Appointments (Q4-2005) .............................................. 90
Cabinet Members; limitation on accepting additional duties (1996) ............................. 90
Calling-out Power; President (Q1-2006) ........................................................................... 91
Declaration; State of Calamity; Legal Effects (Q1-2005)................................................ 91
Declaration; State of National Emergency (Q1-2006) .................................................... 91 Enter
into Contract or Guarantee Foreign Loans (1994)................................................ 91 Enter into
Contract or Guarantee Foreign Loans (1999)................................................ 92 Enter into
Executive Agreements (2003) .......................................................................... 92 Impose Tariff
Rates, Import and Export Quotas (1999).................................................. 92 Martial Law &
Suspension of Writ of Habeas Corpus (1987) ........................................ 92 Martial Law;
Limitations (2000).......................................................................................... 93 Martial Law;
Sufficiency of the Factual Basis (Q3-2006)................................................ 94 Pardoning Power;
Amnesty (1993).................................................................................... 95 Pardoning Power;
Amnesty (1995).................................................................................... 95 Pardoning Power;
Breach of Condition; Revocation (Q5-2005).................................... 95 Pardoning Power; Exec
Clemency; Pardon (1995)......................................................... 95 Pardoning Power; Executive
Clemency (1997) ............................................................... 96 Pardoning Power; Executive
Clemency (1999) ............................................................... 96 Pardoning Power; Kinds
(1988).......................................................................................... 96 Pardoning Power; Pardon,
Conditional (1997) ................................................................ 97 President; Participation;
Legislative Process (1996)....................................................... 97 Presidential Immunity from
Suit (1997) ............................................................................. 97 Prohibition Against Multiple
Positions & Additional Compensation (2002) ................. 97 Prohibition against Multiple
Positions by Gov’t Officials (1987) .................................... 98 Suspension of Writ of Habeas
Corpus (1997).................................................................. 99
ARTICLE VIII Judicial Department .................................................................................... 99
Cases to be Heard En Banc; Supreme Court (1999)...................................................... 99
Contempt Powers (1996)..................................................................................................... 99
Finality of Void Judgments (1993)...................................................................................... 99
Fiscal Autonomy (1999)..................................................................................................... 100
Function; Continuing Constitutional Convention (2000) ............................................... 100
Issuance of Restraining Orders and Injunctions (1992) ............................................... 100
Judicial & Bar Council (1988)............................................................................................ 101
Judicial & Bar Council (1999)............................................................................................ 101
BAR Q&A (as arranged by Topics) – POLITICAL LAW (1987-2006)
Judicial Department; Writ of Amparo (1991) .................................................................. 101
Judicial Independence; Safeguard (2000)...................................................................... 101
Judicial Power (1989)......................................................................................................... 102
Judicial Power (1992)......................................................................................................... 102
Judicial Power (1998)......................................................................................................... 103
Judicial Power; Scope (1994) ........................................................................................... 103
Judicial Review; Locus Standi (1992).............................................................................. 104
Judicial Review; Requisites (1994).................................................................................. 104
Jurisdiction of HLURB (1993) ........................................................................................... 104
Mandatory Period For Deciding Cases (1989)............................................................... 105
Political Question (1995).................................................................................................... 105
Political Question Doctrine (1997).................................................................................... 105
Political Question: Separation of Powers (2004) ........................................................... 106
Political Question; To Settle Actual Controversies (2004) ........................................... 106
Political Questions (1988).................................................................................................. 106 Pro
Hac Vice Cases (1999)............................................................................................... 107 Removal
of Lower Court Judges (1993) ......................................................................... 107 Review
Executive Acts (1996).......................................................................................... 107 Supervision;
Courts & its Personnel (Q5-2005)............................................................. 108 Taxpayer's Suit;
Locus Standi (1995).............................................................................. 108 Term of Office;
Justices (1996) ........................................................................................ 108 Votes required for
declaring a law unconstitutional (1996).......................................... 109 ARTICLE IX
Constitutional Commissions .................................................................. 109 Rotational
Scheme (1999)................................................................................................. 109 Constitutional
Commissions & Council (Q7-2006) ........................................................ 109 ARTICLE IX Civil
Service Commission........................................................................ 109 Career Service;
Characteristics (1999) ........................................................................... 109 Civil Service
Commission vs. COA (2004) ..................................................................... 109 Function of CSC
(1994) ..................................................................................................... 110 GOCCs Without
Original Charter vs. GOCCs With Original Charter (1998)............. 110 Jurisdiction over the
GOCCs (1999)................................................................................ 111 Jurisdiction over the
GOCCs (2003)................................................................................ 111 Modes of Removal from
Office (1993) ............................................................................ 111 Receiving of Indirect
Compensation (1997) ................................................................... 111 Security of Tenure
(1988).................................................................................................. 112 Security of Tenure (Q5-
2005) ........................................................................................... 112 Security of Tenure; Meaning
(1999) ................................................................................ 113 ARTICLE IX COMELEC
.................................................................................................... 113 Electoral Tribunal; Functions
& Composition (Q5-2006).............................................. 113 Fair Election; Equal Space & Time
in Media (1989) ..................................................... 113 Grant of Pardon in Election Offenses
(1991) ................................................................. 114 Judicial Review of Decisions
(2001)................................................................................ 114 Removal from Office;
Commissioners (1998) ................................................................ 114 Right to Vote; Jurisdiction
(2001) ..................................................................................... 114 Election Laws
........................................................................................................................ 114 2nd Placer Rule
(2003)..................................................................................................... 114 2nd Placer Rule
(1990)...................................................................................................... 115 2nd Placer Rule; in
Quo Warranto Cases (1992).......................................................... 115 2nd Placer Rule; Rule of
Succession (1996) ................................................................ 115 Appreciation of Ballots
(1994)........................................................................................... 116 Disqualification; Grounds
(1991)...................................................................................... 116
Disualifications (1999)........................................................................................................ 116
Effect of Filing of Certificate of Candidacy; Appointive Officer vs Elective Officer
(2002).................................................................................................................................... 116
Effect of Filing of Certificate of Candidacy; Fair Election Act (2003).......................... 117
Election Offenses; Conspiracy to Bribe Voters (1991) ................................................. 117
Election Protest (1990) ...................................................................................................... 117
Election Protest vs. Quo Warranto (2001)...................................................................... 118
Election Protest vs. Quo Warranto (Q5-2006) ............................................................... 118
Election Protest; Jurisdiction (1996) ................................................................................ 118
Expiration of term bars service thereof (2000)............................................................... 118
Petition to Declare Failure of Elections; Requisites & Effects (1995)......................... 118
Pre-Proclamation Contest (1987)..................................................................................... 119
Pre-Proclamation Contest (1988)..................................................................................... 119
Pre-Proclamation Contest vs. Election Contests (1997) .............................................. 120
Pre-Proclamation Contest; Proper Issues (1996).......................................................... 121
Process; Illiterate Voters (1987) ....................................................................................... 121
Process; Principle of Idem Sonans (1994) ..................................................................... 121
Process; Stray Ballot (1994) ............................................................................................. 121
Recall (2002) ....................................................................................................................... 122
Three-Term Limit Rule (2001) .......................................................................................... 122
Three-Term Limit; from Municipality to Newly-Created City (Q9-2005).................... 122
Vacancy; Effect of Vice-Mayor Acting As Mayor (2002)............................................... 123
Vacancy; Rule of Succession (1995)............................................................................... 123
Vacancy; SB; Rule on Succession (2002)...................................................................... 124
ARTICLE IX Commission on Audit ............................................................................... 124
COA; Jurisdiction (2001).................................................................................................... 124 COA;
Money Claims (1998) .............................................................................................. 124
ARTICLE X Local Government ..................................................................................... 125
Appointment of Budget Officer; control vs supervision (1999) .................................... 125
Boundary Dispute Resolution; LGU; RTC’s Jurisdiction (Q10-2005)........................ 126
Boundary Dispute Settlement; Authority; Jurisdiction (1999) ...................................... 126
Creation of New Local Government Units; Plebiscite Requirement (2004) .............. 126 De
Facto Public Corporations; Effect (2004).................................................................. 126
Devolution of Power (1999)............................................................................................... 126
Franchise; prior approval of LGU necessary (1988) ..................................................... 126 Law
fixing the terms of local elective officials (Q4-2006) ............................................. 127
Ordinance; Use & Lease of Properties; Public Use (1997).......................................... 127
Ordinance; Validity; Closure or Lease of Properties for Public Use (2003) .............. 127
Ordinance; Validity; Compensation; Tortuous Act of an Employee (1994) ............... 127
Ordinance; Validity; Local Taxation vs. Special Assessment (1987) ......................... 128
Ordinance; Validity; Preventing Immorality (1987) ........................................................ 128
Ordinance; Validity; Utilization & Development; National Wealth (1991) .................. 128
Ordinances; Validity; Amending Nat’l Laws (1988) ....................................................... 128
Ordinances; Validity; Gambling Prohibition (1995)........................................................ 129
Ordinances; Validity; Limitation of Penalties (1991) ..................................................... 129
Ordinances; Veto Power (1996) ....................................................................................... 129
Police Power; LLDA (1995)............................................................................................... 130
Power to Issue Subpoena & Cite For Contempt (1993) ............................................... 130
Power; Eminent Domain; LGU; Right to Exercise (Q10-2005).................................... 131
Powers of Barangay Assembly (2003)............................................................................ 131
Powers; Liga ng mga Barangay (2003)........................................................................... 131
BAR Q&A (as arranged by Topics) – POLITICAL LAW (1987-2006)
Requisites; Contracts Involving LGU (1991) .................................................................. 131
Requisites; Contracts involving LGU (1995) .................................................................. 132
Taxation; GOCC Liability For Real Estate Tax (1999).................................................. 132
Taxation; Sources of Revenue (1999)............................................................................. 132
Withdrawal of Public Property from Public Use (1990)................................................. 132
ARTICLE XI Accountability of Public Officers........................................................... 133
Abandonment of Office (2000).......................................................................................... 133
Discipline; Clemency; Doctrine of Condonation (2000)................................................ 133
Discipline; Effect of Pardon Granted in Favor of Public Officers (1999).................... 134
Discipline; Preventive Suspension & Appeal; entitlement to salary pendente (2001)
............................................................................................................................................... 134
Discipline; Preventive Suspension (1990) ...................................................................... 134
Discipline; Preventive Suspension (2002) ...................................................................... 135
Elective and Appointive Officials: disciplinary authority (2004) ................................... 135
Elective Public Officer; De Facto Officer (2000) ............................................................ 135
Elective Public Officers; De Facto Officer; effects (2004) ............................................ 136 Graft
and Corruption; Prescription of Crime (2002) ...................................................... 136
Impeachment; Cronyism (2000) ....................................................................................... 137
Impeachment; Grounds (1999)......................................................................................... 137
Impeachment; Nature; Grounds; PD 1606 (1988)......................................................... 137 Law
of Public Officers; Next-in-Rank Rule (1994)......................................................... 137 Liability
For Damages in Performance of Official Functions (1990) ........................... 138 Local
Elective Officials; Limitations On Additional Duties (1995) ............................... 139
Ombudsman: Power to Suspend; Preventive Suspension (2004) ............................. 139
Ombudsman; Power to Investigate (2003) ..................................................................... 139
Ombudsman; Power to Suspend; Preventive Suspension (1996) ............................. 140
Power to Issue Subpoena; validity of delegation (1989) .............................................. 140
Prohibition On Elective Officer to Hold Public Office (2002)........................................ 140
Public Office; Public Trust (1998)..................................................................................... 140
Retirement Benefits (1996) ............................................................................................... 141
ARTICLE XII National Economy and Patrimony......................................................... 142
Acquisition and Lease of Public Lands (1998)............................................................... 142
Acquisition of Lands (1987)............................................................................................... 142
Acquisition of Lands (2000)............................................................................................... 143
Acquisition of Lands by Hereditary Succession (2002) ................................................ 143
Acquisition of Lands; Citizenship issue (1989) .............................................................. 143
Acquisition of Lands; Citizenship issue (1994) .............................................................. 144
Acquisition of Lands; Citizenship issue (1995) .............................................................. 144
Acquisition of Lands; Prohibition; acquisition of private lands by aliens (1994) ....... 145
Citizenship Requirement in Management of Advertising Industry (1989) ................. 145
Engagement in Business & Exercise of Profession (1987).......................................... 145
Exploration and Development of Minerals (1994) ......................................................... 146
Expropriation of Public Utilities (1992) ............................................................................ 146
Lease of Private Agricultural Lands (2001) .................................................................... 146
National Economy & Patrimony; Constitutional Prohibition (2004)............................. 147
National Patrimony; definition (1999) .............................................................................. 147
Nationalized Activities (1994)............................................................................................ 147
Ownership Requirement of Mass Media (1989) ............................................................ 148
Chinese citizens; engaging in retail trade (Q4-2006).................................................... 148
Exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources (Q4-2006) ............... 148
ARTICLE XIII Social Justice and Human Rights ......................................................... 148
Agrarian Reform Law; Coverage (1992) ......................................................................... 148
Commission on Human Rights; Power to investigate (1992) ...................................... 149
Commission on Human Rights; Power to issue TRO (1997) ...................................... 149
Commission on Human Rights; Power to issue TRO (2001) ...................................... 149
Commission on Human Rights; Power; Limitations (Q4-2005)................................... 150
Labor; Right to Self-Organization (1988) ........................................................................ 151
Labor; Right to Strike (1988)............................................................................................. 151
Labor; Right to Strike (1993)............................................................................................. 151
Social Justice under the Present Constitution (1995)................................................... 152
Women (2000)..................................................................................................................... 152
ARTICLE XIV Education, Science and Technology, Arts ......................................... 153
Education; Academic Freedom (1987)............................................................................ 153
Education; Academic Freedom (1989)............................................................................ 153
Education; Academic Freedom (1993)............................................................................ 153
Education; Academic Freedom; Extent (1999) .............................................................. 154
Education; Alien Enrollees & Donors (1999).................................................................. 154
Education; Duties of State in Re Education (1999)....................................................... 154
Education; Flag Salute (1987) .......................................................................................... 155
Education; Right to Choose Profession (2000).............................................................. 155
Education; Right to Quality Education (2003) ................................................................ 156
Education; Teaching of Religion (1999).......................................................................... 156
Education; Validity of Academic Requirements (1994) ................................................ 156
ARTICLE XVI General Provisions .................................................................................. 156
General Provisions; Local Dialect (1987)........................................................................ 156 AFP;
limitation on accepting additional duties (1996)................................................... 157 ARTICLE
XVII Amendments or Revisions .................................................................... 157 People’s
Initiative (2004) ................................................................................................... 157 Amendments
and Revisions; Modes (1997) .................................................................. 157 REFERENDUM vs.
INITIATIVE (Q1-2005).................................................................... 157 ARTICLE XVIII
Transitory Provisions.............................................................................. 158 Transitory
Provisions; Foreign Military Bases (1996) ................................................... 158 Transitory
Provisions; Foreign Military Bases (1988) ................................................... 158 PUBLIC
INTERNATIONAL LAW ........................................................................................ 158 Basic
Principles in Public Int’l Law (1991) ...................................................................... 158
Constitutive Theory vs. Declaratory Theory (2004)....................................................... 160
Contiguous Zone vs. Exclusive Economic Zone (2004).............................................. 160
Diplomatic Immunity (2000) .............................................................................................. 160
Diplomatic Immunity (2001) .............................................................................................. 160
Diplomatic Immunity (2003) .............................................................................................. 161
Diplomatic Immunity (2004) .............................................................................................. 161
Diplomatic Immunity; Ambassador (Q3-2005) ............................................................... 162
Diplomatic Immunity; Ambassadors (1990).................................................................... 162
Diplomatic Immunity; Coverage (Q3-2005) .................................................................... 163
Diplomatic Immunity; Diplomatic Envoy and Consular Officers (1995)...................... 164
Diplomatic Immunity; Diplomatic Envoy and Consular Officers (1997)...................... 165
Exclusive Economic Zone (2000)..................................................................................... 165
Executive Agreements; Binding Effect (2003)................................................................ 165
Extradition vs. Deportation (1993).................................................................................... 166
Extradition; Doctrine of Specialty (1993)......................................................................... 166
Extradition; Effectivity of treaty (1996)............................................................................. 166
Extradition; Grounds (2002).............................................................................................. 167
Extradition; Retroactive Application (Q2-2005).............................................................. 167
Flag State vs. Flag of Convenience (2004).................................................................. 168
Genocide (1988) ................................................................................................................. 168
Human Rights (1999) ......................................................................................................... 168
Human Rights; Civil and Political Rights (1992) ............................................................ 168
Human Rights; Civil and Political Rights (1996) ............................................................ 169
Int’l Court of Justice; Jurisdiction Over States................................................................ 170 Int’l
Court of Justice; Jurisdiction Over States (1994)................................................... 170 Int’l
Court of Justice; Limitations On Jurisdiction (1999) .............................................. 170 Int’l
Court of Justice; Parties; Pleadings and Oral Argument (1994).......................... 170
International Convention; Law of the Sea (2004) .......................................................... 171
International Court of Justice (Q9-2006)......................................................................... 171
International Law vs. Municipal Law; Territorial Principle; International Crimes (Q2-
2005)..................................................................................................................................... 171
Mandates and Trust Territories (2003)............................................................................ 172
Municipal Law vs. International Law (2003) ................................................................... 173
Neutrality of States (1988)................................................................................................. 173
Outer Space; Jurisdiction (2003)...................................................................................... 174
Principle of Auto-Limitation (Q10-2006).......................................................................... 174
Reciprocity v. Principle of Auto-Limitation (Q10-2006)................................................. 174
Recognition of States; De Facto vs. De Jure Recognition (1998) .............................. 174
Reparations Agreement; Validity (1992) ......................................................................... 175
Right to Innocent Passage (1999).................................................................................... 175
Right to Transit and Innocent Passage (2004) .............................................................. 176
Rights and Obligation under UN Charter (1991)............................................................ 176
Sources of International Law; Primary & Subsidiary Sources (2003) ........................ 177
Sovereign Immunity of States; Absolute vs. Restrictive (1998) .................................. 177
Sovereignty of States; Natural Use of Territory (1989)................................................. 178
Sovereignty; Definition; Nature (Q10-2006) ................................................................... 178
State Liabilities (1995)........................................................................................................ 179
State Sovereignty; Effective Occupation; Terra Nullius (2000) ................................... 179
Stateless Persons; Effects; Status; Rights (1995)......................................................... 179
Territorial Sea vs. Internal Waters (2004)....................................................................... 180
Use of Force; Exceptions (2003)...................................................................................... 180
Use of Force; Principle of Non-Intervention (1994)....................................................... 181
Use of Force; Right of Self-defense (2002).................................................................... 182
Use of Force; Self-Defense; Waging War (1998).......................................................... 182
Use of Force; When allowed (1988) ................................................................................ 183
War; Combatants/ Prisoners of War vs. Mercenaries (1993)...................................... 183
Wilson doctrine vs. Estrada doctrine (2004)................................................................... 184
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW....................................................................................................... 184
Admin Law; Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies (1991)....................................... 184
Admin Law; Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies (2000)....................................... 184
Admin Law; Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies vs Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction
(1996) .............................................................................................................. 185 Admin Law;
Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies; Exceptions (1991) ................. 185 Admin Law;
Judicial Review of Administrative Action (2001)...................................... 186 Admin Law;
Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions (1988)................................ 186 Admin Law;
Meaning of “Government of the Philippines” (1997) ............................... 187 Admin Law;
Power of the President to Reorganize Administrative Structure (2003)
............................................................................................................................................... 187
BAR Q&A (as arranged by Topics) – POLITICAL LAW (1987-2006)
Admin Law; Rules and Regulations; Due Process (2000) ........................................... 187
Government Agency vs. Government Instrumentality (Q7-2005)............................... 188
Quasi-Judicial Body or Agency (Q5-2006) ..................................................................... 188
1987 CONSTITUTION OF THE
PHILIPPINES Phil Con 87; New 7. The Supreme Court is empowered to
adopt rules for the protection and enforcement of
Features (1991) constitutional rights.
No 1: How is the Bill of Rights strengthened in
8. Art. II. Sec. 11 commits the State to a
the 1987 Constitution?
policy which places value on the dignity of every
SUGGESTED ANSWER: human person and guarantees full respect for
human rights.
There are several ways in which the Bill of Rights
is strengthened in the 1987 Constitution. 9. A Commission on Human Rights is
created.
1New rights are given explicit recognition such as,10. theUnder Article XVI. Sec. 5(2) the State is
prohibition against detention by reason of politicalmandated to promote respect for the people's
beliefs and aspirations. The waiver of Miranda rights is among the members of the military in the
rights
now required to be made in writing with the assistanceperformance of their duty.
of counsel. The use of solitary, incommunicado and
secret detention places is prohibited, while the
existence of substandard and inadequate penal
facilities is made the concern of legislation.
There is also recognition of the right of expression, an
express prohibition against the use of torture, a
mandate to the State to provide compensation and
rehabilitation for victims of torture and their families.
Some rights have been expanded. For instance, free
access to courts now includes access to quasi-judicial
bodies and to adequate legal assistance.
The requirements for interfering with some rights have
been made more strict. For instance, only judges can
now issue search warrants or warrants of arrest. There
must be a law authorizing the Executive Department to
interfere with the privacy of communication, the liberty
of abode, and the right to travel before these rights may
be impaired or curtailed.
The Constitution now provides that the suspension of
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus does not
suspend the right to bail, thus resolving a doctrinal
dispute of long standing.
The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus and the proclamation of martial law have been
limited to sixty (60) days and are now subject to the
power of Congress to revoke. In addition, the Supreme
Court is given the jurisdiction, upon the petition of any
citizen to determine the sufficiency of the factual basis
of the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus and the proclamation of martial law.
establishment of adequate mechanism for this Article XIII, Section 16 of the 1987 Constitution
purpose. (Id., sec, 16) provides that the right of the people and their
organizations to participate at all levels of social,
Phil Con 87; People Power (2000) political, and economic decision-making shall not
be abridged and that the State shall, by law,
No IX. Is the concept of People Power recognizedfacilitate the establishment of adequate
in the Constitution? Discuss briefly. (3%) consultation mechanisms.
Article XVII, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution
SUGGESTED ANSWER: provides that subject to the enactment of an
Yes, the concept of People Power is recognized in implementing law, the people may directly
the Constitution. Under Section 32. Article VI of thepropose amendments to the Constitution through
Constitution, through initiative and referendum, the initiative.
people can directly propose and enact laws or
approve or reject any act or law or part thereof
Nature of the Constitution: Constitutional
passed by the Congress or local legislative body
Phil Con(2004)
Supremacy 87; People Power (1987)
after the registration of a petition therefor signed by
(10-a) BNN Republic has a defense treaty with
at least ten per centum of the total number of No. XVIII: The framers of the 1987 Constitution
EVA Federation. According to the Republic's
registered voters, of which every legislative districtand the people who ratified it made sure that
Secretary of Defense, the treaty allows temporary
must be represented by at least three per centum provisions institutionalizing people power were
basing of friendly foreign troops in case of training
of the registered voters thereof. Under Section 16,incorporated in the fundamental law, Briefly
exercises for the war on terrorism. The Majority
Article XIII of the Constitution, the right of the discuss at least two such provisions.
Leader of the Senate contends that whether
people and their organizations to effective and SUGGESTED
temporary or not, theANSWER:
basing of foreign troops
reasonable participation at all levels of social,
however friendly is prohibited by the Constitution
political and economic decision-making shall not be Art. VI, Sec. 1, while vesting in Congress the
of BNN which provides that, "No foreign military
abridged. The State shall, by law facilitate the legislative power, nonetheless states that such
bases shall be allowed in BNN territory." In case
establishment of adequate consultation conferment of power shall be subject to the
there is indeed an irreconcilable conflict between
mechanisms. Under Section 2. Article XVII of the reservation made in favor of the people by
a provision of the treaty and a provision of the
Constitution, the people may directly propose provisions on initiatives and referendum. For this
Constitution, in a jurisdiction and legal system like
amendments to the Constitution through initiative purpose, Congress is required, as early as
ours, which should prevail: the provision of the
upon a petition of at least twelve per centum of thepossible, to provide for a system of initiative of
treaty or of the Constitution? Why? Explain with
total number of registered voters, of which every referendum whereby the people can directly
reasons, briefly. (5%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: In
legislative district must be represented by at leastpropose and enact laws or approve or reject an
case of conflict between a provision of a treaty
three per centum of the registered voters therein. act or law or part thereof passed by the Congress
and a provision of the Constitution, the provision
or the legislative bodies after the registration of a
of the Constitution should prevail. Section 5(2)(a),
petition therefor, signed by at least 10% of the
Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution authorizes the
total number of registered voters, of which every
nullification of a treaty when it conflicts with the
legislative district must be represented by at least
Constitution. (Gonzales v. Hechanova, 9 SCRA
3% of the registered voters. (Id., sec. 32) The
Phil Con 87; People Power (2003) 230 [1963]).
Constitution also provides that through initiative,
No I -Is "people power" recognized by the 1987 upon a petition of at least 12% of the total
Constitution? Explain fully. numbers of registered voters, of which every
legislative district must be represented by at least
SUGGESTED ANSWER: 3% of the registered voters therein, amendments
Government Presidential Form vs. Parlia-
to the Constitution
"People power" is recognized in the Constitution. mentary Form (Q6-2006) may be directly proposed by
the
1. people.
a) What is the principal identifying feature of
a presidential form of government? Explain.
Article III, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution
(2.5%)
Art, XIII, sec. 15 states that the state shall respect
guarantees the right of the people peaceable to
SUGGESTED
the role of independent ANSWER:
people's organization to
assemble and petition the government for redress
The principal
enable them toidentifying
pursue and feature of a within
protect, presidential
the
of grievances.
form of government
democratic framework,is embodied in the separation
their legitimate and
Article VI, Section 32 of the 1987 Constitution of powers interests
collective doctrine. and
Eachaspirations
department of
through
requires Congress to pass a law allowing the government
peaceful lawfulexercises
means.powers
For thisgranted
purpose, to itthe
by the
people to directly propose and enact laws Constitution
Constitution and may notto
guarantees control, interfere with the
such organizations or
through initiative and to approve or reject any act
encroach upon the at
right to participate acts
all done
levelswithin the political
of social,
or law or part of it passed by Congress or a localconstitutional
and economiccompetence
decision-makingof theand
others. However,
the state is
legislative body. the Constitution
required alsothe
to validate gives each department certain
powers by which it
may definitely restrain the others from improvidentprevent infringement of its customs, fiscal,
action, thereby maintaining a system of checks immigration or sanitary laws and regulations
and balances among them, thus, preserving the within its territory or territorial sea. (Article 33 of
will of the sovereign expressed in the Constitution.the Convention on the Law of the Sea.)

The EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE is a zone


b) What are the essential characteristics of aextending up to 200 nautical miles from the
parliamentary form of government? (2.5%) baselines of a state over which the coastal state
SUGGESTED ANSWER: has sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring
The essential characteristics of a parliamentary and exploiting, conserving and managing the
form of government are: the fusion of the legislative
natural resources, whether living or nonliving, of
and executive branches in parliament; the prime the waters superjacent to the seabed and of the
minister, who is the head of government, and the seabed and subsoil, and with regard to other
members of the cabinet, are chosen from among activities for the economic exploitation and
the members of parliament and as such are exploration of the zone. (Articles 56 and 57 of the
accountable to the latter; and the prime minister Convention on the Law of the Sea.)
may be removed from office by a vote of loss of
confidence of parliament. There may be a head of
state who may or may not be elected. Exclusive Economic Zone; Rights of the
Coastal State (1994)
No. 11: In the desire to improve the fishing
ARTICLE I National methods of the fishermen, the Bureau of
TerritoryArchipelagic Doctrine (1989) Fisheries, with the approval of the President,
No. 20: What do you understand by theentered into a memorandum of agreement to
archipelagic doctrine? Is this reflected in the 1987allow Thai fishermen to fish within 200 miles from
Constitution? the Philippine sea coasts on the condition that
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Filipino fishermen be allowed to use Thai fishing
The ARCHIPELAGIC DOCTRINE emphasizesequipment and vessels, and to learn modern
the unity of land and waters by defining antechnology in fishing and canning.
archipelago either as a group of islands
surrounded by waters or a body of waters 1) Is the agreement valid?
studded with islands. For this purpose, it requires SUGGESTED ANSWER:
that baselines be drawn by connecting the 1) No. the President cannot authorize the Bureau
appropriate points of the "outermost islands to of Fisheries to enter into a memorandum of
encircle the islands within the archipelago. The agreement allowing Thai fishermen to fish within
waters on the landward side of the baselines the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines,
regardless of breadth or dimensions are merely because the Constitution reserves to Filipino
internal waters. citizens the use and enjoyment of the exclusive
economic zone of the Philippines.
Yes, the archipelagic doctrine is reflected in the
1987 Constitution. Article I, Section 1 provides
that the national territory of the PhilippinesSection 2. Article XII of the Constitution provides:
includes the Philippine archipelago, with all the“The State shall protect the nation's marine part in
islands and waters embraced therein; and theits archipelagic waters, territorial sea, and
waters around, between, and connecting theexclusive economic zone, and reserve its use and
islands of the archipelago, regardless of theirenjoyment to Filipino citizens."
breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal Section 7, Article XIII of the Constitution provides:
waters of the Philippines. "The State shall protect the rights of subsistence
fishermen, especially of local communities, to the
Contiguous Zone vs. Exclusive Economicpreferential use of the communal marine and
Zone (2004) fishing resources, both inland and offshore. It shall
(2-a-2) Distinguish: The contiguous zone and theprovide support to such fishermen through
exclusive economic zone. SUGGESTED appropriate technology and research, adequate
ANSWER: CONTIGUOUS ZONE is a zone financial, production, and marketing assistance,
contiguous to the territorial sea and extends up and other services. The State shall also protect,
to 12 nautical miles from the territorial sea and develop, and conserve such resources. The
over which the coastal state may exercise protection shall extend to offshore fishing grounds
control necessary to of
subsistence fishermen against foreign intrusion.
Fishworkers shall receive a just share from their
labor in the utilization of marine and fishing
resources.

Exclusive Economic Zone; Rights of the


Coastal State (Q1-2005)
(c) Enumerate the rights of the coastal state in
the exclusive economic zone. (3%)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
In the EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE, the
coastal State has sovereign rights for the purpose
of exploring and exploiting, conserving and
managing the natural resources, whether living or
non-living, of the waters superjacent to the seabed
and of the seabed and its subsoil, and with regard
to other activities for the economic exploitation
and exploration of the zone, such as the
production of energy from the water, currents and
winds in an area not extending more than 200
nautical miles beyond the baseline from which the
territorial sea is measured. Other rights include
the production of energy from the water, currents
and winds, the establishment and use of artificial
islands, installations and structures, marine
scientific research and the protection and
preservation of the marine environment. (Art. 56,
U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea)

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
SOVEREIGN RIGHTS — for the purpose of
exploring and exploiting, conserving and
managing the natural resources, whether living or
non-living, of the seabed and subsoil and the
superjacent waters, and with regard to other
activities such as the production of energy from
the water, currents and winds in an area not
extending more than 200 nautical miles beyond
the baseline from which the territorial sea is
measured. (See Art. 56, UNCLOS) Jurisdiction,
inter alia, with regard to:
(1) the establishment and use of artificial
islands, installations and structures;
(2) marine scientific research;
(3)
and the protection and preservation of the
marine environment.
through the territorial sea. (Article 14 of the such
No. as
1; What
low ordo non-existent
you understand taxationby or thelow"Doctrine
Convention on the Law of the Sea.) operating costs although
of Incorporation" the ship has
in Constitutional Law? no genuine
SUGGESTED
link with ANSWER:
that state. (Harris, Cases and
Under Section 1, Article I of the 1987 Constitution, Materials
The on International Law,
DOCTRINE OF 5th ed., 1998, p. 425.) means
INCORPORATION
the INTERNAL WATERS of the Philippines that the rules of International law form part of the
consist of the waters around, between and law of Territory
the land & Government (1996) action is
and no legislative
connecting the islands of the Philippine No. 8: A law
required was passed
to make dividing the
them applicable to Philippines
a country.
Archipelago, regardless of their breadth and into
Thethree regions (Luzon,
Philippines follows Visayas, and Mindanao),
this doctrine, because
dimensions, including the waters in bays, rivers each
Sectionconstituting
2. Articlean II ofindependent
the Constitutionstate states
exceptthat on
and lakes. No right of innocent passage for matters of foreign adopts
the Philippines relations, thenational
generally defense
acceptedand
foreign vessels exists in the case of internal national
principles taxation, which are
of international lawvested
as partinofthe theCentral
law of
waters. (Harris, Cases and Materials on government.
the land. Is the law valid? Explain.
International Law, 5th ed., 1998, p. 407.) Internal
waters are the waters on the landward side of DoctrineSUGGESTED ANSWER:
of Incorporation; Pacta Sunt
baselines from which the breadth of the territorial The law (2000)
Servanda dividing the Philippines into three
sea is calculated. (Brownlie, Principles of Public Noregions,
X. Theeach constituting
Philippines an independent
has become a member state
of
International Law, 4th ed., 1990, p. 120.) and
the vesting
World in a
Trade central government
Organization matters
(WTO) andof
foreign relations,
resultantly agreednationalthat itdefense,
"shall and ensure national
the
taxation, is unconstitutional.
conformity of its laws, regulations and
ARTICLE II Declaration of administrative procedures with its obligations as
First, it violates
provided in the Article
annexed I, which guarantees
Agreements." Thisthe is
Principles and State Policies integrity of the national territory
assailed as unconstitutional because this of the Philippines
because it unduly
undertaking divided limits,
the Philippines
restricts and intoimpairs
three
Armed Forces; Servant of the People (2003) Philippine states. sovereignty and means among others
No I - Article II. Section 3, of the 1987 that Congress could not pass legislation that will
Constitution expresses, in part, that the "Armed Second,
be goodit for violates Section interest
our national 1, Article andII general
of the
Forces of the Philippines is the protector of the Constitution, which provides for the
welfare if such legislation will not conform with the establishment
people and (of) the State." Describe briefly what ofWTOdemocratic
Agreements. and republic
Refute this States by replacing
argument. (5%) it
this provision means. Is the Philippine National with three States organized as a confederation.
Police covered by the same mandate? SUGGESTED ANSWER:
FIRST ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: According to Tanada v. Angara, 272 SCRA 18
Article II, Section 3 of the 1987 ConstitutionThird, (1997),it the violates Section of22,theArticle
sovereignty II of the
Philippines is
means that the Armed Forces of the PhilippinesConstitution, subject to restriction by its membership in and
which, while recognizing the
should not serve the interest of the President butpromoting family of nations the rights
and theof limitations
indigenous imposedculturalof
of the people and should not commit abusescommunities, treaty limitations. Section 2. Article II of and
provides for national unity the
against the people. (Record of the Constitutionaldevelopment. Constitution adopts the generally accepted
Commission, Vol. V, p. 133.) This provision isprinciples of international law as part of the law of
specifically addressed to the Armed Forces of theFourth, the land.it One violates Section
of such 15, Article
principles is pactaX of suntthe
Philippines and not to the Philippine NationalConstitution, which, provides
servanda. The Constitution did not envision a for autonomous
Police, because the latter is separate and distinctregions hermit-likein Muslim
isolation Mindanao and infrom
of the country the Cordilleras
the rest of
from the former. (Record of the Constitutionalwithin the
the world. framework of national sovereignty as
Commission, Vol. V, p. 296; Manalo v. Sistoza. 312well as territorial integrity of the Republic of the
SCR A 239 [1999].) Philippines.
Freedom from Nuclear Weapons; Foreign
SECOND ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: Military Bases (1988)
Article II, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution can No. Fifth, it violates
22: The Secretarythe ofsovereignty
Justice hadofrecently
the Republicruled
be interpreted to mean that the Armed Forces that of ofthethePresident
Philippines. may negotiate for a modification
the Philippines can be a legitimate instrument for or extension of military bases agreement with the
the
Flagoverthrow
State vs. of theof
Flag civilian government
Convenience (2004)if it has
Territorial
United Sea vs.
States Internal Waters
regardless of the(2004) "no nukes"
ceased to be the servant of the people. (Bernas,
(2-a-3) Distinguish: The flag state and the flag provisions in the 1987 Constitution.sea
(2-a-1) Distinguish: The territorial Theand the
President
The 1987 Constitution of
of convenience. SUGGESTED ANSWER: FLAG the Philippines: A internalannounced
forthwith waters of the thatPhilippines.
she finds the SUGGESTED
same opinion
Commentary,
STATE means 2003
a shiped.,has the This
p. 66.) provision
nationality of thedoes ANSWER:and
"acceptable" TERRITORIAL
will adopt it.SEA TheisSenators
an adjacent on the
not
flag ofapply to the
the state Philippine
it flies, but there National
must be aPolice, belt hand,
other of sea withled aby breadth of 12 nautical
the Senate President,miles are
because
genuine link it between
is separate and and
the state distinct from the
the ship. measured
skeptical, andfrom hadthe baselines
even warned of that
a state noand overor
treaty
Armed Forces of the Philippines. (Record of the international which the state has sovereignty.
agreement may go into (Articles
effect 2without
and 3
Constitutional Commission, Vol. V, p. 296, Manalo v. of the Convention on the Law of the Sea.) Ship of
(Article 91 of the Convention on the Law of the Sea.) the concurrence of two-thirds of all members of the
Sistoza. 312 SCRA 239 [1999].)
all states enjoy the right of innocent passage
Senate.
FLAG OF CONVENIENCE refers to a state with which a
Doctrine of Incorporation;
vessel is registered Constitutional Law
for various reasons
(1997)
A former senator had said, "it is completely the flag must be recognized by law, it implies
wrong, if not erroneous," and "is an amendment that certain aspects of the flag are subject to
of the Constitution by misinterpretation." Some change through legislative action.
members of the Lower House agree with
Secretary Ordonez, while others lament the Principle of Civilian Supremacy (Q6-2006)
latter's opinion as "questionable, unfortunate, and 2. What Constitutional provisions institutionalize
without any basis at all." Do you or do you not the principle of civilian supremacy? (2.5%)
agree with the aforementioned ruling of the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Department of Justice? Why? The following constitutional provisions
institutionalize the principle of civilian supremacy:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. The Constitution provides that if foreign Civilian authority is at all times supreme over the
military bases, troops or facilities are to be military. [Article II, Section 3]
allowed after the expiration of the present The installation of the President, the highest
Philippine-American Military Bases Agreement civilianin authority, as the Commander-in-Chief of
1991, it must be "under a treaty duly concurred the in military. [Article VII, Section 18]
by the Senate and, when the Congress so The requirement that members of the AFP swear
to uphold and defend the Constitution, which is the
requires, ratified by a majority of the votes cast by
the people in a national referendum." (Art. XVIII, fundamental law of the civil government. [Article
sec. 25) A mere agreement, therefore, not XVI, a Section 5(1)]
treaty, without the concurrence of at least 2/3 of requirement that members of the AFP shall
The
all the members of the Senate will not be valid have respect for people's rights in the performance
of their duty. [Article XVI, Section 5(2)]
(Art. VII, sec. 21, Art. XVIII, sec. 4). With respect
to the provision allowing nuclear weapons within Professionalism in the armed forces. [Article XVI,
the bases, the Constitution appears to ban such Section 5(3)]
weapons from the Philippine territory. It declares Insulation of the AFP from partisan politics. [Article
as a state policy that "the Philippines, consistent XVI, Section 5(3)]
with the national interest, adopts and pursues Prohibition
a against the appointment of an AFP
policy of freedom from nuclear weapons in its member in the active service to a civilian position.
territory." (Art, II, sec. 8) However, the [Article XVI, Section 5(4)]
deliberations of the Constitutional Commission Compulsory retirement of officers without
would seem to indicate that this provision of the extension of service. [Article XVI, Section 5(5)]
Constitution is "not something absolute nor 100 Requirement of proportional recruitment from all
percent without exception." It may therefore be provinces and cities, so as to avoid any regional
that circumstances may justify a provision on clique from forming within the AFP. [Article XVI,
nuclear weapons. Section 5(7)]
A 3-year limitation on the tour of duty of the Chief
of Staff, which although extendible in case of
Philippine Flag (Q4-2006) emergency by the President, depends on
State whether or not the law is constitutional.Congressional declaration of emergency. [Article
Explain briefly. XVI, Section 5(6)]
1. A law changing the design of the
Philippine flag. (2%)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The law is invalid considering that under Article
XVI, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution, the flag
of the Philippines shall be red, white, and blue,
with a sun and three stars, as consecrated and
honored by the people and recognized by law.
Since the Constitution itself prescribes the
design, it can only be changed by constitutional
amendment.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The law is valid, provided that the new design
does not change the elements and color scheme
of the flag as stated in the Constitution, and the
flag is consecrated and honored by the people.
Since the Constitution itself states that
combat boots at U.S. $30 per pair delivered in Consent to the exercise of jurisdiction of a foreign
Jakarta on or before 30 October 1990. The court does not include waiver of the separate
contract was awarded by the Ministry of the Army immunity from execution. (Brownlie, Principles of
to Marikina Shoe Corporation and was signed by Public International Law, 4th ed., p. 344.) Thus, in
the parties in Jakarta. Marikina Shoe Corporation Dexter vs. Carpenter vs. Kunglig
was able to deliver only 200,000 pairs of combat Jarnvagsstyrelsen, 43 Fed 705, it was held the
boots in Jakarta by 30 October 1990 and it consent to be sued does not give consent to the
received payment for 100,000 pairs or a total of attachment of the property of a sovereign
U.S. $3,000,000.00. The Ministry of the Army government.
promised to pay for the other 100,000 pairs
already delivered as soon as the remaining State Immunity from Suit (1996)
300,000 pairs of combat boots are delivered, at No. 6; The Republic of the Balau (formerly Palau
which time the said 300,000 pairs will also be paidIslands) opened and operated in Manila an office
for. Marikina Shoe Corporation failed to deliver engaged in trading Balau products with Philippine
any more combat boots. products. In one transaction, the local buyer
complained that the Balau goods delivered to him
On 1 June 1991, the Republic of Indonesia filed were substandard and he sued the Republic of
an action before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig.Balau, before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig,
Rizal, to compel Marikina Shoe Corporation to for damages. a) How can the Republic of Balau
perform the balance of its obligations under the invoke its sovereign immunity? Explain. b) Will
contract and for damages. In its Answer, Marikinasuch defense of sovereign immunity prosper?
Shoe Corporation sets up a counterclaim for U.S. Explain.
$3,000,000.00 representing the payment for the
100,000 pairs of combat boots already delivered SUGGESTED ANSWER:
but unpaid. Indonesia moved to dismiss the A) The Republic of Balau can invoke its
counterclaim, asserting that it is entitled to sovereign Immunity by filing a motion to dismiss
sovereign Immunity from suit. The trial court in accordance with Section l(a), Rule 16 of the
denied the motion to dismiss and issued two writs Rules of Court on the ground that the court has
of garnishment upon Indonesian Government no jurisdiction over its person.
funds deposited in the Philippine National Bank
and Far East Bank. Indonesia went to the Court of According to the Holy See vs. Rosario, 238 SCRA
Appeals on a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 524, in Public International Law, when a State
of the Rules of Court. How would the Court of wishes to plead sovereign immunity in a foreign
Appeals decide the case? court, it requests the Foreign Office of the State
where it is being sued to convey to the court that it
is entitled to immunity. In the Philippines, the
SUGGESTED ANSWER: practice is for the foreign government to first
The Court of Appeals should dismiss the petition secure an executive endorsement of its claim of
insofar as it seeks to annul the order denying the sovereign immunity. In some cases, the defense
motion of the Government of Indonesia to dismissof sovereign immunity is submitted directly to the
the counterclaim. The counterclaim in this case islocal court by the foreign government through
a compulsory counterclaim since it arises from counsel by filing a motion to dismiss on the
the same contract involved in the complaint. As ground that the court has no Jurisdiction over its
such it must be set up otherwise it will be barred. person.
Above all, as held in Froilan vs. Pan Oriental
Shipping Co., 95 Phil. 905, by filing a complaint,b) No, the defense of sovereign Immunity will not
the state of Indonesia waived its immunity from prosper. The sale of Balau
The establishment of a products
police force is a contract
that is not
suit. It is not right that it can sue in the courts butinvolving a commercial
only civilian activity.
in character but In
also United
underStates vs.
the local
it cannot be sued. The defendant therefore Ruiz, 136SCRA487
executives. and
[Article United
XVI, States
Section 5(7)]vs. Guinto,
acquires the right to set up a compulsory 182 SCRA 644, it was stated that a foreign State
counterclaim against it. cannotState invoke Immunityfrom
Immunity from Suit
suit if(1991)
it enters into a
commercial
No. 13; In contract.
FebruaryThe Philippines
1990, the Ministry adheres
of theto
RESTRICTIVE
Army. Republic SOVEREIGN
of Indonesia, IMMUNITY.
invited bids for the
However, the Court of Appeals should grant the supply of 500,000 pairs of combat boots for the
petition of the Indonesian government insofar as use of the Indonesian Army. The Marikina Shoe
it sought to annul the garnishment of the funds of Corporation, State Immunity fromcorporation,
a Philippine Suit (1989)which has
Indonesia which were deposited in the Philippine no No.branch
13: A property
office andowner filed an
no assets action directly
in Indonesia,
National Bank and Far East Bank. in court against
submitted a bid tothe Republic
supply of thepairs
500,000 Philippines
of
seeking payment for a parcel of land which the
national government utilized for a road widening
project.
(1) Can the government invoke the doctrine of
non-suitability of the state?
(2) In connection with the preceding
question, can the property owner garnish public
funds to satisfy his claim for payment? Explain
your answers.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(1) No, the government cannot invoke the doctrine
of state of immunity from suit. As held in Ministerio
vs. Court of First Instance of Cebu, 40 SCRA 464,
when the government expropriates property for
public use without paying just compensation, it
cannot invoke its immunity from the suit.
Otherwise, the right guaranteed in Section 9,
Article III of the 1987 Constitution that private
property shall not be taken for public use without
just compensation will be rendered nugatory.

(2) No, the owner cannot garnish public funds to


satisfy his claim for payment, Section 7 of Act No.
3083 prohibits execution upon any judgment
against the government. As held in Republic vs.
Palacio, 23 SCRA 899, even if the government
may be sued, it does not follow that its properties
may be seized under execution.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
(2) No, funds of the government on deposit in
the bank cannot be garnished for two reasons:
1Under Art. II, Sec. 29 (1) public funds cannot be spent
except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law,
and
essential public services will be impaired if funds of the
government were subject to execution, (Commissioner
of Public Highways vs. San Diego, 31 SCRA 616
(1970)). The remedy of the prevailing party is to have
the judgment credit in his favor included in the general
appropriations law for the next year.
No, the Northern Luzon Irrigation Authority mayeconomic SUGGESTEDconditions of those engaged in the
ANSWER:
not invoke the immunity of the State from suit,1) tobacco
Yes, the industry.
Municipality of Calumpit is liable for
because, as held in Fontanilla vs. Maliaman, 179the negligence of its driver Johnny. Under
SCRA 685 and 194 SCRA 486, irrigation is aSection State 24Immunity
of the Local from Suit (1987)Code, local
Government
proprietary function. Besides, the Northern Luzongovernment (a) "X" filed a case
units areagainst the Republic
not exempt of the for
from liability
Irrigation Authority has a juridical personalitydeath Philippines
or injuryfortodamages
personscausedor damage his yacht, which
to property.
separate and distinct from the government, a suitwas rammed by a navy vessel.
against it is not a suit against the State. Since the (b) ALTERNATIVE
"X" also sued in another case the
ANSWER:
waiver of the immunity from suit is without Secretary of Public Works
No, the municipality and the
is not liable forRepublic of the
the negligence
qualification, as held in Rayo vs. Court of First Philippines
of Johnny,forthe payment
prevailingof therulecompensation
in the law of of
Instance of Bulacan, 110 SCRA 456, the waiver the value of
municipal his land, which
corporations is thatwas a used as part is
municipality ofnot
includes an action based on a quasi-delict. the
liabletarmac
for of thethetorts
Cebucommitted
InternationalbyAirport, its regular
without
employees prior inexpropriation
the discharge proceedings.
of governmental
functions. The municipality is answerable only
State Immunity from Suit (1999) when it is acting in a proprietary capacity.
A. 1.) What do you understand by state immunity
from suit? Explain. (2%) The Solicitor General moved to dismiss the two
2.) How may consent of the state to be sued be Incases the invoking
case atstate bar,immunity
Johnnyfrom wassuitaDecide.
regular
given? Explain. (2%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: employee of the
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Municipality of Calumpit as
1.) STATE IMMUNITY FROM SUIT means that (a) driver of its dump truck; he
The government cannot be sued for damagescommitted a tortious
the State cannot be sued without its consent. A considering act while discharging
that the agency a governmental
which caused function
the for
corollary of such principle is that properties used damages the municipality, ie., drivingNavy.
was the Philippine recklessly
Under the Art. said
by the State in the performance of its truck of
2180 loaded withCode,
the Civil sand the for state
the repair
consentsof municipal
to be
governmental functions cannot be subject to streets.
sued for aUndoubtedly
quasi-delict only then,when Johnny as driveris of
the damage
judicial execution. the dump
caused truck
by its wasagents.
special performing Hence, a duty or task
the Solicitor
pertainingmotion
General's to hisshould office. The construction
be granted and the suit or
maintenance
brought by "X" be of dismissed.
public streets are admittedly
2.) Consent of the State to be sued may be made governmental activities. At the time of the
expressly as in the case of a specific, express accident, Johnny was engaged in the discharge
provision of law as waiver of State immunity from of(b)governmental But the government functions. CANNOT INVOKE the
suit is not inferred lightly (e.g. C.A. 327 as amended state's immunity from suit. As held in Ministerio
by PD 1445} or impliedly as when the Statev.Hence, Court ofthe death
First of the40
Instance. twoSCRApassengers
464 (1971), of the
engages in proprietary functions (U.S. jeepney
which also-tragic
involved andthe deplorable
taking of though
private itproperty
may be
v. Ruiz, U.S. v. Guinto) or when it files a suit in whichwithout- imposed on theof municipality
the benefit expropriationno duty to pay
proceeding,
case the adverse party may file a counterclaim"The monetary
doctrine compensation,
of governmental as held
immunityin Municipality
from suit
(Froilan v. Pan Oriental Shipping) or when the doctrinecannot of San.serve
Fernando
as an v. Firme, 195
instrument forSCRA 692. an
perpetrating
would in effect be used to perpetuate an injusticeinjustice on a citizen. . . . When the government
(Amigable v. Cuenca, 43 takesState Immunity
any property for from
publicSuituse,(1992)
which is
SCRA 360). No. 9: Theupon
conditional Northern
the payment Luzon ofIrrigation
just Authority
(NLIA) was established
compensation, to be judiciallyby a legislative
ascertained, charter
it to
State Immunity from Suit (1999) strengthen
makes manifest the thatirrigation
it submits systems that supply
to the jurisdiction
No VI - B. The employees of the Philippineof water to farms
the court." Theand commercial
Solicitor General's growers
motion to in the
Tobacco Administration (PTA) sued to recoverdismiss area. Whileshould,the NLIA be
therefore, is denied.
able to generate
overtime pay. In resisting such claim, the PTArevenues through its operations, it receives an
theorized
State Immunitythat itfromis Suit
performing
(1994) governmentalannual appropriation from Congress. The NLIA is
functions.
No. 6; Johnny was employed (2%)
Decide and explain. as a driver by theauthorized to "exercise all the powers of a
SUGGESTED
Municipality of ANSWER:
Calumpit, Bulacan. While drivingcorporation under the Corporation Code."
As held in Philippine
recklessly a municipal Virginia
dump Tobacco
truck with its load of
Administration v. Court of Industrial
sand for the repair of municipal Relations,
streets, 65 Due to a miscalculation by some of its
Johnny
SCRA 416, the Philippine Tobacco Administration
hit a jeepney. Two passengers of the jeepneyemployees, there was a massive irrigation
is not killed.
were liable for overtime pay, since it is performingoverflow causing a flash flood in Barrio Zanjera. A
governmental functions. Among its purposes are child drowned in the incident and his parents now
to
The promote the effective
Sangguniang Bayanmerchandising of tobaccofile suit against The NLIA for damages.
passed an ordinance
so that those engaged
appropriating P300,000inasthe tobacco industry
compensation will
for the
have
heirs economic security,
of the victims. 1) Is to
thestabilize the price
municipality liableof May the NLIA validly invoke the immunity of the
tobacco, and to improve the living and
for the negligence State from suit? Discuss thoroughly.
of Johnny? 2) Is the municipal SUGGESTED ANSWER:
ordinance valid?
prove that the State is liable but the State retains
the right to raise all lawful defenses. c) Section 1, Article XVII of the Constitution
provides: "The FLAG OF THE PHILIPPINES
State Immunity from Suit (1993) shall be red, white, and blue, with a sun and
No 19: Devi is the owner of a piece of land.three stars, as consecrated and honored by the
Without prior expropriation or negotiated sale, thepeople and recognized by law."
national government used a portion thereof for the
widening of the national highway. Devi filed Section a 2, Article XVI of the Constitution states:
money claim with the Commission on Audit which The Congress may by law, adopt a new name for
was denied. Left with no other recourse, Devi filed the country, a national anthem, or a national seal,
a complaint for recovery of property and/or which shall all be truly reflective and symbolic of
damages against the Secretary of Public Works the ideals, history, and traditions of the people.
and Highways and the Republic of the Philippines, Such law shall take effect only upon its
The defendant moved for dismissal of the ratification by the people in a national
complaint contending that the government cannot referendum."
be sued without its consent. The RTC dismissed
the complaint. On appeal, how would you decide d) Section 22, Article II of the Constitution
the case. provides: The State recognizes and promotes the
rights of INDIGENOUS CULTURAL
SUGGESTED ANSWER: COMMUNITIES within the framework of national
The order dismissing the complaint should be unity and development."
reversed. In Ministerio v. Court of First Instance of
Cebu, 40 SCRA 464, it was held that when the Section 5, Article XII of the Constitution reads: The
government takes property from a private State, subject to the provisions of this Constitution
landowner without prior expropriation andor national development policies and programs,
negotiated sale, the landowner may maintain shall a protect the rights of indigenous cultural
suit against the government without violating the communities to their ancestral lands to ensure
doctrine of government Immunity from suit. The their economic, social and cultural well-being.
government should be deemed to have waived
impliedly its immunity from suit. Otherwise, the
constitutional guarantee that private property shall The Congress may provide for the applicability of
not be taken for public use without just customary laws governing property rights or
compensation will be rendered nugatory. relations in determining the ownership and extent
of the ancestral domains."

State Principles & Policies (1994) Section 6, Art. XIII of the Constitution provides: The
No. 1; What is the state policy on: State shall apply the principles of AGRARIAN
a) working women? b) ecology? REFORM or stewardship, whenever applicable in
c) the symbols of statehood? d) accordance with law, in the disposition or utilization
cultural minorities? e) science and of other natural resources, including lands of the
technology? public domain under lease or concession suitable
to agriculture, subject to prior rights, homestead
rights of small settlers, and the rights of indigenous
SUGGESTED ANSWER: communities to their ancestral lands.
a) Section 14, Article XIII of the ConstitutionState Immunity vs. Waiver of Immunity (1997)
provides: "The State shall protect WORKING
WOMEN by providing safe and healthful workingNo, 6: It is said that "waiver of immunity by the
conditions, taking into account their maternalStateThe State
doesmay not mean
resettlea landless
concessionfarmers
of itsand
liability".
farm
functions, and such facilities and opportunitiesWhat
workersareinthe
itsimplications
own agricultural
of this
estates
phrase? which shall
that will enhance their welfare and enable them tobe distributed to them in the manner provided by
realize their full potential in the service of thelaw."SUGGESTED ANSWER:
nation." The phrase that waiver of immunity by the State
does not
Section 17.mean a concession
Article of liability means
XIV of the Constitution states:
b) Section 16, Article II of the Constitution"The that State
by consenting to be sued,
shall recognize, the and
respect Stateprotect
does not
provides: The State shall protect and advancethe necessarily admit it is liable.
rights of indigenous Ascommunities
cultural stated in to
Philippine
the right of the people and their posterity to apreserve andRock Industries,
develop Inc. vs. Board
their cultures, of
traditions,
balanced and healthful ECOLOGY in accord withand Liquidators, 180It SCRA
institutions. shall 171, in such a case the
the rhythm and harmony of nature." State is merely giving the plaintiff a chance to
consider these rights in the formulation of Section 12, Article XIV of the Constitution reads:
national plans and policies." The State shall regulate the transfer and promote
the adaptation of technology from all sources for
e) Section 17, Article II of the Constitution the national benefit. It shall encourage widest
provides: "The State shall give priority to participation of private groups, local governments,
EDUCATION, SCIENCE and TECHNOLOGY, and community-based organizations in the
ARTS, CULTURE, and SPORTS to foster generation and utilization of science and
patriotism and nationalism, accelerate social technology."
progress, and promote total human liberation and
development." NOTE: It is suggested that if an examinee gave a substantive
answer without giving the exact provisions of the Constitution,
then he should be given full credit. Further, one provision
Section 14, Article XII of the Constitution reads inquoted/discussed by the examinee should be sufficient for him
part: "The sustained development of a reservoir ofto be given full credit.
NATIONAL TALENTS consisting of Filipino
scientists, entrepreneurs, professionals,Transparency; Matters of Public Interest
managers, high-level technical manpower and (1989)
skilled workers and craftsmen shall be promotedNo. 3: Does the 1987 Constitution provide for a
by the State, The State shall encouragepolicy of transparency in matters of public
appropriate technology and regulate Its transferinterest? Explain.
for the national benefit. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the 1987 Constitution provides for a policy
Sub-section 2, Section 3. Article XIV of theof transparency in matters of public interest.
Constitution states: "They (EDUCATIONALSection 28, Article II of the 1987 Constitution
INSTITUTIONS) shall inculcate patriotism andprovides:
nationalism, foster love of humanity, respect 1"Subject
for to reasonable conditions prescribed by
law,
human rights, appreciation of the role of national the State adopts and implements a policy of full
heroes in the historical development of the disclosure of all its transactions involving public
interest,"
country, teach the rights and duties of citizenship,
strengthen ethical and spiritual values, develop Section 7, Article III of the 1987 Constitution states:
moral character and personal discipline, "The right of the people to information on matters of
encourage critical and creative thinking, broadenpublic concern shall be recognized, Access to
scientific and technological knowledge, and official records, and to documents, and papers
promote vocational efficiency." pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions,
as well as to government research data used as
basis for policy development, shall be afforded the
Section 10. Article XIV of the Constitution declares:
"SCIENCE and TECHNOLOGY are essentialcitizen, for subject to such limitations as may be
provided
national development and progress. The State shall by law."
give priority to research and development, Section 20, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution
reads:
invention, innovation, and their utilization; and to "The records and books of account of the
science and technology education, training, Congress shall be preserved and be open to the
public
services. It shall support indigenous, appropriate, in accordance with law, and such books shall
be audited
and self-reliant scientific and cultural capabilities, by the Commission on Audit which shall
and their application to the country's productivepublish annually an itemized list of amounts paid to
systems and national life." and expenses incurred for each member."
Under Section 17, Article XI of the 1987
Constitution, the sworn statement of assets,
liabilities and net worth of the President, the Vice-
Section 11, Article XIV of the Constitution provides:
"The Congress may provide for incentives, President, the Members of the Cabinet, the
including TAX DEDUCTIONS, to encourage Congress, the Supreme Court, the Constitutional
private participation in programs of basic Commission
and and other constitutional offices, and
officers of the
applied scientific research. Scholarships, grants-in-
aid or other forms of Incentives shall be provided to
deserving science students, researchers,
scientists, investors, technologists, and specially
gifted citizens."
armed forces with general or flag rank filed
upon their assumption of office shall be
disclosed to the public in the manner provided
by law.
5. "A public officer or employee shall, upon
1Section 21, Article XII of the Constitution declares:
assumption of office, and as often as thereafter
"Information on foreign loans obtained or guaranteed
may be required by law, submit a declaration under
by the government shall be made available to the oath of his assets, liabilities, and net worth. In the
public." case of the President, the Vice President, the
As held in Valmonte vs. Belmonte, G.R. No. 74930, Members of the Cabinet, the Congress, the
Feb. 13, 1989, these provisions on public disclosures
Supreme Court, the Constitutional Commissions
are intended to enhance the role of the citizenry and
in other constitutional offices, and officers of the
governmental decision-making as well as in checking
armed forces with general or flag rank, the
abuse in government. declaration shall be disclosed to the public in the
manner provided by law." (Section 17, Article XI)

6. "Information on foreign loans obtained or


guaranteed by the Government shall be made
Transparency; Matters of Public Interest available to the public." (Section 21 Article XII)
(2000)
No V. State at least three constitutional provisions As explained In Valmonte v. Belmonte,
reflecting the State policy on transparency in 170 SCRA 256 (1989), the purpose of the
matters of public interest. What is the purpose of policy is to protect the people from abuse
said policy? (5%) of governmental power. If access to
SUGGESTED ANSWER: information of public concern is denied,
The following are the constitutional provisions the postulate "public office is a public
reflecting the State policy on transparency in trust" would be mere empty words. {Note:
matters of public interest: The examinee should be given full credit if
1. "Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed he gives any three of the above-
by law, the State adopts and Implements a policy mentioned provisions.}
of full public disclosure of all its transactions
involving public interest." (Section 28, Article II)
ARTICLE III Bill of Rights
2. The right of the people to information on
matters of public concern shall be recognized. Bill of Attainder (1987)
Access to official records, and to documents, and No. XI: Congress passed a law relating to
papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or officials and employees who had served in the
decisions, as well as to government research data Government for the period from September 21,
used as basis for policy development, shall be 1972 up to February 25, 1986.
afforded to citizen, subject to such limitations as
may be provided by law." (Section 7, Article III) (a) One provision of the law declared all
officials from the rank of assistant head of a
department, bureau, office or agency "Unfit" for
3. The records and books of accounts of the continued service in the government and declared
Congress shall be preserved and be open to the their respective positions vacant.
public in accordance with law, and such books (b) Another provision required all the other
shall be audited by the Commission on Audit officials and employees to take an oath of loyalty
which shall publish annually an itemized list of to the flag and government as a condition for
amounts paid to and expenses incurred for each their continued employment. Are the two
Member." (Section 20. Article VI) provisions valid? Why?

4. The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the


following powers, functions, and duties: XXX
XXX

(6) Publicize matters covered by its


investigation when circumstances so
warrant and with due prudence," (Section
12, Article XI)
be invoked because under the Freedom
Constitution such power can be exercised only by
the President and only up to February 25, 1987.
Since the law under question was presumably
passed after February 25, 1987 and by Congress,
it is unconstitutional.

(b) With respect to the provision requiring the


loyalty test, loyalty as a general rule is a relevant
consideration in assessing employees' fitness.
However, the requirement in this case is not a
general requirement but singles out "martial law"
employees and therefore is administered in a
discriminatory manner. Loyalty, therefore, while a
relevant consideration in other circumstances, is
being employed in this case for an unconstitutional
purpose.

Bill of Attainder (1990)


No. 1; Executive Orders Nos. 1 and 2 issued by
President Corazon C. Aquino created the
Presidential Commission on Good Government
(PCGG) and empowered it to sequester any
property shown prima facie to be ill-gotten wealth
of the late President Marcos, his relatives and
cronies. Executive Order No. 14 vests on the
Sandiganbayan jurisdiction to try hidden wealth
cases. On April 14, 1986, after an investigation,
the PCGG sequestered the assets of X
Corporation, Inc.
(1) X Corporation, Inc. claimed that President
Aquino, as President, could not lawfully issue
Executive Orders Nos. 1, 2 and 14, which have
the force of law, on the ground that legislation is
a function of Congress. Decide.

(2) Said corporation also questioned the


validity of the three executive orders on the
ground that they are bills of attainder and,
therefore, unconstitutional. Decide.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(1) Executive Orders Nos. 1, 2 and 14 were
issued in 1986. At that time President Corazon
Aquino exercised legislative power ....

(2) Executive Orders Nos. 1, 2 and 14 are not SUGGESTED ANSWER:


bills of attainder. A bill of attainder is a legislative (a) The law is a bill of attainder by which
act which inflicts punishment without judicial trial. Congress, by assuming judicial magistracy, in
Accordingly, it was held in Bataan Shipyards and effect declares all officials and employees during
Engineering company. Inc. v. Presidential martial law (September 21, 1972February 25,
Commission on Good Government, that 1986) as disloyal and, on this basis, removes
Executive Orders Nos. 1, 2 and 14 are not bills of some while subjecting others to a loyalty test.
attainder, because they do not inflict any
punishment. On the contrary, they expressly
provide that any judgment that the property With respect to the provision declaring positions
sequestered is ill-gotten wealth is to be made by vacant, even the power to reorganize can not
a court (the Sandiganbayan) only after trial.
1) No, the identification of Danny, a private valid under Section 5(b).Rule 113 of the Rules on
person, by an eyewitness during the line-up Custodial Criminal Investigation;
Procedure. According Extrajudicialto People Confession
vs.
cannot be excluded in evidence. In accordance(2001) Lamsing, 248 SCRA 471, the right to counsel
with the ruling in People vs. Hatton, 210 SCRA 1, No IX -not
does Rafael,
extend Carlos and Joseph
to police line-ups,were accused
because theyof
the accused is not entitled to be assisted by murder
are notbefore
part ofthe Regional
custodial Trial Court ofHowever,
investigations. Manila.
counsel during a police line-up, because it is notAccused
according Joseph
to People turned vs.state
Macan witness
238 SCRAagainst306, his
part of custodial investigation. co-accused
after the start Rafaelof custodial
and Carlos, investigation,
and was if the
accused was
accordingly not assisted
discharged fromby the counsel, any
information.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER; identification
Among of the accused
the evidence presented in by
a police line-up is
the prosecution
Yes, in United States v. Wade, 338 U.S. 218 inadmissible.
was an extrajudicial confession made by Joseph
(1967) and Gilbert v. California, 338 U.S. 263 during the custodial Investigation, implicating
(1967). it was held that on the basis of the Sixth, Custodial
Rafael and Carlos Investigation;
who, he said,Right together to withCounsel
him
rather than the Fifth Amendment (equivalent (Joseph),to(1988) committed the crime. The extrajudicial
Art. III, Sec. 14 (2) rather than Sec. 12(1)), the No. 15: Armando
confession was executed Salamanca,
without athenotorious
assistance police
of
police line-up is such a critical stage that it carries character, came under custodial investigation for
counsel.
"potential substantial prejudice" for which reasona robbery in Caloocan City. From the outset, the
the accused is entitled to the assistance ofpolice officers informed him of his right to remain
Counsel. Accused
silent, and Rafael
alsoand his Carlos
right tovehemently
have a counsel objected
of his
on the ground
choice, if hethat said afford
could extrajudicial
one or confession
if not, the
2) No. Danny cannot ask that his confession to awas inadmissible
government in evidence
would provide againsthim them.
with such
newspaper reporter should be excluded in counsel.
evidence. As held in People vs. Bernardo, 220
SCRA 31, such an admission was not madeRule on whether
He thanked the said
the police extrajudicialand
investigators, confession
declared
is admissible in evidence or
during a custodial interrogation but a voluntarythat he fully understands the rights enumerated to not. (5%)
statement made to the media. him, but that, he is voluntarily waiving them.
Claiming FIRST thatALTERNATIVE
he sincerely desires ANSWER: to atone for his
Custodial Investigation; Police Line-Up (1997)misdeeds, According he to People
gave avs.written Balisteros, 237 SCRA
statement on his
499 (1994), in
participation thetheconfession
crime under is admissible.
investigation. Under
No. 10: A, while on board a passenger jeep oneSection 12, Article III of the Constitution, the
night, was held up by a group of three teenagersconfession is inadmissible only against the one
who forcibly divested her of her watch, necklace Inwhotheconfessed.
course of Only the trial
the of one thewhosecriminal
rights case
werefor
and wallet containing P100.00. That done, the trio the samecanrobbery,
violated raise the the written
objection admission
as his right is of
jumped off the passenger jeep and fled. B, the Salamanca
personal. which he gave during the custodial
to SECOND ALTERNATIVE
jeep driver, and A complained to the police investigation, was presented as ANSWER;
the only evidence
whom they gave description of the culprits. According
of his guilt.toIfPeople
you were us. Jara, 144 SCRA
his counsel, what would
According to the jeep driver, he would be able to 516(1986),
you do? Explainthe confession
your answer. is inadmissible. If it is
identify the culprits if presented to him. Next SUGGESTED
inadmissible againstANSWER:
the one who confessed, with
morning A and B were summoned to the police Imore
would objectit to
reason it on be
should theinadmissible
ground that against the waiver
station where five persons were lined up before of the rights to silence and to counsel is void,
others.
them for identification. A and B positively identifiedhaving been made without the presence of
C and D as the culprits. After preliminary Custodial
counsel.Investigation;
(Art. III, sec. 12(1); Extrajudicial
People v. Galit, 135
investigation. C and D and one John Doe were Confession;
SCRA 465Police (1980).Line-UpThe waiver (1994)must also be in
charged with robbery in an information filed No. 10: An
writing, information
although for parricide might
this requirement was filed possibly
against them in court. C and D set up, in defense, against
have been Danny.compliedAfter the NBI withfound an eyewitness
in this case by
the illegality of their apprehension, arrest and to the commission
embodying the waiver of thein crime.
the written Danny was
confession. It
confinement based on the identification made placed should
of in a police
also be noted line-up
thatwhere
underhe was134,
Rule identified
sec. 3,
them by A and B at a police line-up at which they as
even theifone
thewho shot the victim.
extrajudicial confession After the line-up,
is valid, it is
were not assisted by counsel. How would you Danny made a confession
not a sufficient ground fortoconviction
a newspaper if it is not
resolve the issues raised by C and D? reporter
corroborated who interviewed
by evidencehim. 1) Candelicti.
of corpus Danny claim
that his identification by
the eyewitness be excluded on the ground
SUGGESTED ANSWER: thatCustodial
the line-upInvestigation;
was made without Rightbenefitto Counsel
The arguments of the accused are untenable. As (1993) of his counsel? 2) Can Danny claim that his
held in People vs. Acot, 232 SCRA 406, the confession
No. 17; In his be extrajudicial confession executed
warrantless arrest of accused robbers Immediately excluded
beforeon thethepolice
ground that he was
authorities, not Walangtakot
Jose
after their commission of the crime by police afforded
admitted killinghis his
"Miranda"
girlfriend rights?
in a fit of jealousy.
officers sent to look for them on the basis of the ThisSUGGESTED admission was ANSWER:
made after the following
information related by the victims is answer and question to wit:
T -Ikaw ay may karapatan pa rin kumuha ng SUGGESTED ANSWER:
serbisyo ng isang abogado para makatulong The confession of Ramos is not admissible, since
mo sa imbestigasyong ito at kung wala kang
the counsel assigned to him did not advise him of
makuha, ikaw ay aming bibigyan ng libreng
abogado, ano ngayon ang iyong masasabi?" "S his rights. The fact that his confession was taken
- Nandiyan naman po si Fiscal (point to before the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution is of
Assistant Fiscal Aniceto Malaputo) kaya hindino moment. Even prior to the effectivity of the
ko na kinakailanganang abogado." 1987 Constitution, the Supreme Court already
laid down strict rules on waiver of the rights
During the trial. Jose Walangtakot repudiated his during investigation in the case of People v. Galit,
confession contending that it was made without 135 SCRA 465 (1985).
the assistance of counsel and therefore
Inadmissible in evidence. Decide.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Custodial Investigation; Right to Counsel;
The confession of Jose Walangtakot isReceipt of Property Seized (2002)
inadmissible in evidence. The warning given No to VIII. One day a passenger bus conductor found
him is insufficient in accordance with the ruling ainman's handbag left in the bus. When the
People v. Duero, 104 SCRA 379, he should have conductor opened the bag, he found inside a
been warned also that he has the right to remain catling card with the owner's name (Dante Galang)
silent and that any statement he makes may be and address, a few hundred peso bills, and a small
used as evidence against him. Besides, under Art. plastic bag containing a white powdery substance.
III, Sec. 12(1) of the Constitution, the counsel He brought the powdery substance to the National
assisting a person being investigated must be Bureau of Investigation for laboratory examination
independent. Assistant Fiscal Aniceto Malaputo and it was determined to be methamphetamine
could not assist Jose Walangtakot. As held hydrochloride
in or shabu, a prohibited drug. Dante
People v. Viduya, 189 SCRA 403, his function Galangis was subsequently traced and found and
to prosecute criminal cases. To allow him to act as
brought to the NBI Office where he admitted
defense counsel during custodial investigations ownership of the handbag and its contents. In the
would render nugatory the constitutional rights course
of of the interrogation by NBI agents, and
the accused during custodial investigation. What without the presence and assistance of counsel,
the Constitution requires is a counsel who will Galang was made to sign a receipt for the plastic
effectively undertake the defense of his client bag and its shabu contents. Galang was charged
without any conflict of interest. The answer with of illegal possession of prohibited drugs and was
Jose Walangtakot indicates that he did not fully convicted. On appeal he contends that -
understand his rights. Hence, it cannot be said
that he knowingly and intelligently waived those
rights.
A. The plastic bag and its contents are
inadmissible in evidence being the product of an
Custodial Investigation; Right to Counselillegal search and seizure; (3%) and
(2000) B. The receipt he signed is also
No XI. On October 1, 1985, Ramos was arrested inadmissible as his rights under custodial
by a security guard because he appeared to be investigation were not observed. (2%)
"suspicious" and brought to a police precinct Decide the case with reasons.
where in the course of the investigation he SUGGESTED ANSWER:
admitted he was the killer in an unsolved A. It is admissible...
homicide committed a week earlier. TheB. The receipt which Galang signed without the
proceedings of his investigation were put inassistance of counsel is not admissible in
writing and dated October 1, 1985, and the onlyevidence. As held in People v. Castro, 274 SCRA
participation of counsel assigned to him was his115 {1997), since the receipt is a document
mere presence and signature on the statement.admitting the offense charged, Galang should
The admissibility of the statement of Ramos washave been assisted by counsel as required by
placed in issue but the prosecution claims thatArticle III, Section 11 of the Constitution.
the confession was taken on October 1, 1985 and
the 1987 Constitution providing for the right to
counsel of choice and opportunity to retain, took Custodial Investigation; Police Line-up (1993)
effect only on February 2, 1987 and cannot be
given retroactive effect. Rule on this. (3%) No. 9: Johann learned that the police were
looking for him in connection with the rape of an
18-year old girl, a neighbor. He went to the police
station a week later and presented himself to the Boulevard, which is also owned by X. May
desk sergeant. Coincidentally, the rape victim they lawfully seize the said unlicensed
was in the premises executing an extrajudicial firearms? Explain your answer.
statement. Johann, along with six
(6) other suspects, were placed in a police lineup SUGGESTED ANSWER:
and the girl pointed to him as the rapist. Johann (1) Yes, the police operatives may lawfully seize
was arrested and locked up in a cell. Johann was the cocaine, ....
charged with rape in court but prior to
arraignment invoked his right to preliminary (2) No, X cannot successfully challenge the
investigation. This was denied by the judge, and legality of the search simply because the peace
thus, trial proceeded. After the prosecution officers did not inform him about his right to
presented several witnesses, Johann through remain silent and his right to counsel. Section
counsel, invoked the right to bail and filed a 12(1), Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides:
motion therefor, which was denied outright by the
Judge. Johann now files a petition for certiorari
before the Court of Appeals arguing that: 2) He
should have been informed of his right to be
represented by counsel prior to his identification
via the police line up. Decide.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
2} Pursuant to the decision in People us.
Castmillo. 213. SCRA 777, Johann need not be
informed of his right to counsel prior to his
identification during the police line-up. The police
line-up is not part of custodial investigation, since
Johann was not being questioned but was merely
being asked to exhibit his body for identification by
a witness.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER
It may be argued that in United States vs. Wade.
388 U.S. 218 (1967) and Gilbert vs. California.
388 U.S. 263 (1967) It was held that on the basis
of the Sixth, rather than the Fifth Amendment
(equivalent to Art. III. sec. 14 (2) rather than sec.
12 (1)), the police lineup is such a "critical stage"
that it carries "potential substantial prejudice" for
which reason the accused is entitled to the
assistance of counsel.

Custodial Investigation; Rights (1990)


No. 9; Some police operatives, acting under a
lawfully issued warrant for the purpose of
searching for firearms in the House of X located at
No. 10 Shaw Boulevard, Pasig, Metro Manila,
found, instead of firearms, ten kilograms of
cocaine.
(1) May the said police operatives lawfully
seize the cocaine? Explain your answer.
(2) May X successfully challenge the legality
of the search on the ground that the peace
officers did not inform him about his right to
remain silent and his right to counsel? Explain
your answer.
(3) Suppose the peace officers were able to
find unlicensed firearms in the house in an
adjacent lot, that is. No, 12 Shaw
2) Neither is the receipt he signed admissible, passing motor vehicles. A 19-year old boy, who
his rights under custodial investigation not finished fifth grade, while driving, was stopped by
having been observed. Decide. SUGGESTED the authorities at the checkpoint. Without any
ANSWER: On the assumption that the issues objection from him, his car was inspected, and
were timely raised the answers are as follows: 1) the search yielded marijuana leaves hidden in the
The packages are admissible in evidence. ... trunk compartment of the car. The prohibited drug
was promptly seized, and the boy was brought to
the police station for questioning.
2) The receipt is not admissible in evidence.
According to the ruling in People vs. Mirantes, (1) Was the search without warrant legal?
209 SCRA 179, such receipt is in effect an (2) Before interrogation, the policeman on duty
extrajudicial confession of the commission of an informed the boy in English that he does "have a
offense. Hence, if it was signed without the right to remain silent and the right to counsel."
assistance of counsel, in accordance with Section However, there was no counsel available as it
12(3), Article IV of the Constitution, it is was midnight. "Any person under investigation
He declared orally that hefor didthe
not
inadmissible in evidence. [People v. Duhan, 142 need any commission
lawyer as of hean
wasoffense
innocent,
shallsince
havehe the
SCRA 100 (1986)]. was only right
bringing
to be informed
the marijuana
of hisleaves
right totoremain
his
employer in Quezon
silent and to haveCity and was notand
competent a drug
Custodial Investigation; Rights (1996) user. He was charged
independent with illegal
counsel possession
preferably of his of
No. 3: 1) A, who was arrested as a suspect in aprohibited drugs.
own choice." Is his waiver of the right to
murder case was not represented by counselcounsel valid?
during the "question and answer" stage. However, As held in People v. Dy, 158 SCRA 111. for this
before he was asked to sign his statements to the provisionSUGGESTED
to apply, a ANSWER:
suspect must be under
(1) No,
police investigator, the latter provided A with investigation.
a the search
There was no notinvestigation
valid, because there
involved
counsel, who happened to be at the police inwasthis no probable cause ....
case.
station. After conferring with A, the counsel told
the police investigator that A was ready to sign(2) (3)No,
Thethe
unlicensed
waiver offirearms
the rightstored
to counselat 12isShaw
not
the statements. valid,
Boulevard
since may
it waslawfully
not reduced
be seized
in writing
... and
made in the presence of counsel. Under Section
Can the statements of A be presented in court 12(1), Custodial Investigation;
Article III of the 1987Rights (1993)to be
Constitution
as his confession? Explain. No. 4: Larry
valid, was anmust
the waiver overnight
be madeguest in a motel.
in writing and in
SUGGESTED ANSWER: After
the he checked
presence ofout the following day, the
counsel.
1) No, the statements of A cannot be presentedchambermaid
in found an attache case which she
court as his confession. He was not assisted surmised
by was left behind by Larry. She turned it
counsel during the actual questioning. There isover
no to the manager who, to determine the name
showing that the lawyer who belatedly conferred and address of the owner, opened the attache case
with him fully explained to him the nature and and saw packages which had a peculiar smell and
consequences of his confession. In People upon vs. squeezing felt like dried leaves. His curiosity
Compil 244 SCRA 135, the Supreme Court held aroused, the manager made an opening on one of
that the accused must be assisted by counsel the packages and took several grams of the
during the actual questioning and the belated contents thereof. He took the packages to the NBI,
assistance of counsel before he signed and the in the presence of agents, opened the
confession does not cure the defect. packages, the contents of which upon laboratory
examination, turned out to be marijuana flowering
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: tops, Larry was subsequently found, brought to the
Yes, the statements of A can be presented in NBI Office where he admitted ownership of the
court as his confession. As held in People vs. attache case and the packages. He was made to
Rous, 242 SCRA 732, even if the accused was sign a receipt for the packages. Larry was charged
not assisted by counsel during the questioning, in court for possession of prohibited drugs. He was
his confession is admissible if he was able to convicted. On appeal, he now poses the following
consult a lawyer before he signed. issues: 1) The packages are inadmissible in
evidence
Custodial Investigation; Rights (1989)
No. 7: Pursuing reports that great quantities of
prohibited drugs are being smuggled at nighttime
being the product of an illegal search and
through the shores of Cavite, the Southern Luzon seizure;
Command set up checkpoints at the end of the
Cavite coastal road to search
and makes violation of the prohibition a crime crime falling under the chapter on criminal
punishable by a fine of P2,000.00 to P100,000.00 negligence, while abandonment of one's victim is
and/or imprisonment of not less than 6 months nora crime falling under the chapter on crimes
more than 10 years. If aliens are arrested for against security. The former is committed by
fishing within this zone but for some reason are means of culpa, while the latter is committed by
acquitted, the decision against them cannot be means of dolo. Failure to help one's victim is not
appealed to the Court of Appeals because that an offense by itself nor an element of reckless
would place them in double jeopardy. This is so imprudence. It merely Increases the penalty by
well established that the Supreme Court turned one degree.
down many pleas for re-examination of the
doctrine first announced in Kepner v. United Double Jeopardy (1997)
States. 11 Phil. 669 (1904). The doctrine is said to No. 2: The Sangguniang Panlungsod of Manila
be part and parcel not only of settled approved an ordinance (No. 1000) prohibiting the
jurisprudence but also of constitutional law. Nor operation in the streets within the city limits of
does it matter that the accused are aliens. This taxicab units over eight years old (from year of
guarantee has been applied even to aliens without manufacture). The imposable penalty for violation
thought of their citizenship. (See e.g., People v. Ang Chio thereof is a fine of P4,000.00 or imprisonment for
Kio, 95 Phil. 475 one year upon the erring operator. Thereafter and
(1954) (Chinese previously convicted of murder); People v.while the city ordinance was already in effect.
Pomeroy, 97 Phil 927 (1955) ( American previously convicted of
rebellion with murder, arson and robbery).
Congress enacted a law (Republic Act No. 500)
prohibiting the operation in the streets of cities
Double Jeopardy (1993) throughout the country of taxicab units beyond ten
No. 13: A Pajero driven by Joe sideswiped years a old. The imposable penalty for violation
motorcycle driven by Nelson resulting in damage thereof is the same as in Ordinance No. 1000. A,
to the motorcycle and injuries to Nelson. Joe sped an owner/operator of a taxicab unit operating in
on without giving assistance to Nelson. The Fiscal the City of Manila, was charged with violation of
filed two informations against Joe, to wit: (1) the city ordinance. Upon arraignment, he pleaded
reckless imprudence resulting in damage to not guilty; whereupon, trial was set five days
property with physical injuries under Art. 365, thereafter. For failure of the witnesses to appear at
RPC, before the RTC; and (2) abandonment of the trial, the City Court dismissed the case against
one's victim under par. 2 Art 275, before the MTC. A. The City Prosecutor of Manila forthwith filed
another information in the same court charging A
Double of
with violation Jeopardy
Republic(1988)Act No. 500 for operating
Joe was arraigned, tried and convicted for No. 21: Theunit
the taxicab Filipino
subjectseamen detained at inKota
of the information the
abandonment of one's victim in the MTC. He Kinabalu,
first case. allegedly
The fishing
accused in
moved Malaysian
to territorial
dismiss the
appealed to the RTC. It was only a year later that waters,
second hadcase been acquitted,
against him after
invokingtrial, by the
double
he was arraigned in the reckless imprudence sessions
Jeopardy.court in the same city. They could not be
charge before the RTC. He pleaded not guilty. released and returned to the Philippines, because
the prosecution had appealed the judgment of
acquittal to the Supreme Court of Malaysia.
Subsequently, the RTC affirmed the decision ofHow would you rule on A's motion if you were
the MTC relative to the abandonment of one'sthe Judge?
victim charge. Joe filed a petition for review beforeAssume SUGGESTED
the situations ANSWER:had been reversed and a
the Court of Appeals, invoking his right to double If I were
Malaysian thehadjudge,
been I would grant the
apprehended in motion.
Shasi, Sulu, The
Jeopardy, contending that the prosecution for dismissal
for an of
allegedthe first
offense, case for
charged failure
before of the
abandonment under Art. 275 of the Revised Penal witnesses
Regional to appear
Trial Court terminated
and after the
trial first
acquitted.jeopardy.
Code is a bar to the prosecution for negligence As held in Caes vs. Intermediate Appellate Court,
under Article 365 of the same Code. Decide. MaySCRA
179 the Provincial Fiscal ofofSulu
54, the dismissal a case appeal such
for failure
ofjudgment of acquittal
the witnesses for theto the Supreme Court,
prosecution to appear like
SUGGESTED ANSWER: what the
constitutes Malaysians
an acquittal. did
The in the case
acquittal of of
A the
for
Joe cannot claim that his conviction for Filipino
violation fishermen
of at
Ordinance Kota Kinabalu?
No. 1000 Explain
bars your
his
abandoning his victim in violation of Article 275 ofprosecution answer. for violation of Republic Act No. 500.
the Revised Penal Code is a bar to his Under SUGGESTED
Section ANSWER:
21, Article in of the Constitution, if
prosecution for negligence under Article 365 of No,
an because
act is it
punished would byplace
a lawtheandaccused in
an ordinance,
the Revised Penal Code. As held in Lamera v. double
conviction jeopardy,
or contrary
acquittal underto Art. III,
either sec.
bars 21 of
another
Court of Appeals, 198 SCRA 186, there is no our Constitution.
prosecution for thePDsameNo. 1599
act. prohibits any
double jeopardy, because these two offenses are person not a citizen to explore or exploit any of
not identical. Reckless imprudence is a ALTERNATIVE
the resources ANSWER:
of the exclusive economic zone
If I were the judge, I would deny the motion. The the offended party. How would you resolve
dismissal of the first case is void and does not Gerald's contentions? Explain. (4%)
give rise to double jeopardy. The dismissal of the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
first case is arbitrary and denied the prosecutionGeralde cannot invoke double jeopardy. According
due process of law. The trial was set five daysto Perez v. Court of Appeals, 168 SCRA 236,
after the arraignment. There was no sufficientthere is no identity between consented abduction
time to subpoena the witnesses and this was theand qualified seduction.
first time the witnesses failed to appear. As held
in People vs. Declaro 170 SCRA 142, theCONSENTED ABDUCTION requires that the
dismissal of a case for failure of the witnesses totaking away of the offended party must be with
appear at the initial hearing is arbitrary and voidher consent, after solicitation or cajolery from the
and does not give rise to double jeopardy. offender, and the taking away of the offended
party must be with lewd designs. On the other
hand, QUALIFIED SEDUCTION requires that the
Double Jeopardy (1999) crime be committed by abuse of authority,
A. Discuss the right of every accused againstconfidence or relationship and the offender had
double jeopardy? (2%) sexual intercourse with the woman.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
According to Melo v. People, 85 Phil. 766, the
rule of double jeopardy means that when a The delay in filing the second case does not
person was charged with an offense and the constitute pardon, according to Article 344 of the
case was terminated by acquittal or conviction or Revised Penal Code, to be valid the pardon of
in any other manner without his consent, he the offender by the offended party must be
cannot again be charged with the same or expressly given.
identical offense.
Double Jeopardy (2000)
Double Jeopardy (1999) No XV. Charged by Francisco with libel, Pablo
C. On October 21, 1986, 17 year old Virginia was arraigned on January 3, 2000, Pre-trial was
Sagrado brought a complaint against Martin dispensed with and continuous trial was set for
Geralde for consented abduction. With the March 7, 8 and 9, 2000. On the first setting, the
accused pleading not guilty upon arraignment, prosecution moved for its postponement and
trial ensued. After trial, a judgment of conviction cancellation of the other settings because its
was rendered against Geralde. When the case principal and probably only witness, the private
was appealed to it, the Court of Appeals reversedcomplainant Francisco, suddenly had to go
the judgment of the Trial Court, ratiocinating and abroad to fulfill a professional commitment. The
ruling as follows: "This is not to say that the judge instead dismissed the case for failure to
appellant did nothing wrong...she was seduced byprosecute. b) Would the reversal of the trial
the appellant with promises (of marriage) just to court's assailed dismissal of the case place the
accomplish his lewd designs." Years later, Virginiaaccused in double jeopardy? (3%)
brought another complaint for Qualified Seduction.
Geralde presented a Motion to Quash on the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
ground of double jeopardy, which motion and his b) Since the postponement of the case would not
subsequent motion for reconsideration were violate the right of the accused to speedy trial,
denied: Question: May Geralde validly invoke the precipitate dismissal of the case is void. The
double jeopardy in questioning the institution of reversal of the dismissal will not place the
the case for Qualified Seduction? He placed accused in double Jeopardy.
reliance principally on the "same evidence" test to ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
support his stance. He asserted that the offenses b) Since the dismissal of the case is valid, its
with which he was charged arose from the same reversal will place the accused in double
set of facts. Furthermore, he averted that the jeopardy.
complaint for Qualified Seduction is barred by
waiver and estoppel on the part of the Double Jeopardy (2001)
complainant, she having opted to consider the No X - For the death of Joey, Erning was
case as consented abduction. Finally, he argued charged with the crime of homicide before the
that her delay of more than eight (8) years before Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela. He was
filing the second case against him constituted arraigned. Due to numerous postponements of
pardon on the part of the scheduled hearings at the instance of the
prosecution, particularly based on the ground of
unavailability of prosecution witnesses who couldan ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either
not be found or located, the criminal case was shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for
pending trial for a period of seven years. Upon the same act. In this case, the same act is
motion of accused Erning who invoked his right toinvolved in the two cases. The reckless
speedy trial, the court dismissed the case. imprudence which resulted in physical injuries
arose from the same act of driving under the
influence of liquor. In Yap v. Lutero,
Eventually, the prosecution witnesses surfaced, G.R. No. L-12669, April 30, 1959, the Supreme
and a criminal case for homicide, involving the Court held that an accused who was acquitted of
same incident was filed anew against Erning. driving recklessly in violation of an ordinance
Accused Erning moved for dismissal of the case could not be prosecuted for damage to property
on the ground of double jeopardy. The through reckless imprudence because the two
prosecution objected, submitting the reason that itcharges were based on the same act. In People
was not able to present the said witnesses earlier v, Relova, 148 SCRA 292 (1987), it was held that
because the latter went into hiding out of fear. when there is identity in the act punished by a
Resolve the motion. (5%) law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal
SUGGESTED ANSWER: under either shall bar prosecution under the
The motion should be granted. As held in Caes other.
us. Intermediate Appellate Court, 179 SCRA 54 SECOND ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
(1989), the dismissal of a criminal case There is no double jeopardy because the act
predicated on the right of the accused to a penalized under the Revised Penal Code is
speedy trial amounts to an acquittal for failure of different from the act penalized by the ordinance
the prosecution to prove his guilt and bars his of Makati City. The Revised Penal Code penalizes
subsequent prosecution for the same offense. reckless imprudence resulting in physical injuries,
while the ordinance of Makati City penalizes
Double Jeopardy (2002) driving under the influence of liquor.
No IX. A Tamaraw FX driven by Asiong
Cascasero, who was drunk, sideswiped a
pedestrian along EDSA in Makati City, resulting in Double Jeopardy; Requisites (1999)
physical injuries to the latter. The public B. What are the requisites of double jeopardy?
prosecutor filed two separate informations against (2%)
Cascasero, the first for reckless imprudence SUGGESTED ANSWER:
resulting in physical injuries under the Revised As held in Cuison v. Court of Appeals, 289
Penal Code, and the second for violation of an SCRA 159, for a claim of double jeopardy to
ordinance of Makati City prohibiting and prosper, the following requisites must concur:
penalizing driving under the influence of liquor. (1) a first jeopardy has attached;
Cascasero was arraigned, tried and convicted for (2) the first jeopardy was validly terminated; and
reckless imprudence resulting in physical injuries (3) the second is for the same offense.
under the Revised Penal Code. With regard to the
second case (i.e., violation of the city ordinance),
upon being arraigned, he filed a motion to quash A first jeopardy attaches:
the information invoking his right against double 1upon a valid complaint or information;
jeopardy. He contended that, under Art. III, before a competent court;
Section 21 of the Constitution, if an act is after arraignment;
punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction ora valid entry of plea; and
acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to the dismissal or termination of the case without
another prosecution for the same act He argued the express consent of the accused.
that the two criminal charges against him
stemmed from the same act of driving allegedly
under the influence of liquor which caused the
accident. Was there double jeopardy? Explain
your answer (5%)

FIRST ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:


Yes, there is double jeopardy. Under the second
sentence of Article III, Section 21 of the
Constitution, if an act is punished by a law and
him, and a re-investigation was conducted. The received the evidence, in violation of the "He who
office of the Fiscal subsequently recommended decides must hear" rule. Is he correct? 2) On the
dismissal. On January 11, 1966, the City Mayor ground that there was a violation of due process
returned the records of the case to the City Fiscalbecause the complainants, the prosecutor and the
for the submission of an appropriate resolution hearing officers were all subordinates of the BID
but no resolution was submitted. On March 3, Commissioners who rendered the deportation
1968, the City Fiscal transmitted the records to decision. Is he correct?
the City Mayor recommending that final action
thereon be made by the City Board of SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Investigators (CBI). Although the CBI did not 1) No, Stevie is not correct. As held in Adamson
conduct an investigation, the records show that A Adamson, Inc. vs. Amores, 152 SCRA 237,
both the Municipal Board and the Fiscal's Office administrative due process does not require that
exhaustively heard the case with both parties the actual taking of testimony or the presentation
afforded ample opportunity to adduce their of evidence before the same officer who will
evidence and argue their cause. The Police decide the case.
Commission found Gatdula guilty on the basis of
the records forwarded by the CBI. Gatdula In American Tobacco Co. v. Director of Patents,
challenged the adverse decision of the Police 67 SCRA 287, the Supreme Court has ruled that
Commission theorizing that he was deprived of so long as the actual decision on the merits of the
due process. Questions: Is the Police cases is made by the officer authorized by law to
Commission bound by the findings of the City decide, the power to hold a hearing on the basis of
Fiscal? Is Gatdula's protestation of lack or non- which his decision will be made can be delegated
observance of due process well-grounded? and is not offensive to due process. The Court
Explain your answers. (4%) noted that: "As long as a party is not deprived of
SUGGESTED ANSWER: his right to present his own case and submit
The Police Commission is not bound by the evidence in support thereof, and the decision is
findings of the City Fiscal. In Mangubat v. de supported by the evidence in the record, there is
Castro, 163 SCRA 608, it was held that the Police no question that the requirements of due process
Commission is not prohibited from making its own and fair trial are fully met. In short, there is no
findings on the basis of its own evaluation of the abrogation of responsibility on the part of the
records. Likewise, the protestation of lack of dueofficer concerned as the actual decision remains
process is not well-grounded, since the hearingswith and is made by said officer. It is, however,
before the Municipal Board and the City Fiscal required that to give the substance of a hearing,
offered Gatdula the chance to be heard. There iswhich is for the purpose of making determinations
no denial of due process if the decision was upon evidence the officer who makes the
rendered on the basis of evidence contained in determinations must consider and appraise the
the record and disclosed to the parties affected. evidence which justifies them.

Due Process; Deportation (1994) 2) No, Stevie was not denied due process simply
No. 9: A complaint was filed by Intelligence agents
because the complainants, the prosecutor, and the
of the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID)hearing officers were all subordinates of the
against Stevie, a German national, for his Commissioner of the Bureau of Immigration and
deportation as an undesirable alien. The Deportation. In accordance with the ruling in
Immigration Commissioner directed the Special Erianger & Galinger, Inc. vs. Court of Industrial
Board of Inquiry to conduct an Investigation. At the
Relations, 110 Phil. 470, the findings of the
said Investigation, a lawyer from the Legal subordinates are not conclusive upon the
Department of the BID presented as witnesses the Due Process; Absence
Commissioners, who have ofthe
Denial (1999)to accept
discretion
three Intelligence agents who filed the complaint.or
Noreject
VIII - them.
B. On Aprilis6,important
What 1963, Police Officer
is that StevieMario
was
On the basis of the findings, report and Gatdula
not was charged
deprived of his rightby the Mayor with
to present his Grave
own case
recommendation of the Board of Special Inquiry,andMisconduct
submitand Violationinof Law
evidence before
support the
thereof, the
the BID Commissioners unanimously voted for decision
MunicipalisBoard. The by
supported Board investigated
substantial Gatdula
evidence, and
Stevie's deportation. Stevie's lawyer questioned the
but
the commissioners
before the caseactedcouldon be their
decided,
own the City
independent
deportation order 1) On the ground that Stevie wascharter was approved.
consideration of the lawThe andCityfactsFiscal,
of theciting
case, and
denied due process because the BID Section
did not30simply
of the city charter,the
accept asserted
viewsthatofhe their
was
Commissioners who rendered the decision weresubordinates
authorized thereunder
in arrivingtoatinvestigate
a decision.city officers
not the ones who and employees. The case against Gatdula was
then forwarded to
Due Process; Forfeiture Proceedings (1993) the proceedings, and in the last analysis to avoid
No. 14: The S/S "Masoy" of Panamanian registry,a miscarriage of justice.
while moored at the South Harbor, was found to
have contraband goods on board. The Customs Due Process; Meeting vs. Hearing (1999)
Team found out that the vessel did not have the No VIII - C. On November 7, 1990, nine lawyers of
required ship's permit and shipping documents. the Legal Department of Y Bank who were all
The vessel and its cargo were held and a warrant under Fred Torre, sent a complaint to
of Seizure and Detention was issued after due management accusing Torre of abusive conduct
investigation. In the course of the forfeiture and mismanagement. Furnished with a copy of
proceedings, the ship captain and the ship's the complaint, Torre denied the charges. Two
resident agent executed sworn statements before days later, the lawyers and Torre were called to a
the Custom legal officer admitting that contraband conference in the office of the Board Chairman to
cargo were found aboard the vessel. The give their respective sides of the controversy.
shipping lines object to the admission of the However, no agreement was reached thereat.
statements as evidence contending that during Bank Director Romulo Moret was tasked to look
their execution, the captain and the shipping further into the matter. He met with the lawyers
agent were not assisted by counsel, in violation of together with Torre several times but to no avail.
due process. Decide. Moret then submitted a report sustaining the
charges of the lawyers. The Board Chairman
SUGGESTED ANSWER: wrote Torre to inform him that the bank had
The admission of the statements of the captainchosen the compassionate option of "waiting" for
and the shipping agent as evidence did notTorre's resignation. Torre was asked, without
violate due process even if they were notbeing dismissed, to turn over the documents of all
assisted by counsel. In Feeder International Line,cases handled by him to another official of the
Pts. Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, 197 SCRA 842, Itbank but Torre refused to resign and requested for
was held that the assistance of counsel is nota "full hearing". Days later, he reiterated his
indispensable to due process in forfeiturerequest for a "full hearing", claiming that he had
proceedings since such proceedings are notbeen "constructively dismissed". Moret assured
criminal in nature. Torre that he is "free to remain in the employ of
the bank" even if he has no particular work
Moreover, the strict rules of evidence and assignment. After another request for a "full
procedure will not apply in administrative hearing" was ignored, Torre filed a complaint with
proceedings like seizure and forfeiture
the arbitration branch of NLRC for illegal
proceedings. What is important is that the parties dismissal. Reacting thereto, the bank terminated
are afforded the opportunity to be heard and the the services of Torre. Questions: (a) Was Torre
decision of the administrative authority is based "constructively
on dismissed" before he filed his
substantial evidence. complaint? (b) Given the multiple meetings held
among the bank officials, the lawyers and Torre, is
Due Process; Media Coverage during Hearing it correct for him to say that he was not given an
(1996) opportunity to be heard? Explain your answers.
No 2: At the trial of a rape case where the victim- (4%)
complainant was a well known personality while
the accused was a popular movie star, a TV station
was allowed by the trial judge to televise the entire SUGGESTED ANSWER:
proceedings like the a) Torre was constructively dismissed, as held in
O.J. Simpson trial. The accused objected to the Equitable Banking Corporation v. National Labor
TV coverage and petitioned the Supreme Court Relations Commission, 273 SCRA 352. Allowing
to prohibit the said coverage. As the Supreme an employee to report for work without being
Court, how would you rule on the petition? assigned any work constitutes constructive
Explain. dismissal.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The Supreme Court should grant the petition. In b) Torre is correct in saying that he was not given
its Resolution dated October 22, 1991, the the chance to be heard. The meetings in the
Supreme Court prohibited live radio and televisionnature of consultations and conferences cannot
coverage of court proceedings to protect the right be considered as valid substitutes for the proper
of the parties to due process, to prevent the observance of notice and hearing.
distraction of the participants in
Due Process; Notice by Publication (1988)
No. 9: Macabebe, Pampanga has several barrios
along the Pampanga river. To service the needs
of their residentst the municipality has been
operating a ferry service at the same river, for a
number of years already.

Sometime in 1987, the municipality was served a


copy of an order from the Land Tansportation
Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB),
granting a certificate of public convenience to Mr.
Ricardo Macapinlac, a resident of Macabebe, to
operate ferry service across the same river and
between the same barrios being serviced
presently by the municipality's ferry boats. A check
of the records of the application of Macapinlac
shows that the application was filed some months
before, set for hearing, and notices of such
hearing were published in two newspapers of
general circulation in the town of Macabebe, and
in the province of Pampanga. The municipality had
never been directly served a copy of that notice of
hearing nor had the Sangguniang Bayan been
requested by Macapinlac for any operate. The
municipality immediately filed a motion for
reconsideration with the LTFRB which was denied.
It went to the Supreme Court on a petition for
certiorari to nullify the order granting a certificate
of public convenience to Macapinlac on two
grounds:
1Denial of due process to the municipality;
For failure of Macapinlac to secure approval of the
Sangguniang Bayan for him to operate a ferry service
in Macabebe,

Resolve the two points in the petition with


reasons.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The petition for certiorari should be granted,
1. As a party directly affected by the operation of the
ferry service, the Municipality of Macabebe,
Pampanga was entitled to be directly notified by the
LTFRB of its proceedings relative to Macapinlac's
application, even if the Municipality had not notified
the LTFRB of the existence of the municipal ferry
service. Notice by publication was not enough.
(Municipality of Echague v. Abellera, 146 SCRA 180
(1986)).

2. Where a ferry operation lies entirely within the


municipality, the prior approval of the Municipal
government is necessary. ....
dependent on the evaluation after the licenses haveNo, it is not a property right under the due
been cancelled. The issuance of the administrative process clause of the Constitution. Just like
order also violated procedural due process, since ordinary licenses in other regulated fields, it may
no prior public hearing was conducted. As hold in be revoked any time. It does not confer an
Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Court of absolute right, but only a personal privilege,
Appeals, 261 SCRA 237 (1998), when a regulation subject to restrictions. A licensee takes his
is being issued under the quasi-legislative authority
license subject to such conditions as the
of an administrative agency, the requirements of Legislature sees fit to impose, and may be
notice, hearing and publication must be observed.revoked at its pleasure without depriving the
licensee of any property (Chavez v. Romulo,
G.R. No. 157036, June 9, 2004).

Due Process; Procedural vs. Substantive Due Process; PPA-Pilots (2001)


(1999) No XIII - The Philippine Ports Authority (PPA)
No VIII - A. Give examples of acts of the stateGeneral Manager issued an administrative order to
which infringe the due process clause: the effect that all existing regular appointments to
1. in its substantive aspect and (1%) harbor pilot positions shall remain valid only up to
2. in its procedural aspect? (1%) December 31 of the current year and that
henceforth all appointments to harbor pilot
positions shall be only for a term of one year from
date of effectivity, subject to yearly renewal or
cancellation by the PPA after conduct of a rigid
evaluation of performance. Pilotage as a
profession may be practiced only by duly licensed
individuals, who have to pass five government
professional examinations.

The Harbor Pilot Association challenged the


validity of said administrative order arguing that it
violated the harbor pilots' right to exercise their
profession and their right to due process of law
and that the said administrative order was issued
without prior notice and hearing. The PPA
countered that the administrative order was valid
as it was issued in the exercise of its
administrative control and supervision over
harbor pilots under PPA's legislative charter, and
that in issuing the order as a rule or regulation, it
was performing its executive or legislative, and
not a quasi-Judicial function.

Due process of law is classified into two kinds,


namely, procedural due process and substantive
due process of law. Was there, or, was there no
violation of the harbor pilots' right to exercise their
profession and their right to due process of law?
(5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The right of the harbor pilots to due process was
violated. Am held in Corona vs. United Harbor
Pilots Association of the Philippines, 283 SCRA
Due Process; Permit to Carry Firearm Outside 31 (1997) pilotage as a profession is a property
Residence (Q6-2006) right protected by the guarantee of due process.
3. Does a Permit to Carry Firearm OutsideThe pre-evaluation cancellation of the licenses of
Residence (PTCFOR) constitute a property rightthe harbor pilots every year is unreasonable and
protected by the Constitution? (2.5%) violated their right to substantive due process.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The renewal is
it is tainted with deprivation of procedural due issued
defense after
presented
appropriate in hisnotice
behalfand willhearing
be inadequate
to
process. affected
considering parties.
the legal
The ruling
requisitein Philippine
and skill needed in
Communications
court proceedings. Satellite
There Corporation
would certainly vs. be
Alcuaz,
a
Due Process; Radio Station (1987) 180
denialSCRA of due218, process.
to the effect
(Delgado that an order
No. XIV: In the morning of August 28, 1987, v. provisionally Court of Appeals, reducing 145 the
SCRA rates 357 which
(1986)).a public
during the height of the fighting at Channel 4 andutility could charge, could be issued without
Camelot Hotel, the military closed Radio Station previous Duenotice
Process; Substantive
and hearing, cannot (2003)
apply.
XX, which was excitedly reporting the successes 2003 No XII - The municipal council of the
of the rebels and movements towards Manila andmunicipality of Guagua, Pampanga, passed an
troops friendly to the rebels. The reports were Due Process;
ordinance Public School Teachers
penalizing any person (2002)or entity
correct and factual. On October 6, 1987, after No X - Ten
engaged in public school teachers
the business of sellingof tickets Caloocan to
normalcy had returned and the Government had movies City left or their otherclassrooms to join a strike,
public exhibitions, games whichor
full control of the situation, the National lasted for onewhich
performances month,would to ask charge for teachers'
children
Telecommunications Commission, without notice between benefits. 7 and 12 years of age the full price of
and hearing, but merely on the basis of the reportadmission tickets instead of only one-half of the
of the military, cancelled the franchise of station amount The Departmentthereof. Would of Education,
you hold Culture and Sports
the ordinance a
XX. Discuss the legality of: charged them administratively,
valid exercise of legislative power by the for which reason
they were required
municipality? Why? to answer and formally
SUGGESTED
(b) The cancellation ANSWER: of the franchise of the SUGGESTED
investigated by a ANSWER:
committee composed of the
1.) A law
station on October
violates 6, substantive
1987. due process when The ordinance
Division is void. As of
Superintendent held in Balacuit
Schools v. Court
as Chairman,
SUGGESTED
it is unreasonable ANSWER: or unduly oppressive. For ofthe FirstDivision
InstanceSupervisor
of Agusan del Norte.
as member and 163 SCRA a
The
example,cancellation of the franchise
Presidential Decree No. of the station
1717, on
which
182 [1988], the ordinance
teacher, as another member. On the basis of the is unreasonable. It
October
cancelled6,all 1987, without priorand
the mortgages notice
liensand of ahearing,
debtor,deprives
evidencetheadduced sellers ofatthethe tickets
formal of their property
investigation
is
was void.considered
As held in Eastern Broadcastingfor
unconstitutional Corp.being without
which due amply process. A tickettheir
established is a guilt,
property the right and
Director
(DYRE)
oppressive. v. Dans, 137 SCRA
Likewise, as stated 647 (1985), the
in Ermita-Malate may be solda for
rendered such price
decision meting as the outowner to themof it canthe
cardinal
Hotel and primary
Motelrequirements in administrative
Operators Association, Inc. obtain.
v.penaltyThere of removal is nothing pernicious
from office. The decisionin chargingwas
proceedings
City Mayor of(one of which
Manila, is that849,
20 SCRA the parties must
a law which children
affirmedthebysame the price
DECS as Secretary
adults. and the Civil
first
is vaguebe heard)
so that asmenlaid of
down
common in Angintelligence
Tibay v. CIR, mustService Commission.
69
guess Phil. at635its (1940) must beand
meaning observed
differ inas closing a
to its
radio
applicationstationviolates
because radio broadcasts
substantive are a form
due process. Due
As On Process;
appeal, they Suspension
reiterated of theDriver's
arguments Licensethey
of
held constitutionally-protected
in Tanada v. Tuvera, expression. 146 SCRA 446, due (1992)
raised before the administrative bodies, namely:
process requires that the law be published. No,
(b) They
3; Congress
were deprived is considering
of due process a lawofagainst
law as
drunken
the Investigating
driving. Under Committee the legislation,
was improperly police
Due Process; Represented by a Non-Lawyer authorities constituted because may ask it didanynot driver
include a toteacher
take in a
2.) In State Prosecutors v. Muro, 236 SCRA 505,
(1988) "breathalyzer
representationtest", of the wherein
teachers' the organization
driver exhales as
No.
it was 5: held
Norberto Malasmas
that the dismissal was of accused
a case withoutof estafa theseveral
requiredtimes by the intoMagna
a device Cartawhich for canPublic determine
School
benefit the
before of aRegional
hearing Trial
and without
Court ofany Manila.
noticeAfterto thewhether
Teachershe(R.A. has No. been 4670,
drivingSec.under9). the influence
the trial, he was
prosecution found due
violated guilty. On appeal,
process. his
Likewise, as SUGGESTED
of alcohol. The results ANSWER:
of the test can be used, in
held in People
conviction was affirmed
v. CourtbyoftheAppeals,
Court of 262 Appeals.SCRA The
any teachers were deprived
legal proceeding against of due him.process of
Furthermore,
After
452, the records of his case had
lack of impartiality of thebeen remanded
judge who will law. Underthat
declaring Section the 9 of the Magna
issuance Carta forlicense
of a driver's
decide
to the Regional
a case violates
Trial Court
procedural
for execution,
due process.
and Public
gives School
rise only Teachers, one of thetomembers
to a privilege drive motorof
after the latter Court had set the date for the the committee
vehicles on public mustroads,
be a teacher
the lawwho is a that a
provides
promulgation of judgment, the accused filed a representative driver who refuses of the local,
to take or in the its absence,
test shall anybe
Due Process;
motion with theProvisional
Court of Appeals Orderto(1991)set aside the existing
automaticallyprovincial or national
subject to a 90-day organizationsuspension of of
No 7 of
entry - On 29 Julyand
judgment, 1991. the Energy
to remand the caseRegulatory
to theteachers.
his driver'sAccording
license, to Fabella v. Court of
Board (ERB),
Regional Trial Courtin response
for new trial toonpublic clamor,
the ground Appeals, 283 SCRA 256 (1997), to be considered
issued
that he hada resolution
just discoveredapproving and Leonilo
that "Atty. adopting a theCite two [2] possible
authorized constitutional
representative of such objections to
schedule whom
Maporma" for bringing down and
he had chosen thewho prices
had of this law. Resolve
organization, the teacher the mustobjections
be chosen and byexplain
the
petroleum
acted as his products
counselover a period
before the trialofcourt
one and(1) year whether anyitself
theorganization suchand infirmities
not by the canSecretary
be cured. of
starting
Court of 15 Augustis1991,
Appeals, not a over
lawyer. the Resolved
objection the of theEducation,SUGGESTED
Culture and ANSWER:
Sports. Since in
oil companies
motion which claim
of the accused withthat the period covered
reasons. Possible
administrative objections to the lawdue
proceedings, areprocess
that requiring
requires a
is too long to prejudge and foresee. Is the driver
that the to tribunal
take thebe breathalyzer
vested withtest will violate
jurisdiction and hisbe
SUGGESTED
resolution valid? ANSWER: right against self-incrimination,
so constituted as to afford a person that providing
charged for
SUGGESTED
The motion should ANSWER:be granted and the entry of the suspension ofa his
administratively driver's license
reasonable guarantee withoutof any
No, the resolution
judgment should be is set
invalid,
aside. since
An accused
the Energy is hearing
impartiality,violates
if thedue process,
teacher whoand is athatmember the of the
Regulatory
entitled to beBoard
heardissued
by himself
the resolution
or counsel. without
(Art. aproposed
committeelaw was willnotviolate the right
appointed against
in accordance with
hearing.
III, sec. 14(2)).
The resolution
Unless he here
is represented
is not a provisional
by an unreasonable
the law, any proceedingsearches and seizures, because it
before
order andthere
attorney, therefore
is a great
it candanger
only bethat any allows police authorities to
require a drive to take the breathalyzer test even Electric Light Co, v. PSC, 10 SCRA 46 (1964) it
if there is no probable cause was held that a rate order, which applies
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: exclusively to a particular party and is predicated
Requiring a driver to take a breathalyzer test doeson a finding of fact, partakes of the nature of a
not violate his right against self-incrimination, quasi judicial, rather than legislative, function.
because he is not being compelled to give
testimonial evidence. He is merely being asked to
submit to a physical test. This is not covered byThe first order, granting a provisional rate
the constitutional guarantee against self-increase without hearing, is valid if justified by
incrimination. Thus, in South Dakota vs. Neville,URGENT PUBLIC NEED, such as increase in the
459 U.S. 553, it was held for this reason that cost of fuel. The power of the Public Service
requiring a driver to take a blood-alcohol test isCommission to grant such increase was upheld in
valid. several cases. (Silva v. Ocampo, 90 Phil. 777
(1952); Halili v. PSC, 92 Phil. 1036(1953))
As held in Mackey vs. Afontrya 443 U.S. 1, because
of compelling government interest in safety along The second order requiring the company to pay
the streets, the license of a driver who refusesunpaid
to supervisory fees under the Public Service
take the breathalyzer test may be suspended Act cannot be sustained. The company has a
immediately pending a post-suspension hearing, right to be heard, before it may be ordered to pay.
but there must be a provision for a post-suspension(Ang Tibay v. CIR, 69 Phil. 635 (1940)) The third
hearing. Thus, to save the proposed law from order can be justified. The fact that the TRB has
unconstitutionally on the ground of denial of due allowed a provisional rate increase does not bind
process, it should provide for an immediate hearingit to make the order permanent if the evidence
upon suspension of the driver's license. The later submitted does not justify increase but, on
proposed law violates the right against
the contrary, warrants the reduction of rates.
unreasonable searches and seizures. It will
authorize police authorities to stop any driver and
ask him to take the breathalyzer test even in the
absence of a probable cause. Eminent Domain; Garnishment (1994)
No. 14: The Municipality of Antipolo, Rizal,
expropriated the property of Juan Reyes for use as
Due Process; Urgent Public Need (1987) a public market. The Municipal Council
No. II: The Manila Transportation Company appropriated Pl,000,000.00 for the purchase of the
applied for upward adjustment of its rates before lot but the Regional Trial Court, on the basis of the
the Transportation Regulatory Board. Pending the evidence, fixed the value at P2,000,000.00. 1)
petition, the TRB, without previous hearing, What legal action can Juan Reyes take to
granted a general nationwide provisional increase
of rates. In another Order, TRB required the collect the balance? 2) Can Juan Reyes ask the
company to pay the unpaid supervisory fees Regional Trial
collectible under the Public Service Law. After Court
due to garnish the Municipality's account
notice and hearing, on the basis of the evidence with the Land Bank? SUGGESTED ANSWER: 1)
presented by Manila Transportation Company and To collect the balance of Judgment, as stated in
the Oppositors, TRB issued an Order reducing the Tan Toco vs. Municipal Counsel of Iloilo, 49 Phil.
rates applied for by one-fourth. 52, Juan Reyes may levy on patrimonial
properties of the Municipality of Antipolo. If it has
no patrimonial properties, in accordance with the
Characterize the powers exercised by the TRB inMunicipality
this of Makati vs. Court of Appeals, 190
case and determine whether under the present SCRA 206, the remedy of Juan Reyes is to file a
constitutional system the Transportation Regulatorypetition for mandamus to compel the Municipality
Board can be validly conferred the powers exercisedof Antipolo to appropriate the necessary funds to
by it in issuing the Orders given above. Explain. satisfy the judgment.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The orders in this case involve the exercise of
judicial function by an administrative agency, and 2) Pursuant to the ruling in Pasay City
therefore, as a general rule, the cardinal primary Government vs. Court of First Instance of Manila,
rights enumerated in Ang Tibay v. CIR, 69 Phil. 132 SCRA 156, since the Municipality of Antipolo
635 (1940) must be observed. In Vigart has appropriated P1,000,000 to pay
for the lot, its bank account may be garnished
(2) As the judge, rule on the said objections.
but up to this amount only. SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Eminent Domain; Garnishment (1998) (1) As counsel for C Company, I will argue that the
No VI - 2, If the City of Cebu has money in bank,taking of the property is not for a public use and
can it be garnished? [2%] that the ordinance cannot fix the compensation to
SUGGESTED ANSWER: be paid C Company, because this is a judicial
2. No, the money of the City of Cebu in the bankquestion that is for the courts to decide.
cannot be garnished if it came from public funds.
As held in Municipality of Makati vs. Court of(2) As judge, I will sustain the contention that the
Appeals, 190 SCRA 206, 212, public funds aretaking of the property of C Company to operate
exempted from garnishment. the commercial center established within it to
finance a housing project for city employees is not
Eminent Domain; immunity from suit (2001) for a public use but for a private purpose. As the
No III - The Republic of the Philippines, throughCourt indicated in a dictum in Manotok. v. National
the Department of Public Works and HighwaysHousing Authority, 150 SCRA 89, that the
(DPWH), constructed a new highway linkingexpropriation of a commercial center so that the
Metro Manila and Quezon province, and whichprofits derived from its operation can be used for
major thoroughfare traversed the land owned byhousing projects is a taking for a private purpose.
Mang Pandoy. The government neither filed any
expropriation proceedings nor paid any
compensation to Mang Pandoy for the land thus
taken and used as a public road.

Mang Pandoy filed a suit against the government


to compel payment for the value of his land. The
DPWH filed a motion to dismiss the case on the
ground that the State is immune from suit. Mang
Pandoy filed an opposition. Resolve the motion.
(5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The motion to dismiss should be denied. As held in
Amigable v. Cuenca, 43 SCRA 300 (1972), when
the Government expropriates private property
without paying compensation, it is deemed to have
waived its immunity from suit. Otherwise, the
constitutional guarantee that private property shall
not be taken for public use without payment of just
compensation will be rendered nugatory.

Eminent Domain; Indirect Public Benefit


(1990)
No. 2: The City of Cebu passed an ordinance
proclaiming the expropriation of a ten (10)
hectare property of C Company, which property
is already a developed commercial center. The
City proposed to operate the commercial center
in order to finance a housing project for city
employees in the vacant portion of the said
property. The ordinance fixed the price of the
land and the value of the improvements to be
paid C Company on the basis of the prevailing
land value and cost of construction.
(1) As counsel for C Company, give two
constitutional objections to the validity of the
ordinance.
pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1533, wrong. Secondly, the determination of just
providing that in determining just compensation compensation in expropriation cases is a judicial
for private property acquired through eminent function. Since under Section 9, Article III of the
domain proceedings, the compensation to be paid1987 Constitution private property shall not be
shall not exceed the value declared by the owner taken for public use without just compensation, no
or determined by the Assessor, pursuant to the law can mandate that its determination as to the
Real Property Tax Code, whichever value is just compensation shall prevail over the findings
lower, prior to the recommendation or decision of of the court.
the appropriate government office to acquire the
property. Eminent Domain; Just Compensation (1998)
No VI. The City of Cebu expropriated the property
Mr. Rivera appealed, insisting that just of Carlos Topico for use as a municipal parking
compensation for his property should be lot. The Sangguniang Panlungsod appropriated
determined by Commissioners who could evaluate P10 million for this purpose but the Regional Trial
all evidence on the real value of the property, at Court fixed the compensation for the taking of the
the time of its taking by the government. He land at P15 million.
maintains that the lower court erred in relying on1. What legal remedy, if any, does Carlos
Presidential Decree No, 1533, which he claims isTopico have to recover the balance of P5 million
unconstitutional. for the taking of his land? [3%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
How would you decide the appeal? Explain your 1. The remedy of Carlos Toplco is to levy on
answer. the patrimonial properties of the City of Cebu. In
SUGGESTED ANSWER: I will also sustain
Municipality of the
Paoaycontention
vs Manaois,that the 86ordinance,
Phil 629.
The decision of the lower court should be reversed. even 632,though
the Supremeit fixes theCourtcompensation
held: for the land
In EPZA v, Dulay, 149 SCRA 305 (1987) on thethe basis "Property,
of thehowever,
prevailingwhich land is patrimonial
value cannot
Supreme Court declared PD No. 1533 to bereally an displace judicial determination of the price
and which is held by a municipality in for
its
unconstitutional encroachment on the prerogatives proprietary capacity as
the simple reason that many factors, some of them treated by the great
of the judiciary. It was explained that although a
supervening, weight of authority
cannot possiblyasbethe private asset
considered by the of
court would technically have the power legislature to the town and may be levied
at the time of enacting the ordinance. upon and sold
determine the just compensation for property under under an
There is greater ordinary
reason forexecution."
nullifying the use of the
the Decree, the court's task would be relegated costto of construction in the ordinance as basis for
Ifasthe City of for
simply stating the lower value of the propertycompensation Cebu thedoes not have patrimonial
improvements. The fair
declared either by the owner or by the assessor. properties, the remedy
market value of the improvements of Carlos Topico mayis tonotfilebea
Just compensation means the value of the property petition for mandamus to compel
equal to the cost of construction. The original cost it to appropriate
at the time of the taking. It means a fair andoffull money to satisfy
construction maythe be Judgment.
lower than the In Municipality
fair market
equivalent for the loss sustained. To determine Makati
value, vs. Court of Appeals,
it since the cost of construction at the 190 SCRA 206,time213.of
the
requires consideration of the condition of expropriation
the Supreme Court said:
may have increased.
property and its surrounding, its improvements and "Where a municipality falls or refuses,
capabilities. without justifiable reason, to effect payment
of a final money
ALTERNATIVE judgment rendered against
ANSWER:
it, the claimant
The taking of the commercial may avail center
of the isremedy
justifiedof
mandamus in order to compel
by the concept of indirect public benefit since its the enactment
Eminent Domain; Just Compensation (1989) operation and is approval
intended of for
the thenecessary
developmentappropriation
of the
ordinance, and
No, 6: A law provides that in the event of vacant portion for socialized housing, which is the corresponding
expropriation, the amount to be paid to a clearlydisbursement a public purpose. of municipal funds therefor."
landowner as compensation shall be either the
sworn valuation made by the owner or the Eminent
official Domain;ALTERNATIVE Just Compensation
ANSWER: (1988)
assessment thereof, whichever is lower. Can the No.1. He can file the is
8: Mr. Roland Rivera the owner
money claim of four
withlotsthe
landowner successfully challenge the law in sought to be expropriated
Commission on Audit. by the Export
court? Discuss briefly your answer. Processing Zone Authority for the expansion of the
SUGGESTED ANSWER: export
Eminent processing
Domain;zone Legalat Baguio
InterestCity. The same
(1993)
Yes, the landowner can successfully challenge parcels No, 5: In expropriation proceedings: 1)Assessor
of land had been valued by the What
the law in court. According to the decision in atlegal
P120.00
interestper should
square be meter,
usedwhile
in theMr. Rivera had
computation
Export Processing Zone Authority vs. Dulay, 149previously
of interestfixed the compensation?
on just market value of the same at
SCRA 305, such a law is unconstitutional. First ofP100 per square
SUGGESTED ANSWER: meter. The Regional Trial Court
all, it violates due process, because it denies to decided for expropriation
As held in National Power and ordered the
Corporation vs.payment
Angas.
the landowner the opportunity to prove that the to208 Mr.SCRA
Rivera542, at thein accordance with Articlemeter
rate of P100 a square 2209
valuation in the tax declaration is of the Civil Code, the legal interest
should be SIX per cent (6%) a year. Central be other available lots in Santa for a sports
Bank Circular No. 416, which increased the legal center.
interest to twelve percent (12%) a year is not
applicable to the expropriation of property and is Nonetheless, the Municipality of Santa, through its
limited to loans, since its issuance is based on Mayor, filed a complaint for eminent domain.
Presidential Decree No, 116, which amended theChristina opposed this on the following grounds:
Usury Law.
1the Municipality of Santa has no power to
Eminent Domain; Non-observance of theexpropriate;
policy of "all or none" (2000) Resolution No. 1 has been voided since the
No VIII. Madlangbayan is the owner of a 500 Sangguniang Panlalawigan disapproved it for
square meter lot which was the birthplace of the being arbitrary; and
founder of a religious sect who admittedly played the Municipality of Santa has other and
an important role in Philippine history and culture.
The National Historical Commission (NHC) passed
a resolution declaring it a national landmark and on
its recommendation the lot was subjected to
expropriation proceedings. This was opposed by
Madlangbayan on the following grounds: a) that the
lot is not a vast tract; b) that those to be benefited
by the expropriation would only be the members of
the religious sect of its founder, and c) that the
NHC has not initiated the expropriation of
birthplaces of other more deserving historical
personalities. Resolve the opposition raised by
Madlangbayan. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The arguments of Madlangbayan are not
meritorious. According to Manosca v. Court of
Appeals, 252 SCRA 412 (1996), the power of
eminent domain is not confined to expropriation of
vast tracts of the land. The expropriation of the lot
to preserve it as the birthplace of the founder of
the religious sect because of his role in Philippine
history and culture is for a public purpose,
because public use is no longer restricted to the
traditional concept. The fact that the expropriation
will benefit the members of the religious sect is
merely incidental. The fact that other birthplaces
have not been expropriated is likewise not a valid
basis for opposing the expropriation. As held in
J.M. Tuason and Company, Inc. v. Land Tenure
Administration, 31 SCRA 413 (1970), the
expropriating authority is not required to adhere to
the policy of "all or none".

Eminent Domain; Power to Exercise (2005)


(10-2) The Sangguniang Bayan of the Municipality
of Santa, Ilocos Sur passed Resolution No. 1
authorizing its Mayor to initiate a petition for the
expropriation of a lot owned by Christina as site
for its municipal sports center. This was approved
by the Mayor. However, the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan of Ilocos Sur disapproved the
Resolution as there might still
declarations, which amount was lower than the
assessed value as determined by the assessor.
The landowners oppose the expropriation on the
grounds that:
(a) the same is not for public use; and
(b) assuming it is for public use, the
compensation must be based on the evidence
presented in court and not, as provided in
presidential decrees prescribing payment of the
value stated in the owner's tax declarations or the
value determined by the assessor, whichever is
lower.

better lots for that purpose.


Resolve the case with reasons.
(5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
a) Under Section 19 of R.A. No. 7160, the
power of eminent domain is explicitly granted to the
municipality, but must be exercised through an
ordinance rather than through a resolution.
(Municipality ofParanaque v. V.M. Realty Corp.,
G.R. No. 127820, July 20, 1998)

b) The Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Ilocos


Sur was without the authority to disapprove
Resolution No. 1 as the municipality clearly has
the power to exercise the right of eminent domain
and its Sangguniang Bayan the capacity to
promulgate said resolution. The only ground upon
which a provincial board may declare any
municipal resolution, ordinance or order invalid is
when such resolution, ordinance or order is
beyond the powers conferred upon the council or
president making the same. Such is not the
situation in this case. (Moday v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 107916, February 20, 1997)

c) The question of whether there is genuine


necessity for the expropriation of Christina's lot or
whether the municipality has other and better lots
for the purpose is a matter that will have to be
resolved by the Court upon presentation of
evidence by the parties to the case.

Eminent Domain; Public Use (1987)


No. XVI: In January 1984, Pasay City filed
expropriation proceedings against several
landowners for the construction of an aqueduct for
flood control in a barangay. Clearly, only the
residents of that barangay would be benefited by
the project. As compensation, the city offered to
pay only the amount declared by the owners in
their tax
(per Dondee) in Republic vs. Gingoyon, GR no.expropriation is to use
Marina feels very the land
aggrieved as a
over relocation
the denial and
166429, Dec. 19, 2005, the SC held that RA 8974site has for 200tofamilies
come you forsquatting
advice. Shealong the to
wants Pasig
know:
now requires full payment before the State may(1) river. a)Whether
Can the theownerBoard
of the
of Examiners
property oppose
had any
exercise proprietary rights in an expropriationplausible the or legal basis for rejecting her
proceeding and making the previous ruling obiter expropriation
applicationonin the ground
1986. thatbriefly.
Explain only 200
dictum. out (2)of the more
Whether
than the
10,000
1987squatter
Constitution
families in Pasig
guarantees herCity
thewill benefit
right from theto take the
to admission
Equal Protection; Alien Employment (1989) coming expropriation?
JanuaryExplain.
1988 marine
b) Canofficers
the Department of
No 18: An ordinance of the City of Manila requires examinations.
Agrarian Reform Explain and cite relevant
every alien desiring to obtain employmentrequire of the City of Pasig to first secure
provisions.
whatever kind, including casual and part-time authority from said Department before
employment, in the city to secure an employment converting the use of the land from
permit from the City Mayor and to pay a workagricultural to housing? Explain. SUGGESTED
If you fee
permit were of judge,
P500. Ishow the would
ordinance you valid?
rule on the ANSWER: a) No, the owner of the property
issue? Why? cannot oppose the expropriation on the ground
SUGGESTED ANSWER: that only 200 out of more than 10,000 squatter
(a) the
No, The ordinance
contention is not
thatvalid.the In taking
Villegas of vs.
private
Hiufamilies in Pasig City will benefit from the
propertyTsai
Chiong for Paothe Ho, purpose
86 SCRA of 270,constructing
it was held anexpropriation. As held in Philippine Columbian
aqueduct
that such an for ordinance
flood control violates
is notequalfor public
protection.
use" is ItAssociation vs. Pants, 228 SCRA 668, the
untenable-
failed to consider
The idea the thatvalid "PUBLIC
substantial USE" differences
meansacquisition of private property for socialized
exclusively
among the use
aliensby the required
public to haspay been thediscarded.
fee. Thehousing is for public use and the fact that only a
As longamong
same as the purpose
it beingof the collected
taking isfrom public,
every
thefew and not everyone will benefit from the
exercise of power
employed alien, ofwhethereminent domain he is iscasual justifiable.orexpropriation does not detract from the nature of
Whatever may
permanent, part-time
be beneficially
or full-time. employed
The ordinance
for thethe public use.
general
also violates
welfare duesatisfies
process, the because
requirement it does
of public
not
use. (Heirs
contain any of standard to guide the mayor in the b) No, the Department of Agrarian Reform cannot
Juancho
exerciseArdonaof the v. Reyes,
power123granted SCR A 220 to (1983))
him by the require Pasig City to first secure authority from it
ordinance. Thus, it confers upon him unrestricted before converting the use of the land from
(b)
powerBut totheallow
contentionor preventthat the anPresidential
activity which Decreesagricultural to residential. According to Province
is
providing
lawful per thatse. in determining just compensation of theCamarines Sur vs. Court of Appeals, 222
value stated by the owner in his tax declarationSCRA or 173, there is no provision in the
that determined by the assessor, whichever is lower, Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law which
in unconstitutional
Equal Protection; is correct.
Invidious In EPZA v. Dulay. subjects the expropriation of agricultural lands by
Discrimination
(1987) local government units to the control of the
G.R.
No. VI:No. 59603,
Marina April 29,
Neptunia, 1987, itofwas
daughter a sea held that
captain Department of Agrarian Reform and to require
this method
and sister to four prescribed
marine officers for ascertaining
decided as a child justapproval from the Department of Agrarian Reform
compensation
to follow in her father's constitutes
footsteps. anIn her impermissible
growing up will mean that it is not the local government unit
encroachment
years she was on as much the prerogatives
at home on board of courts.a boat It the Department of Agrarian Reform who will
but
tends to render courts inutile
as she was in the family home by the sea. In time in a matter which, determine whether or not the expropriation is for a
under the Constitution,
she earned a Bachelor is reserved
of Science to them for final
degree in
public use.
determination.
Marine Transportation,For although major under in the decrees and
Navigation the
courts
Seamanship.still haveShe servedthe power to determine
her apprenticeship justa Domain; Writ of Possession (1993)
Eminent
for
compensation,
year in a merchant their marinetask is vessel reduced to simply
registered forNo, 5: In expropriation proceedings: Can the
determining
foreign tradethe andlower valueyear
another of the on property
a merchant asjudge validly withhold issuance of the writ of
declaredvessel
marine either registered
by the owner or by the trade.
for coastwise assessor. Butpossession until full payment of the final value of
"JUST
to becomeCOMPENSATION"
a full-fledged marine meansofficerthe value of the
she had tothe expropriated property?
property
pass theatappropriate
the time of the board taking. Its determination
examinations before SUGGESTED ANSWER:
requires
she could that getall facts
her as to the condition
professional licenseof and the
No, the judge cannot validly withhold the issuance
property
registration. and
She appliedits surroundings
in January 1986 andto takeits
of the writ of possession until full payment of the
improvements
examination and officers
for marine capabilities but her must application be
final value of the expropriated property. As held in
considered,
was rejectedand this reason
for the can only thatbethe donelawinRegulating
a judicial National Power Corporation vs. Jocson, 206
proceeding.
the Practice of Marine Profession in the Philippines SCRA 520. it is the rninisterial duty of the Judge
(Pres. Dec. No. 97 (1973) ) specifically prescribes to issue the writ of possession upon deposit of the
Eminent
that Domain;
"No person Socialized
shall be qualified Housing (1996) provisional value of the expropriated property with
for examination
No.marine
as 4 - Theofficer
City ofunless
Pasighe initiated
is: expropriation the National or Provincial Treasurer.
proceedings on a one-hectare lot which is part of
a ten-hectare parcel of land devoted to the ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
growing of vegetables. The purpose of the
Equal Protection; Invidious Discriminationprofessions, the medical profession directly
(1987) affects the lives of the people.
No. 10: "X", a son of a rich family, applied for
enrolment with the San Carlos Seminary EqualinProtection; Right to Education (1994)
Mandaluyong, Metro Manila. Because he had No. 12; The Department of Education, Culture and
been previously expelled from another seminary Sports Issued a circular disqualifying anyone who
for scholastic deficiency, the Rector of San Carlos fails for the fourth time in the National Entrance
Seminary denied the application without giving any Tests from admission to a College of Dentistry. X
grounds for the denial. After "X" was refused who was thus disqualified, questions the
admission, the Rector admitted another applicant, constitutionality of the circular. 1) Did the circular
who is the son of a poor farmer who was also deprive SUGGESTED
her of her ANSWER:
academically deficient. (a) The disqualification of females from the practice
(a) Prepare a short argument citing rules, laws, of constitutional
marine profession right to education?
constitutes2) as Did theinvidious
or constitutional provisions in support of "X's" circular violate
discrimination the equal by
condemned protection
the Equal Protection
motion for reconsideration of the denial of his clauseofofthat
Clause the Constitution
Constitution?(Art. SUGGESTED
IV, Sec. 1) In the
application. ANSWER:
United States, 1) No,
under because it is aprovision,
a similar permissivewhile
SUGGESTED ANSWER: limitation
earlier to right
decisions of to
theeducation,
Supremeas it is intended
Court upheld the to
The refusal of the seminary to admit "X" ensure that only those who
validity of a statute prohibiting women from are qualified to be
constitutes invidious discrimination, violative of the dentists are
bartending admitted
unless for enrollment....
she was the wife or daughter of
Equal Protection Clause (Art. III, Sec. 1) of the a male owner (Goesart v. Cleary, 335 U.S. 464 (1948)
Constitution. The fact, that the other applicantand is denying to women the right to practice law
the son of a poor farmer does not make the 2) No, the
(Bradwell v. circular
State, 83did not(16
U.S. violate
Wall) the
130equal
(1873), recent
discrimination any less invidious since the other protection have
decisions clauseinvalidated
of the Constitution.
statutes There is a
or regulations
applicant is also academically deficient. The substantial
providing fordistinction
differential between
treatment dentistry
of females studentsbased
reverse discrimination practiced by the seminary and other
on students.
nothing The dental profession
stereotypical and directly
inaccurate
cannot be justified because unlike the race affects the lives and
generalizations. The health
Court of people.
held Other
that "classification
problem in America, poverty is not a conditionbased professions
of on sex, do like
not classifications
involve the same baseddelicate
upon race,
inferiority needing redress. responsibility
alienage, and need
or national not be
origin, aresimilarly
inherently treated.
suspect,
This must
and is in accordance
therefore be with the rulingtoin strict
subjected Department judicial
Equal Protection; Police Power (2000) of Education,
scrutiny." Culture andthe
Accordingly, Sports vs. San
Court Diego, a
invalidated
No IV. Undaunted by his three failures in statute the
180 SCRA 533. a male serviceman to claim his
permitting
National Medical Admission Test (NMAT), Cruz spouse as a dependent to obtain increased quarter
applied to take it again but he was refused Equal Protection;
allowance, regardless Subsidiary
of whether Imprisonment
the wife is
because of an order of the Department actually of(1989)dependent on him, while denying the same
Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) disallowing No. 4:
right to "X" was sentenced
a servicewoman to a penalty
unless her husbandof 1 year was in
flunkers from taking the test a fourth time. Cruz and 5dependent
fact months of on prision
her correctional
for over one andhalf to pay of ahis
filed suit assailing this rule raising support. fine of P8,000.00,
the (Frontierro vwith subsidiary
Richardson, 411 imprisonment
U.S. 687 in
constitutional grounds of accessible quality case of solvency. After serving his prison term, "X"
education, academic freedom and equal asked the Director of Prisons whether he could
protection. The government opposes (1973); Accord Craig,
already
this, v. Boren,"X"
be released. 429was
U.S. asked
190 (1976)to pay the fine
upholding the constitutionality of the rule on the (providing for sale of
of P5,000.00 and he said he could beer to malesnotunder
afford21 it, and
ground of exercise of police power. Decide the to females under 18); Reed v.
being an indigent. The Director informed him he Reed. 404
case discussing the grounds raised. (5%) hasU.S. 71 (1971)
to serve (preference
an additional prisongiven
term to menrate
at the over
of
SUGGESTED ANSWER: one day per eight pesos in accordance with Articleof
women for appointment as administrators
As held in Department of Education, Culture and39estates invalid). Penal Code, The lawyer of "X"
of the Revised
Sports v. San Diego,180 SCRA 533 (1989), the filed a petition for habeas corpus contending that
rule is a valid exercise of police power to ensurethe (b) further
In addition to the Equal
incarceration of hisProtection
client for Clause,
unpaid the
that those admitted to the medical profession arefines violates the equal protection clause ofState
1987 Constitution now requires the the to
qualified. The arguments of Cruz are not "ensure the fundamental
Constitution. Decide. equality before the law of
meritorious. The right to quality education and women and men" (Art II, Sec. 14) and to provide
academic freedom are not absolute. Under them with "such facilities
SUGGESTED and opportunities that will
ANSWER:
Section 5(3), Article XIV of the Constitution, the enhance their welfare
(1) The petition shouldand be enable
granted,them because to realize
right to choose a profession is subject to fair, their full39
Article potential in the service
of the Revised Penal of the nation."
Code is (Art.
reasonable and equitable admission and XIII, Sec. 14). These
unconstitutional. In Tateprovisions
vs. Short, 401 put U.S.in serious
395,
academic requirements. The rule does not violatedoubt the validity
the United Statesof PD 97 limiting
Supreme Court held the that
practice of
equal protection. There is a substantial distinctionmarine
impositionprofession to males.
of subsidiary imprisonment upon a
between medical students and other students. convict who is too poor to pay a fine violates
Unlike other equal protection, because economic status
cannot serve as a valid basis for distinguishing Communications. What would you do regarding
the duration of the imprisonment between a that ban on the sale of blocked time? Explain
convict who is able to pay the fine and a convict your answer.
who is unable to pay it. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
I would challenge its validity in court on the
(2) On the other hand, in United States ex rel. ground that it constitutes a prior restraint on
Privitera vs. Kross, 239 F Supp 118, it was held freedom of expression. Such a limitation is valid
that the imposition of subsidiary imprisonment for only in exceptional cases, such as where the
inability to pay a fine does not violate equal purpose is to prevent actual obstruction to
protection, because the punishment should be recruitment of service or the sailing dates of
tailored to fit the individual, and equal protectiontransports or the number and location of troops,
does not compel the eradication of every or for the purpose of enforcing the primary
disadvantage caused by indigence. The decision requirements of decency or the security of
was affirmed by the United States Circuit Court of community life. (Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S, 697
Appeals in 345 F2d 533, and the United States (1931)). Attacks on the government, on the other
Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari in hand, cannot justify prior restraints. For as has
382 U.S. 911. This ruling was adopted by the been pointed out, "the interest of society and the
Illinois Supreme Court in People vs. Williams, 31 maintenance of good government demand a full
ALR3d 920. discussion of public affairs. Complete liberty to
comment on the conduct of public men is a
Freedom of Expression; Censorship (2003) scalpel in the case of free speech. The sharp
No IX - May the COMELEC (COMELEC) prohibit incision of its probe relieves the abscesses of
the posting of decals and stickers on "mobile" officialdom. Men in public life may suffer under a
places, public or private, such as on a private hostile and an unjust accusation; the wound can
vehicle, and limit their location only to the be assuaged with the balm of a clear
authorized posting areas that the COMELEC itself conscience," (United States v Bustos, 37 Phil.
fixes? Explain. 741 (1918)).
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
According to Adiong v. COMELEC. 207 SCRA The parties adversely affected may also disregard
712 [1992], the prohibition is unconstitutional. the
It regulation as being on its face void. As has
curtails the freedom of expression of individuals been held, "any system of prior restraints of
who wish to express their preference for expressiona comes to the court bearing a heavy
candidate by posting decals and stickers on their presumption against its constitutional validity,"
cars and to convince others to agree with them. andIt the government "thus carries a heavy burden
is also overbroad, because it encompasses of showing justification for the imposition of such a
private property and constitutes deprivation of restraint." (New York Times Co. v. United States,
property without due process of law. Ownership of 403 U.S. 713 (1971)).
property includes the right to use. The prohibition
is censorship, which cannot be justified.
The usual presumption of validity that inheres in
legislation is reversed in the case of laws imposing
Freedom of Expression; Prior Restraint (1988)prior restraint on freedom of expression.

No. 16: The Secretary of Transportation and


Communications has warned radio stationFreedom of Religion; Convicted Prisoners
operators against selling blocked time, on the(1989)
claim that the time covered thereby are often usedNo. 5: "X" is serving his prison sentence in
by those buying them to attack the presentMuntinlupa. He belongs to a religious sect that
administration. Assume that the departmentprohibits the eating of meat. He asked the
implements this warning and orders owners andDirector of Prisons that he be served with
operators of radio stations not to sell blocked timemeatless diet. The Director refused and "X" sued
to interested parties without prior clearance fromthe Director for damages for violating his
the Department of Transportation andreligious freedom. Decide.
Communications. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the Director of Prison is liable under Article
You are approached by an interested party affected 32 of the Civil Code for violating the religious
adversely by that order of the Secretary of freedom of "X". According to the decision of the
Transportation and United States Supreme Court in the case of
O'Lone vs. Estate of Shabazz, 107 S. Ct. 2400, of action. The right to act on one's religious belief
convicted prisoners retain their right to free is not absolute and is subject to police power for
exercise of religion. At the same time, lawful the protection of the general welfare. Hence the
incarceration brings about necessary limitations tapes may be required to be reviewed prior to
of many privileges and rights justified by the airing.
considerations underlying the penal system. In
considering the appropriate balance between In Iglesia ni Cristo vs. Court of Appeals, 259
these two factors, reasonableness should be the SCRA 529, 544, the Supreme Court held:
test. Accommodation to religious freedom can be "We thus reject petitioner's postulate that
made if it will not involve sacrificing the interests Its religious program is per se beyond
of security and it will have no impact on the review by the respondent Board. Its public
allocation of the resources of the penitentiary. In broadcast on TV of its religious program
this case, providing "X" with a meatless diet will brings it out of the bosom of internal belief.
not create a security problem or unduly increase Television is a medium that reaches even
the cost of food being served to the prisoners. In the eyes and ears of children. The Court
fact, in the case of O' Lone vs. Estate of reiterates the rule that the exercise of
Shabazz, it was noted that the Moslem prisoners religions freedom can be regulated by the
were being given a different meal whenever pork State when it will bring about the CLEAR
would be served. AND PRESENT DANGER of some
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: substantive evil which the State is duty
The suit should be dismissed. The Free Exercise bound to prevent, i.e., serious detriment to
Clause of the Constitution is essentially a restraint the mere overriding Interest of public
on governmental interference with the right of health, public morals, or public welfare."
individuals to worship as they please. It is not a However, the Movie and Television Review
mandate to the state to take positive, affirmative and Classification Board cannot ban the
action to enable the individual to enjoy his tapes on the ground that they attacked
freedom. It would have been different had the other religions. In Iglesia ni Cristo vs. Court
Director of Prisons prohibited meatless diets in the of Appeals,. 259 SCRA 529, 547, the
penal institution. "Even aCourt
Supreme side glance
held: at Section 3 of PD
No. 1986 will reveal that it is not among
the grounds to justify an order
Freedom of Religion; Limitations (1998) prohibiting the broadcast of petitioner's
No XV. - A religious organization has a weekly television program."
television program. The program presents and Moreover, the broadcasts do not give
propagates its religious, doctrines, and compares rise to a clear and present danger of a
their practices with those of other religions. substantive evil. In the case of Iglesia ni
Cristo vs. Court of Appeals, 259 SCRA
529, 549:
As the Movie and Television Review and "Prior restraint on speech, including the
Classification Board (MTRCB) found as offensive religious speech, cannot be justified by
several episodes of the program which attacked hypothetical fears but only by the
other religions, the MTRCB required the showing of a substantive and imminent
organization to submit its tapes for review prior to evil which has taken the reality already
airing. on the ground."
Freedom of Religion; Flag Salute (1997)
The religious organization brought the case toNo. 12: Section 28. Title VI, Chapter 9, of the
court on the ground that the action of the MTRCBAdministrative Code of 1987 requires all
suppresses its freedom of speech and interfereseducational institutions to observe a simple and
with its right to free exercise of religion. Decide.dignified flag ceremony, including the playing or
[5%] singing of the Philippine National Anthem,
SUGGESTED ANSWER: pursuant to rules to be promulgated by the
The religious organization cannot invoke freedomSecretary of Education. Culture and Sports, The
of speech and freedom of religion as grounds for refusal of a teacher, student or pupil to attend or
refusing to submit the tapes to the Movie and participate in the flag ceremony is a ground for
Television Review and Classification Board for dismissal after due investigation. The Secretary of
review prior to airing. When the religious Education Culture and Sports issued a
organization started presenting its program over memorandum implementing said provision of law.
television, it went into the realm As ordered, the flag ceremony
would be held on Mondays at 7:30 a.m. during discretionary funds. Recently, however, the
class days. A group of teachers, students and Sangguniang Panlalawigan passed a resolution
pupils requested the Secretary that they be appropriating P100,000 as a special discretionary
exempted from attending the flag ceremony on the fund of the Governor to be spent by him in leading
ground that attendance thereto was against theira pilgrimage of his provincemates to Mecca, Saudi
religious belief. The Secretary denied the request. Arabia, Islam's holiest city.
The teachers, students and pupils concerned went
to Court to have the memorandum circular
declared null and void. Decide the case. Philconsa, on constitutional grounds, has filed
suit to nullify the resolution of the Sangguniang
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Panlalawigan giving the special discretionary
The teachers and the students should befund to the Governor for the stated purpose. How
exempted from the flag ceremony. As held inwould you decide the case? Give your reasons.
Ebralinag vs. Division Superintendent of Schools
of Cebu, 251 SCRA 569. to compel them to SUGGESTED ANSWER:
participate in the flag ceremony will violate their The resolution is unconstitutional First, it violates
freedom of religion. Freedom of religion cannot be art. VI, sec. 29(2) of the Constitution which
impaired except upon the showing of a clear and prohibits the appropriation of public money or
present danger of a substantive evil which the property, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit
State has a right to prevent. The refusal of the or support of any system of religion, and, second,
teachers and the students to participate in the flag it contravenes art. VI, sec, 25(6) which limits the
ceremony does not pose a clear and present appropriation of discretionary funds only for public
danger. purposes. The use of discretionary funds for
purely religious purpose is thus unconstitutional,
Freedom of Religion; Flag Salute (2003) and the fact that the disbursement is made by
No III - Children who are members of a religiousresolution of a local legislative body and not by
sect have been expelled from their respectiveCongress does not make it any less offensive to
public schools for refusing, on account of theirthe Constitution. Above all, the resolution
religious beliefs, to take part in the flag ceremonyconstitutes a clear violation of the Non-
which includes playing by a band or singing theestablishment Clause (art. III, sec. 5) of the
national anthem, saluting the Philippine flag andConstitution.
reciting the patriotic pledge. The students and
their parents assail the expulsion on the ground
that the school authorities have acted in violationFreedom of Religion; Non-Establishment
of their right to free public education, freedom ofClause (1992)
speech, and religious freedom and worship. No. 10: Recognizing the value of education in
Decide the case. making the Philippine labor market attractive to
foreign investment, the Department of Education,
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Culture and Sports offers subsidies to accredited
The students cannot be expelled from school. As colleges and universities in order to promote
held in Ebralinag v. The Division Superintendent quality tertiary education. The DECS grants a
of Schools of Cebu. 219 SCRA 256 [1993], subsidy to to a Catholic school which requires its
compel students to take part in the flag ceremony students to take at least 3 hours a week of
when it is against their religious beliefs will violate
religious instruction. a) Is the subsidy permissible?
their religious freedom. Their expulsion also Explain, b) Presuming that you answer in the
violates the duty of the State under Article XIV, negative,
Section 1 of the Constitution to protect would and it make a difference if the subsidy
promote the right of all citizens to quality were given solely in the form of laboratory
education and make such education accessible to equipment in chemistry and physics? c)
all. Presume, on the other hand, that the
subsidy is given in the form of scholarship
Freedom of Religion; Non-Establishment vouchers given directly to the student and
Clause (1988) which the student can use for paying tuition
No. 7: - Tawi-Tawi is a predominantly Moslemin any accredited school of his choice,
province. The Governor, the Vice-Governor, and whether religious or non-sectarian. Will
members of its Sang-guniang Panlalawigan are your answer be different?
all Moslems. Its budget provides the Governor SUGGESTED ANSWER:
with a certain amount as his
a) No, the subsidy is not permissible. It will foster Was the Commission on Audit correct in
religion, since the school gives religious disallowing the vouchers in question?
instructions to its students. Besides, it will violate SUGGESTED ANSWER:
the prohibition in Section 29[2J, Article VI of the Yes, the Commission on Audit was correct in
Constitution against the use of public funds to aid disallowing the expenditures. Section 29(2),
religion. In Lemon vs Kurtzman. 403 U.S. 602, it Article VI of the Constitution prohibits the
was held that financial assistance to a sectarian expenditure of public funds for the use, benefit, or
school violates the prohibition against the support of any priest. The only exception is when
establishment of religion if it fosters an excessive the priest is assigned to the armed forces, or to
government entanglement with religion. Since theany penal institution or government orphanage or
school requires its students to take at least three leprosarium. The sending of a priest to minister to
hours a week of religious instructions, to ensure the spiritual needs of overseas contract workers
that the financial assistance will not be used for does not fall within the scope of any of the
religious purposes, the government will have to exceptions.
conduct a continuing surveillance. This involves
excessive entanglement with religion. Freedom of Speech; Ban on Tobacco AD
(1992)
No. 1: Congress passes a law prohibiting
b) If the assistance would be in the form television of stations from airing any commercial
laboratory equipment in chemistry and physics, advertisement
it which promotes tobacco or in any
will be valid. The purpose of the assistance way is glamorizes the consumption of tobacco
secular, i.e., the improvement of the quality products.of
tertiary education. Any benefit to religion is merely
incidental. Since the equipment can only be used This legislation was passed in response to
for a secular purpose, it is religiously neutral. As findings by the Department of Health about the
held in Tilton vs. Richardson, 403 U.S. 672, it will alarming rise in lung diseases in the country. The
not involve excessive government entanglement World Health Organization has also reported that
with religion, for the use of the equipment will not U.S. tobacco companies have-shifted marketing
require surveillance. efforts to the Third World due to dwindling sales in
the health-conscious American market.

c) In general, the giving of scholarship vouchers


to students is valid. Section 2(3), Article XIV ofCowboy Levy's, a Jeans company, recently
the Constitution requires the State to establish areleased an advertisement featuring model
system of subsidies to deserving students in bothRichard Burgos wearing Levy's jackets and jeans
public and private schools. However, the law isand holding a pack of Marlboro cigarettes.
vague and over-broad. Under it, a student who
wants to study for the priesthood can apply for
the subsidy and use it for his studies. This willThe Asian Broadcasting Network (ABN), a
involve using public funds to aid religion. privately owned television station, refuses to air
the advertisement in compliance with the law. a)
Assume that such refusal abridges the
Freedom of Religion; Non-Establishment freedom of speech. Does the constitutional
Clause (1997) prohibition against the abridgement of the
No. 4: Upon request of a group of overseas freedom of speech apply to acts done by
contract workers in Brunei, Rev. Father Juan de ABN, a private corporation? Explain. b) May
la Cruz, a Roman Catholic priest, was sent to that Cowboy Levy's, a private corporation,
country by the President of the Philippines invoke
to the free speech guarantee in its
minister to their spiritual needs. The travel favor? Explain. c) Regardless of your answers
expenses, per diems, clothing allowance and above, decide
monthly stipend of P5,000 were ordered charged the constitutionality of the law in question.
against the President's discretionary fund. Upon SUGGESTED ANSWER: a) The constitutional
post audit of the vouchers therefor, the prohibition against the freedom of speech does not
Commission on Audit refused approval thereof apply to ABN, a private corporation. As stated in
claiming that the expenditures were in violation Hudgens
of vs. National Labor Relations Board, 424
the Constitution. U.S. 507, the constitutional guarantee of freedom
of speech is a guarantee only against
abridgement by the government. It does not knowledge that it was false or with reckless
therefore apply against private parties. disregard of whether it was false or not (Borja v.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: Court of Appeals, 301 SCRA 1 /1999). Since
Since ABN has a franchise, it may be consideredthere is no proof that the report was published
an agent of the government by complying with thewith knowledge that it is false or with reckless
law and refusing to air the advertisement, itdisregard of whether it was false or not, the
aligned itself with the government. Thus itdefendants are not liable for damage.
rendered itself liable for a lawsuit which is based
on abridgement of the freedom of speech. Under SECOND ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Article 32 of the Civil Code, even private parties Since Senator XX is a public person and the
may be liable for damages for impairment of the questioned imputation is directed against him in
freedom of speech. his public capacity, in this case actual malice
means the statement was made with knowledge
that it was false or with reckless disregard of
b) Cowboy Levy's may invoke the constitutional whether it was false or not (Borjal
guarantee of freedom of speech in its favor. In First v. Court of Appeals, 301 SCRA 1 /1999]). Since it
National Bank of Boston vs. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, it was
is a matter of public knowledge that there is no
ruled that this guarantee extends to corporations. In YY Street in Makati, the publication was made
Virginia with reckless disregard of whether or not it is
State Board of Pharmacy vs. Virginia Citizens Consumer false. The defendants may be held liable for
Council Inc., 425 U.S. 748, it was held that this right damages.
extends to commercial advertisements. In Ayer
Productions Pty, Ltd. vs. Capulong, 160 SCRA 861, theFreedom of the Press; Wartime Censorship
Supreme Court held that even if the production of(1987)
a film is a commercial activity that is expected No. to XIV: In the morning of August 28, 1987,
yield profits, it is covered by the guarantee during of the height of -the fighting at Channel 4 and
freedom of speech. Camelot Hotel, the military closed Radio Station
XX, which was excitedly reporting the successes
of the rebels and movements towards Manila and
c) The law is constitutional. It is a valid exercisetroops friendly to the rebels. The reports were
of police power, .... correct and factual. On October 6, 1987, after
normalcy had returned and the Government had
Freedom of the Press; Actual Malice (2004) full control of the situation, the National
(5-a) The STAR, a national daily newspaper, Telecommunications Commission, without notice
carried an exclusive report stating that Senator and hearing, but merely on the basis of the report
XX received a house and lot located at YY Street, of the military, cancelled the franchise of station
Makati, in consideration for his vote cutting XX. Discuss the legality of:
cigarette taxes by 50%. The Senator sued the
STAR, its reporter, editor and publisher for libel,
claiming the report was completely false and(a) The action taken against the station on
malicious. According to the Senator, there is noAugust (b) The 28,
cancellation
1987; of the franchise of the
YY Street in Makati, and the tax cut was onlystation on October 6, 1987.
20%. He claimed one million pesos in damages.
The defendants denied "actual malice," claiming
privileged communication and absolute freedom
of the press to report on public officials and
matters of public concern. If there was any error,
the STAR said it would publish the correction
promptly. Is there "actual malice" in STAR'S
reportage? How is "actual malice" defined? Are
the defendants liable for damages? (5%)

FIRST ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:


Since Senator XX is a public person and the
questioned imputation is directed against him in
his public capacity, in this case actual malice
means the statement was made with
Times v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971) ) does not entail enforcement of the stipulation not
With greater reason then may censorship in timesto marry and not to have a baby. It is limited to a
of emergency be justified in the case of broadcastrefund of a portion of the promotion expenses
media since their freedom is somewhat lesser in incurred by Solidaridad Films.
scope. The impact of the vibrant speech, as
Justice Gutierrez said, is forceful and immediate. Involuntary Servitude (1993)
Unlike readers of the printed work, a radio No. 16; - Joy, an RTC stenographer, retired at the
audience has lesser opportunity to cogitate, age of 65. She left unfinished the transcription of
analyze and reject the utterance. (Eastern her notes in a criminal case which was on appeal.
Broadcasting Corp (DYRE) v, Dans, 137 SCRA The Court of Appeals ordered Joy to transcribe
647 (1985) ). In FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 her notes. She refused to comply with the order
U.S. 726 (1978), it was held that "of all forms of reasoning that she was no longer in the
communication, it is broadcasting which has government service. The CA declared Joy in
received the most limited First Amendment contempt of court and she was incarcerated. Joy
Protection." filed a petition for habeas corpus arguing that her
incarceration is tantamount to illegal detention
Impairment Clause; Basic Human Rights and to require her to work sans compensation
(1992) would be involuntary servitude. Decide.
No. 2: Sheila, an actress, signed a two-year
contract with Solidaridad Films, The film company SUGGESTED ANSWER:
undertook to promote her career and to feature Joy can be incarcerated for contempt of court for
her as the leading lady in at least four movies. In refusing to transcribe her stenographic notes. As
turn, Sheila promised that, for the duration of the held In Adoracion v. Gatmaitan, 64 SCRA 132,
contract, she shall not get married or have a her incarceration does not constitute illegal
baby; otherwise, she shall be liable to refund to detention. It is lawful, because it is the
the film company a portion of its promotion consequence of her disobedience of the court
expenses. a) Does this contract impair, or impinge order. Neither can she claim that to require her to
upon, work without compensation is tantamount to
any constitutionally protected liberty of involuntary servitude. Since courts have the
Sheila? Explain. b) If Solidaridad Films tries to Inherent power to Issue such orders as are
enforce this necessary for the administration of Justice, the
contract judicially, will this constitutionally Court of Appeals may order her to transcribe her
protected liberty prevail? Explain. SUGGESTED stenographic notes even if she is no longer In the
ANSWER: a) Yes, the contract impairs the right of government service.
Sheila to marry and to procreate. The case of
Loving vs. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 and Zablocki vs. Liberty of Abode; Limitations (1998)
Redhail 434 U.S. 374 recognized the right to No VIII - Juan Casanova contracted Hansen's
marry is a basic civil right. Likewise, the case of disease (leprosy) with open lesions. A law
Skinner vs Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 recognized requires that lepers be isolated upon petition of
that the right to procreate is a basic civil right. the City Health Officer. The wife of Juan
These rights are part of the liberty protected by Casanova wrote a letter to the City Health Officer
the due process clause in Section to have her formerly philandering husband
SUGGESTED
confined in some ANSWER:isolated leprosarium. Juan
1. Article 1 of the Constitution. (a) The closing
Casanova down ofthe
challenged Radio Station XX during
constitutionality of the
the fighting
law is permissible.
as violating his liberty With respect
of abode. news
Will the suit
b) Yes, the constitutionally protected liberty of media, wartime
prosper? [5%] censorship has been upheld on
Sheila will prevail, because it involves basic human the ground
SUGGESTEDthat "when ANSWER:
a nation is at war many
rights. The waiver of these basic human rights No, the
isthings
suit will
that
notmight
prosper.
be said
Section
in time
6, Article
of peace
III are
void. What Solidaridad Films is seeking to recover such ofa hindrance
the Constitution
to its efforts
provides:that their utterance
are promotion expenses. These involve property will "Thenotliberty of abode
be endured soand
longofaschanging
men fight and that
rights. As held in Philippine Blooming Mills theCourt
no samecouldwithinregard
the limits
them prescribed
as protectedby by any
law shall not be
Employees Organization vs. Philippine Blooming constitutional impaired
right." except upon
The security of community
Mills, Inc., 51 SCRA 189, civil rights are superior to lawful order
life may be protected of theincitements
against court." to acts
property rights. of violence and the overthrow by force of orderly
The liberty of(Near
government. abodev.isMinnesota,
subject to 283
the police
U.S. 697
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER; power of
(1931), the State.
quoting Requiring
Justice Holme'sthe segregation
opinion in of
The waiver of the right to marry and the right to Schencklepers is v.a valid
United exercise
States,of police
249 U.S.power. In
47 (1919);
procreate is valid. Enforcement of the contract New York
Lorenzo us. Director of Health. 50 Phil 595, a valid exercise of police power. (See also
598, the Supreme Court held: People vs. Nitafan, 207 SCRA 730)
"Judicial notice will be taken of the fact that
leprosy is commonly believed to be anPolice Power; Abatement of Nuisance (2004)
infectious disease tending to cause one (9-b) The City of San Rafael passed an ordinance
afflicted with it to be shunned and excluded authorizing the City Mayor, assisted by the police,
from society, and that compulsory to remove all advertising signs displayed or
segregation of lepers as a means of exposed to public view in the main city street, for
preventing the spread of the disease is being offensive to sight or otherwise a nuisance.
supported by high scientific authority." AM, whose advertising agency owns and rents
out many of the billboards ordered removed by
Liberty of Abode; Temporary (1996) the City Mayor, claims that the City should pay for
No 2: The military commander-in charge of thethe destroyed billboards at their current market
operation against rebel groups directed thevalue since the City has appropriated them for the
inhabitants of the island which would be the targetpublic purpose of city beautification. The Mayor
of attack by government forces to evacuate therefuses to pay, so AM is suing the City and the
area and offered the residents temporary militaryMayor for damages arising from the taking of his
hamlet. property without due process nor just
compensation. Will AM prosper? Reason briefly.
Can the military commander force the residents (5%) FIRST ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: The suit
to transfer their places of abode without a court of AM will not prosper. The removal of the
order? Explain. billboards is not an exercise of the power of
SUGGESTED ANSWER: eminent domain but of police power (Churchill
No, the military commander cannot compel the
residents to transfer their places of abode without
a court order. Under Section 6, Article III of the v. Rafferty, 32 Phil. 580 [19150- The abatement of a
Constitution, a lawful order of the court nuisance is in the exercise of police power does not
required before the liberty of abode and constitute of taking of property and does not entitle the
changing the same can be impaired. owner of the property involved to compensation.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER; (Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines,
Yes, the military commander can compel the Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, 175 SCRA 343
residents to transfer their places of abode without [1989]).
a court order. If there is no reasonable time to get
a court order and the change of abode is merely SECOND ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
temporary, because of the exigency, this exercise The removal of the billboards for the purpose of
of police power may be justified. beautification permanently deprived AM of the
right to use his property and amounts to its
taking. Consequently, he should be paid just
Non-Imprisonment for Non-Payment of Debt compensation. (People v. Fajardo, 104 Phil. 443
(1993) 11958]).
No 12: Sec. 13 of PD 115 (Trust Receipts Law)
provides that when the entrustee in a trust receipt Police Power; Ban on Tobacco AD (1992)
agreement fails to deliver the proceeds of the sale No. 1: Congress passes a law prohibiting
or to return the goods if not sold to the entrustee- television stations from airing any commercial
bank, the entrustee is liable for estafa under the advertisement which promotes tobacco or in any
RPC. Does this provision not violate the way glamorizes the consumption of tobacco
constitutional right against imprisonment for non- products.
payment of a debt? Explain.
This legislation was passed in response to
SUGGESTED ANSWER: findings by the Department of Health about the
No, Section 13 of Presidential Decree No. 115 alarming rise in lung diseases in the country. The
does not violate the constitutional right against World Health Organization has also reported that
imprisonment for non-payment of a debt. As held U.S. tobacco companies have-shifted marketing
in Lee vs. Rodil, 175 SCRA 100, the criminal efforts to the Third World due to dwindling sales in
liability arises from the violation of the trust the health-conscious American market,
receipt, which is separate and distinct from the
loan secured by it. Penalizing such an act is
Cowboy Levy's, a Jeans company, recently of the ordinance is a valid exercise of police
released an advertisement featuring model power. It is hazardous to health and comfort to
Richard Burgos wearing Levy's jackets and jeans use the lot for residential purposes, since a
and holding a pack of Marlboro cigarettes. highway crosses the subdivision and the area
has become commercial.

The Asian Broadcasting Network (ABN), a Police Power; Zoning Ordinance vs. Non-
privately owned television station, refuses to air Impairment of Contracts (2001)
the advertisement in compliance with the law. No XVIII In the deeds of sale to, and in the land
Decide the constitutionality of the law in question.titles of homeowners of a residential subdivision in
Pasig City, there are restrictions annotated therein
SUGGESTED ANSWER: to the effect that only residential houses or
The law is constitutional. It is a valid exercise structures
of may be built or constructed on the lots.
police power, because smoking is harmful However, to the City Council of Pasig enacted an
health. In Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates vs. ordinance amending the existing zoning ordinance
Tourism Company of Puerto Rico, 478 U.S. 328,by it changing the zone classification in that place
was ruled that a law prohibiting certain types from of purely residential to commercial.
advertisements is valid if it was adopted in the
interest of the health, safety, and welfare of the
people. In Capital Broadcasting Company us. "A", a lot owner, sold his lot to a banking firm and
Mitchell 333 F Supp 582, a law making it unlawful the latter started constructing a commercial
to advertise cigarettes on any medium building of on the lot to house a bank inside the
electronic communication was upheld. subdivision. The subdivision owner and the
The
United States Supreme Court summarily homeowners' association filed a case in court to
sustained this ruling in Capita! Broadcasting stop the construction of the building for banking
Company us, Acting Attorney General 405 U.S. business purposes and to respect the restrictions
1000. The law in question was enacted on the embodied in the deed of sale by the subdivision
developer to the lot owners, as well as the
basis of the legislative finding that there is a need
to protect public health, because smoking causes annotation in the titles.
lung diseases. Cowboy Levy's has not
overthrown this finding. If you were the Judge, how would you resolve
the case? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Police Power; Zoning Ordinance vs. Non- If I were the judge, I would dismiss the case. As
Impairment of Contracts (1989) held in Ortigas and Company Limited Partnership
No. 12: Pedro bought a parcel of land from Smart vs. FEATI Bank and Trust Company. 94 SCRA
Corporation, a realty firm engaged in developing 633 (1979), the zoning ordinance is a valid
and selling lots to the public. One of the exercise of police power and prevails over the
restrictions in the deed of sale which was contractual stipulation restricting the use of the lot
annotated in the title is that the lot shall be usedto residential purposes.
by the buyer exclusively for residential purposes.
A main highway having been constructed across
the subdivision, the area became commercial in Privacy of Communication (2001)
nature. The municipality later passed a zoning No XII - "A" has a telephone line with an extension.
ordinance declaring the area as a commercial One day, "A" was talking to "B" over the telephone.
bank building on his lot. Smart Corporation went "A" conspired with his friend "C", who was at the
end of the extension line listening to "A's"
to court to stop the construction as violative of the
telephone conversation with "B" in order to
building restrictions imposed by it. The corporation
contends that the zoning ordinance cannot nullify overhear and tape-record the conversation wherein
the contractual obligation assumed by the buyer. "B" confidentially admitted that with evident
Decide the case. premeditation, he (B) killed "D" for having cheated
him in their business partnership. "B" was not
SUGGESTED ANSWER: aware that the telephone conversation was being
The case must be dismissed. As held in Ortigastape-recorded.
and Company, Limited Partnership vs. FEATIi
Bank and Trust Company, 94 SCRA 533, such a
restriction in the contract cannot prevail over the
zoning ordinance, because the enactment
In the criminal case against "B" for murder, is the moved for its return on the ground that it violates
tape-recorded conversation containing his the right of "X" against unlawful search and
admission admissible in evidence? Why? (5%) seizure. Decide.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The tape-recorded conversation is not admissibleThe objection of the lawyer must be sustained,
in evidence. As held in Salcedo-Ortanez vs. CourtSection 3(1), Article IV of the 1987 Constitution
of Appeals, 235 SCRA 111 (1994). Republic Actprovides:
No. 4200 makes the tape-recording of a telephone"The privacy of communication and
conversation done without the authorizationcorrespondence
of all shall be inviolable except
the parties to the conversation, inadmissible upon in lawful order of the court, or when public
evidence. In addition, the taping ofsafety theor order requires otherwise as
conversation violated the guarantee of privacy of prescribed by law."
communications enunciated in Section 3, Article III
of the Constitution. There was no court order which authorized the
warden to read the letter of "X". Neither is there
any law specifically authorizing the Bureau of
Privacy of Correspondence (1998) Prisons to read the letter of "X", Under Section
No VII. - The police had suspicions that Juan3(1), Article III of the 1987 Constitution, to
Samson, member of the subversive Newinterfere with any correspondence when there is
Proletarian Army, was using the mail forno court order, there must be a law authorizing it
propaganda purposes in gaining new adherentsin the interest of public safety or order.
to its cause. The Chief of Police of Bantolan,
Lanao del Sur ordered the Postmaster of the town
to intercept and open all mail addressed to andThe ruling of the United States Supreme Court in
coming from Juan Samson in the interest of thethe case of Stroud vs. United States, 251
national security. Was the order of the Chief of U.S. 15 is not applicable here, because Section
Police valid? (5%) 3(1), Article III of the 1987 Constitution has no
SUGGESTED ANSWER: counterpart in the American Constitution. Hence,
No, the order of the Chief of Police is not valid,in accordance with Section 3(2), Article III of the
because there is no law which authorizes him to1987 Constitution, the letter is inadmissible in
order the Postmaster to open the letters evidence.
addressed to and coming from Juan Samson. An
official in the Executive Department cannot ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
interfere with the privacy of correspondence and The objection of the lawyer must be overruled. In
communication in the absence of a law Hudson vs. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, it was held that
authorizing him to do so or a lawful order of the the constitutional prohibition against illegal
court. Section 3(1), Article III of the Constitutionsearches and seizures does not extend to the
provides: confines of the prison. In Stroud vs. United States,
"The privacy of communication and 251 U.S. 15, the United States Supreme Court held
correspondence shall be inviolable that letters voluntarily written by a prisoner and
except upon lawful order of the court, or examined by the warden which contained
when public safety or order requires incriminatory statements were admissible in
otherwise as prescribed by law." evidence. Their inspection by the prison authorities
did not violate the constitutional prohibition against
Privacy of Correspondence; Jail (1989) illegal searches and seizures. This is an
No. 8: While serving sentence in Muntinlupa for established practice reasonably designed to
the crime of theft, "X" stabbed dead one of his promote discipline within the penitentiary.
guards, "X" was charged with murder. During his
trial, the prosecution introduced as evidence a
letter written in prison by "X" to his wife tending toRight to Assembly; Permit Application;
establish that the crime of murder was the result Freedom Parks (Q2-2006)
of premeditation. The letter was written The Samahan ng mga Mahihirap (SM) filed with
voluntarily. In the course of inspection, it was the Office of the City Mayor of Manila an
opened and read by a warden pursuant to the application for permit to hold a rally on Mendiola
rules of discipline of the Bureau of Prisons and Street on September 5, 2006 from 10:00 a.m. to
considering its contents, the letter was turned 3:00 p.m. to protest the political killings of
over to the prosecutor. The lawyer of "X" journalists. However, the City Mayor denied their
objected to the presentation of the letter and application on the ground that a rally at the
time and place applied for will block the traffic in SUGGESTED ANSWER:
the San Miguel and Quiapo Districts. He The arrests are unlawful. What is prohibited and
suggested the Liwasang Bonifacio, which has penalized under Sec. 13 (a) and 14 (a) of B.P.
been designated a Freedom Park, as venue for Big 880 is "the holding of any public assembly as
the rally. defined in this Act by any leader or organizer
without having first secured that written permit
1. Does the SM have a remedy to contest where a permit is required from the office
the denial of its application for a permit? (2.5%) concerned x x x Provided, however, that no
person can be punished or held criminally liable
SUGGESTED ANSWER: for participating in or attending an otherwise
Yes, SM has a remedy. Under B.P. Big. 880 (Thepeaceful assembly."
Public Assembly Act of 1985), in the event of
denial of the application for a permit, the applicantThus, only the leader or organizer of the rally
may contest the decision in an appropriate courtwithout a permit may be arrested without a
of law. The court must decide within twenty-fourwarrant while the members may not be arrested,
(24) hours from the date of filing of the case. Saidas they can not be punished or held criminally
decision may be appealed to the appropriateliable for attending the rally. However, under
court within forty-eight (48) hours after receipt ofSection 12 thereof, when the public assembly is
the same. In all cases, any decision may beheld without a permit where a permit is required,
appealed to the Supreme Court (Bayan Muna v.the said public assembly may be peacefully
Ermita, G.R. No. 169838, April 25, 2006). dispersed.

Right to Assembly; Permit Requirements


2. Does the availability of a Freedom Park (1992)
justify the denial of SM's application for a permit?No. 4: Olympia Academy, a private university,
(2.5%) issued a student regulation for maintaining order in
SUGGESTED ANSWER: the school campus and to ensure that academic
No, the availability of a freedom park does not activities shall be conducted effectively.
justify the denial of the permit. It does imply that
no permits are required for activities in freedom
parks. Under B.P. Big. 880, the denial may be Henceforth, every student organization intending to
justified only if there is clear and convincing hold any symposium, convocation, rally or any
evidence that the public assembly will create assembly
a within school property and involving at
clear and present danger to public order, public least 20 people must file, for the prior approval of
safety, public convenience, public morals or the Dean of Students, an Application setting forth
public health (Bayan Muna v. Ermita, G.R. No. the time, place, expected size of the group, and the
169838, April 25, 2006). subject-matter and purpose of the assembly.

3. Is the requirement to apply for a permit


to hold a rally a prior restraint on freedom of The League of Nationalist Students questions
speech and assembly? (2.5%) the validity of the new regulation. Resolve.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the requirement for a permit to hold a rally isThe regulation is valid. As held In Rarnento us.
not a prior restraint on freedom of speech andMal-abanan, 129 SCRA 359, if an assembly will
assembly. The Supreme Court has held that thebe held by students in school premises, permit
permit requirement is valid, referring to it asmust be sought from the school authorities, who
regulation of the time, place, and manner ofare devoid of the power to deny such request
holding public assemblies, but not the content ofarbitrarily or unreasonably. In granting such
the speech itself. Thus, there is no prior restraint,permit, there may be conditions as to the time
since the content of the speech is not relevant toand place of the assembly to avoid disruption of
the regulation (Bayan Muna v. Ermita, G.R. No.classes or stoppage of work of the nonacademic
169838, April 25, 2006). personnel.

4. Assuming that despite the denial of Right


SM's to Assembly; Public Teachers (2000)
application for a permit, its members hold a rally, No XII - Public school teachers staged for days
prompting the police to arrest them. Are the mass actions at the Department of Education,
arrests without judicial warrants lawful? (2.5%) Culture and Sports to press for the immediate
grant of their demand for additional pay. The
DECS Secretary issued to them a notice of the (a) Their strike was an exercise of their
illegality of their unauthorized action, ordered constitutional right to peaceful assembly and to
them to immediately return to work, and warned petition the government for redress of grievances.
them of imposable sanctions. They ignored this
and continued with their mass action. The DECS SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Secretary issued orders for their preventive (a) According to De la Cruz v. Court of Appeals,
suspension without pay and charged the teachers305 SCRA 303 (1999), the argument of the
with gross misconduct and gross neglect of duty teachers that they were merely exercising their
for unauthorized abandonment of teaching posts constitutional right to peaceful assembly and to
and absences without leave. a) Are employees inpetition the government for redress of grievance
the public sector allowed cannot be sustained, because such rights must
to form unions? To strike? Why? (3%) b) The be exercised within reasonable limits. When such
teachers claim that their right to rights were exercised on regular school days
peaceably assemble and petition the instead of during the free time of the teachers, the
government for redress of grievances has teachers committed acts prejudicial to the best
been curtailed. Are they correct? Why? interests of the service.
(2%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: a) Section 8,
Article III of the Constitution allows employees in
the public sector to form unions. However, they Right to Travel; Order of Arrest (1991)
cannot go on strike. As explained in Social No. 6: Mr. Esteban Krony, a Filipino citizen, is
Security System Employees Association v. Court arrested for the crime of smuggling. He posts bail
of Appeals. 175 SCRA 686 [1989], the terms and for his release. Subsequently, he jumps bail and
conditions of their employment are fixed by law. is about to leave the country when the
Employees in the public sector cannot strike to Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) cancels his
secure concessions from their employer. passport. He sues the DFA, claiming violation of
his freedom to travel, citing the new provision in
the Bill of Rights of the 1987 Constitution, to wit:
"Neither shall the right to travel be impaired
b. The teachers cannot claim that their right to except in the interest of national security, public
peaceably assemble and petition for the redress safety, or public health, as may be provided by
of grievances has been curtailed. According to law. Decide the case.
Bangalisan v. Court of Appeals. 276 SCRA 619 SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(1997), they can exercise this right without The case should be dismissed. Any person
stoppage of classes. under an order of arrest is under restraint and
therefore he can not claim the right to travel. If he
Right to Assembly; Public Teachers (2002) is admitted to bail his freedom of movement is
No X - Ten public school teachers of Caloocan confined within the country. Therefore, if he
City left their classrooms to join a strike, which subsequently jumps bail, he cannot demand
lasted for one month, to ask for teachers' passport which in effect will facilitate his escape
benefits. from the country; he is in fact liable to be
arrested anytime. Indeed, the right to travel
The Department of Education, Culture and Sports under the Constitution presupposes that the
charged them administratively, for which reason individual is under no restraint such as that which
they were required to answer and formally would follow from the fact that one has a pending
investigated by a committee composed of the criminal case and has been placed under arrest.
Division Superintendent of Schools as Chairman,
the Division Supervisor as member and a
teacher, as another member. On the basis of the Rights of the Accused; Counsel of his Choice
evidence adduced at the formal investigation (Q8-2005)
which amply established their guilt, the Director (1) Mariano was arrested by the NBI as a
rendered a decision meting out to them the suspect in the shopping mall bombings. Advised of
penalty of removal from office. The decision was his rights, Mariano asked for the assistance of his
affirmed by the DECS Secretary and the Civil relative, Atty. Santos. The NBI noticed that Atty.
Service Commission. On appeal, they reiterated Santos was inexperienced, incompetent and
the arguments they raised before the inattentive. Deeming him unsuited to protect the
administrative bodies, namely: rights of Mariano, the NBI dismissed Atty. Santos.
Appointed in his place was Atty. Barroso, a
bar topnotcher who was in the premises once the prosecution shows there was compliance
visiting a relative. Atty. Barroso ably assisted with the constitutional requirement on pre-
Mariano when the latter gave a statement. interrogation advisories, a confession is presumed
However, Mariano assailed the investigation to be voluntary and the declarant bears the
claiming that he was deprived of counsel of burden of proving that his confession is
his choice. involuntary and untrue. A confession is admissible
until the accused successfully proves that it was
Was the NBI correct in dismissing Atty.given as a result of violence, intimidation, threat or
Santos and appointing Atty. Barroso in hispromise of reward or leniency which are not
stead? Is Mariano's statement, made with thepresent in this case. Accordingly, the statement is
assistance of Atty. Barroso, admissible inadmissible.
evidence? (5%) (People v. Jerez, G.R. No. 114385, January 29, 1998)

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: Rights of the Accused; Presumption of


The NBI was not correct in dismissing Atty. Santos Innocence vs. Presumption of Theft (2004)
and appointing Atty. Barroso in his stead. Article (5-b) OZ lost five head of cattle which he reported
to the police as stolen from his barn. He requested
III, Section 12(1) of the 1987 Constitution requires
that a person under investigation for the several neighbors, including RR, for help in looking
commission of an offense shall have no less than for the missing animals. After an extensive search,
"competent and independent counsel preferablythe of police found two head in RR's farm. RR could
his own choice " This is meant to stress the explain to the police how they got hidden in a
not
primacy accorded to the voluntariness of the remote area of his farm. Insisting on his
choice under the uniquely stressful conditions ofinnocence,
a RR consulted a lawyer who told him he
custodial investigation' Thus, the lawyer called tohas a right to be presumed innocent under the Bill
be present during such investigation should be as of Rights. But there is another presumption of theft
far as reasonably possible, the choice of the arising from his unexplained possession of stolen
individual undergoing questioning. cattle—
The under the penal law. Are the two
appointment of Atty. Barroso is questionable presumptions capable of reconciliation In this
because he was visiting a relative working in the case? If so, how can they be reconciled? If not,
NBI and thus his independence is doubtful. which should prevail? (5%)
Lawyers engaged by the police, whatever
testimonials are given as proof of their probity and
supposed independence, are generally suspect, SUGGESTED ANSWER:
as in many areas, the relationship between The two presumptions can be reconciled. The
lawyers and law enforcement authorities can be presumption of innocence stands until the
symbiotic. Considering that Mariano was deprived contrary is proved. It may be overcome by a
of counsel of his own choice, the statement contraryis presumption founded upon human
inadmissible in evidence. (People v. Januario, experience. The presumption that RR is the one
G.R. No. 98252, February 7, 1997) who stole the cattle of OZ is logical, since he was
found in possession of the stolen cattle. RR can
prove his innocence by presenting evidence to
rebut the presumption. The burden of evidence is
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: shifted to RR, because how he came into
The NBI was correct in dismissing Atty. Santos aspossession of the cattle is peculiarly within his
he was incompetent. The 1987 Constitution knowledge. (Dizon-Pamintuan v. People, 234
requires counsel to be competent and SCRA 63 (1994)).
independent. Atty. Barroso, being a bar topnotcher
ably assisted Mariano and there is no showing Rights of the Accused; Right to Bail (1993)
that his having a relative in the NBI affected his No. 9: Johann learned that the police were
independence. Moreover, the accused has the looking for him in connection with the rape of an
final choice of counsel as he may reject the one 18-year old girl, a neighbor. He went to the police
chosen for him and ask for another. A lawyer station a week later and presented himself to the
provided by the investigators is deemed engaged desk sergeant. Coincidentally. the rape victim
by the accused where he raises no objection was in the premises executing an extrajudicial
against the lawyer during the course of the statement. Johann, along with six
investigation, and the accused thereafter (6) other suspects, were placed in a police lineup
subscribes to the truth of his statement before the and the girl pointed to him as the rapist. Johann
swearing officer. Thus, was arrested and locked up in a cell.
Johann was charged with rape in court but prior No. 15: May an alien invoke the constitutional
to arraignment invoked his right to preliminary right to bail during the pendency of deportation
investigation. This was denied by the judge, and proceedings?
thus, trial proceeded. After the prosecution SUGGESTED ANSWER:
presented several witnesses, Johann through No. an alien may not invoke the constitutional
counsel, invoked the right to ball and filed a right to bail during the pendency of deportation
motion therefor, which was denied outright by theproceedings. In Harvey vs Santiago, 162 SCRA
Judge. Johann now files a petition for certiorari 840, it was held that the constitutional guarantee
before the Court of Appeals arguing that: 3) He isto bail may not be invoked in deportation
entitled to bail as a matter of right, thus the Judgeproceedings, because they do not partake of the
should not have denied his motion to fix ball nature of a criminal action.
outright. Decide.
Rights of the Accused; Right to Bail; Matter
SUGGESTED ANSWER: of Right or a Matter of Discretion (Q7-2005)
3) In accordance with Art. III. sec. 13 of thea) State with reason(s) whether bail is a matter
Constitution, Johann may be denied bail if theof right or a matter of discretion in the
evidence of his guilt is strong considering that thefollowing cases: (4%) a) The imposable penalty
crime with which he is charged is punishable by for the crime
charged is reclusion perpetua and the
reclusion perpetua. It is thus not a matter of right
for him to be released on bail in such case. The accused is a minor;
court must first make a determination of the
strength of the evidence on the basis of evidence SUGGESTED ANSWER:
already presented by the prosecution, unless it If the accused is a minor where the imposable
desires to present some more, and give the penalty for the crime charged is reclusion
accused the opportunity to present countervailing perpetua, bail would be a matter of right. Under
evidence. If having done this the court finds the Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code, when the
evidence not to be strong, then it becomes the offender is a minor under eighteen years of age,
right of Johann to be admitted to bail. The error ofhe is entitled to a penalty, depending on his age,
the trial court lies in outrightly denying the motion lower by one or two degrees than that prescribed
for bail of Johann. by law for the crime committed. The Constitution
withholds the guaranty of bail from one who is
accused of a capital offense where the evidence
Rights of the Accused; Right to Bail; Capital of guilt is strong. The obvious reason is that one
Offense (Q4-2006) who faces a probable death sentence has a
State whether or not the law is constitutional. particularly strong temptation to flee. This reason
Explain briefly. does not hold where the accused has been
2. A law denying persons charged with established without objection to be a minor who
crimes punishable by reclusion perpetua or death by law cannot be sentenced to death. (Bravo v.
the right to bail. (2%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Borja, G.R. No. L-65228, February 18, 1985)
The law is invalid as it contravenes Section 13,
Article III of the 1987 Constitution which provides
that "all persons, except those charged with b) The imposable penalty for the crime
offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when charged is life imprisonment and the
evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, accused is a minor;
be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released
on recognizance as may be provided by law." The ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
accused may not be deprived of his constitutionalIf the accused is a minor and the imposable
right to bail even if charged with a capital offensepenalty for the crime charged is life imprisonment,
where the evidence of guilt is not strong. bail would not be a matter of right. In the instant
case, assuming that evidence of guilt strong, bail
shall be denied as the privileged mitigating
circumstance of minority is not available for
violation of special laws penalized by life
imprisonment.
Rights of the Accused; Right to Bail;
Deportation Case (1989) ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Although the Constitution mentions only reclusion
perpetua, Rule 114 of the Rules of
Court adds life imprisonment, and therefore, private complainant, the judge properly dismissed
applying the PRO REO DOCTRINE, bail would the case for failure to prosecute.
still be a matter of right, since it is favorable to
the accused. Rights of the Accused; Self-Incrimination
(1988)
c) The accused has been convicted of No. 3: Dr. Juan Sto. Tomas is a practicing dentist
homicide on a charge of murder and sentenced toin Marikina, Metro Manila. He was charged with
suffer an indeterminate penalty of from eight (8) immorality before the Board of Dentistry by a lady
years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as patient, who claims that Dr. Sto. Tomas took
minimum, to twelve liberties with her person and kissed her while she
(12) years and four (4) months of reclusion was under the treatment at the latter's clinic.
temporal, as maximum.

SUGGESTED ANSWER: At the initial hearing of the administrative


If the accused has been convicted of homicide oncomplaint, the complainant's counsel called the
a charge of murder and sentenced to suffer respondent as his first witness. The respondent
imprisonment of from 8 to 12 years, bail is a through counsel, objected vigorously, claiming his
matter of discretion. Under Rule 114, Sec. 5, par.constitutional right to be exempt from being a
1 of the Rules of Court, if the decision of the trial witness against himself. The Board noted the
court convicting the accused changed the nature objection, but ruled that in the next scheduled
of the offense from non-bailable to bailable, the hearing, a month and a half later, the respondent
application for bail may be filed and acted upon would be called to testify as a witness, as the right
by the appellate court. Admission to bail is he claims is not available in administrative
discretionary. investigations, but only in criminal prosecutions.

Rights of the Accused; Right to Speedy Trial


(2000) Dr. Sto. Tomas is decided not to testify. As his
No XV. Charged by Francisco with libel, Pablo lawyer, what would you do? Why?
was arraigned on January 3, 2000, Pre-trial was SUGGESTED ANSWER:
dispensed with and continuous trial was set for I will file a petition for prohibition with prayer for
March 7, 8 and 9, 2000. On the first setting, the preliminary injunction with the Regional Trial
prosecution moved for its postponement and Court. The privilege against self incrimination is
cancellation of the other settings because its available not only in judicial proceedings but also
principal and probably only witness, the private in administrative investigations. In Pascual
complainant Francisco, suddenly had to go v. Board of Medical Examiners, 28 SCRA 344
abroad to fulfill a professional commitment. The (1969), it was held that the revocation of a license
judge instead dismissed the case for failure to as a medical practitioner can be an even greater
prosecute. a) Would the grant of the motion for deprivation than mere forfeiture of property. In
postponement have violated the accused's right to some aspects it is similar to criminal proceedings
speedy trial? (2%) and, therefore, the respondent can not be made to
testify as a witness for the complainant.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The grant of the motion for postponement would
not have violated the right of the accused to Rights of the Accused; Self-Incrimination
speedy trial. As held In People v. Leviste, 255 (1990)
SCRA 238 (1996). since the motion for No. 4: The privilege of self-incrimination must be
postponement was the first one requested, the timely invoked, otherwise it is deemed waived.
need for the offended party to attend to a
professional commitment is a valid reason, no 1In a CIVIL CASE, the plaintiff called the defendant
substantial right of the accused would be a hostile witness and announced that the
prejudiced, and the prosecution should be defendant would be asked incriminating questions
afforded a fair opportunity to prosecute its case, in the direct examination. When should the
the motion should be granted. defendant invoke the privilege against self-
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: incrimination?
Since continuous trial of cases is required and In a CRIMINAL CASE, the prosecution called the
since the date of the initial hearing was set uponaccused to the witness stand as the first witness in
agreement of all parties, including the view of certain facts
admitted by the accused at the pre-trial.
When should the accused invoke the
privilege against self-incrimination?
3. In an administrative case for malpractice
and the cancellation of license to practice
medicine filed against C, the complainant called
C to the witness stand. When should C invoke
the privilege against self-incrimination?

Explain your answers to the three questions.


SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(1) As held in Bagadiong v, De Guzman, 94 SCRA
906, the defendant should take the witness stand
and object when a question calling for an
incriminating question is propounded. Unlike in
proceedings which are criminal in character in
which the accused can refuse to testify, the
defendant must wait until a question calling for an
incriminatory answer is actually asked. (Suarez v.
Tongco, 2 SCRA 71)

(2) As held in Chavez v. Court of Appeals, 24


SCRA 663, in a criminal case the accused may
altogether refuse to take the witness and refuse
to answer any question, because the purpose of
calling him as a witness for the prosecution has
no other purpose but to incriminate him.

(3) As in a criminal case, C can refuse to take the


witness stand and refuse to answer any question.
In Pascual v. Board of Medical Examiners, 28
SCRA 344, it was held that an administrative case
for malpractice and cancellation of the license to
practice medicine is penal in character, because
an unfavorable decision would result in the
revocation of the license of the respondent to
practice medicine. Consequently, he can refuse to
take the witness stand.
height and weight, his photographs, fingerprints Cite two [2] possible constitutional objections to
comparison and the results of the paraffin test, this law. Resolve the objections and explain
asserting that these were taken in violation of his whether any such infirmities can be cured.
right against self-incrimination. Rule on the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
objection. (2%) Possible objections to the law are that requiring a
SUGGESTED ANSWER: driver to take the breathalyzer test will violate his
b) The objection of Borja is not tenable. As heldright against self-incrimination, that providing for
in People v. Paynor, 261 SCRA 615 (1996), thethe suspension of his driver's license without any
rights guaranteed by Section 12, Article in of thehearing violates due process, and that the
Constitution applies only against testimonialproposed law will violate the right against
evidence. An accused may be compelled to beunreasonable searches and seizures, because it
photographed or measured, his garments mayallows police authorities to require a drive to take
be removed, and his body may be examined. the breathalyzer test even if there is no probable
cause.
Rights of the Accused; Self-Incrimination (Q7-
2006) Requiring a driver to take a BREATHALYZER
Select the best answer and explain. TEST does not violate his right against self-
1. An accused's right against self-incrimination isincrimination, because he is not being compelled
violated in the following cases: (5%) to give testimonial evidence. He is merely being
When he is ordered by the trial court to undergo a asked to submit to a physical test. This is not
paraffin test to prove he is guilty of murder; covered by the constitutional guarantee against
When he is compelled to produce his bankbooksself-incrimination.
to be Thus, in South Dakota vs.
used as evidence against his father charged withNeville, 459 U.S. 553, it was held for this reason
plunder; that requiring a driver to take a blood-alcohol test
When he is ordered to produce a sample of his is valid.
handwriting to be used as evidence that he is the
author of a letter wherein he agreed to kill the victim;
As held in Mackey vs. Afontrya 443 U.S. 1, because
When the president of a corporation is subpoenaed to
of compelling government interest in safety along
produce certain documents as proofs he is guilty theof streets, the license of a driver who refuses to
illegal recruitment. take the breathalyzer test may be suspended
immediately pending a post-suspension hearing,
but there must be a provision for a post-suspension
hearing. Thus, to save the proposed law from
unconstitutionally on the ground of denial of due
process, it should provide for an immediate hearing
upon suspension of the driver's license. The
proposed law violates the right against
unreasonable searches and seizures. It will
authorize police authorities to stop any driver and
ask him to take the breathalyzer test even in the
Rights of the Accused; Self-Incrimination absence of a probable cause.
(1992)
No, 3; Congress is considering a law against
drunken driving. Under the legislation, policeRights of the Accused; Self-Incrimination
authorities may ask any driver to take a(2000)
"breathalyzer test", wherein the driver exhalesNo XI. b) A man was shot and killed and his killer
several times into a device which can determinefled. Moments after the shooting, an eyewitness
whether he has been driving under the influencedescribed to the police that the slayer wore white
of alcohol. The results of the test can be used, inpants, a shirt with floral design, had boots and
any legal proceeding against him. Furthermore,was about 70 kilos and
declaring that the issuance of a driver's license1.65 meters. Borja, who fit the description given,
gives rise only to a privilege to drive motorwas seen nearby. He was taken into custody and
vehicles on public roads, the law provides that abrought to the police precinct where his pants,
driver who refuses to take the test shall beshirt and boots were forcibly taken and he was
automatically subject to a 90-day suspension ofweighed, measured, photographed, fingerprinted
his driver's license, and subjected to paraffin testing. At his trial, Borja
objected to the admission in evidence of the
apparel, his
illegal searches and seizures and against illegalto save proof.
the proposed
One day, law Emilio from broke
unconstitutionally
open the deskon of
arrests. (2%) the ground Alvin and of denial
discovered
of due aprocess,
letter wherein
it should Randy
SUGGESTED ANSWER: provide thanked
for an immediate
Alvin for having hearing passed
uponon suspension
to him
Aliens are entitled to the right against illegal of the vitaldriver's
trade license.
secretsThe of Emilio.
proposed Enclosed
law violates
in the
searches and seizures and illegal arrests. As the right letter
against
was aunreasonable
check for P50,000.00 searchesdrawn and
applied in People v. Chua Ho San, 307 SCRA seizures. against
It willtheauthorize
accountpolice of Randy authorities
and payableto stopto
432 (1999), these rights are available to all any driver Alvin.and Emilioask then
him to dismissed
take the Alvin
breathalyzer
from histest
persons, including aliens. even in employment.
the absenceEmilio's of a probable
proof ofcause.
Alvin's perfidy
are the said letter and check which are
Searches and Seizures; Breathalyzer Test objected to as inadmissible for having been
(1992) Searches
obtained and through Seizures;
an illegalImmediate
search. Alvin Control
filed
No, 3; Congress is considering a law against (1987)
a suit assailing his dismissal. Rule on the
drunken driving. Under the legislation, police No.admissibility
III: "X" a Constabulary
of the letter and Officer,
check.was(5%)arrested
authorities may ask any driver to take a pursuant to a lawful court order in Baguio City for
"breathalyzer test", wherein the driver exhales murder. He was brought to Manila where a
several times into a device which can determine warrantless search was conducted in his official
whether he has been driving under the influence quarters ALTERNATIVE
at Camp Crame, ANSWER: The search team found
of alcohol. The results of the test can be used, in As held
and in People
seized v. Marti weapon
the murder (G.R. No.in81561,a drawer of
any legal proceeding against him. Furthermore, January 18, 1991), the constitution,
"X". Can "X" claim that the search and in laying down
seizure
the principles
declaring that the issuance of a driver's license were illegal and move for exclusion from of the government and fundamental
gives rise only to a privilege to drive motor liberties
evidence of of
thethepeople,
weapon does not govern
seized? Explain.
SUGGESTED
vehicles on public roads, the law provides that a relationships between individuals. Thus, if the ANSWER:
driver who refuses to take the test shall be Yes,
search "X"iscan made do so.
at theThebehest
warrantless search
or initiative of cannot
the
automatically subject to a 90-day suspension of be justifiedof aasprivate
proprietor an incident
establishment of a for valid
its ownarrest,
his driver's license, Cite two [2] possible because
and private considerable
purposes and timewithout
had elapsed after his
the intervention
constitutional objections to this law. Resolve the arrest of policein Baguio
authorities,before thethe rightsearch
against of his quarters
objections and explain whether any such inunreasonable
Camp Crame, search Quezon
and seizureCity wascannot made,
be and
infirmities can be cured. because
invoked for theonlydistance
the act between
of private theindividuals,
place of arrest not
SUGGESTED ANSWER: and the place
the law enforcers, of search negates
is involved. In any
sum,claimthe that the
Possible objections to the law are that requiring aplace searched
protection againstis within his "immediate
unreasonable searches control"
and so
driver to take the breathalyzer test will violate hisas to justify
seizures cannot thebe apprehension
extended to acts that he might
committed
right against self-incrimination, that providing for destroy by PRIVATE or conceal
INDIVIDUALSevidence so of
as tocrime
bringbefore
it withina
the suspension of his driver's license without anywarrant the ambit can ofbe obtained.
alleged unlawful (Chimel v. California,
intrusion by the 395
SUGGESTED
hearing violatesANSWER:
due process, and that the U.S. 752 (1969)
government. ) in Nolasco
Accordingly, v. Cruz
the letter and Pano,
check are 147
The best law
proposed answer is c) the
will violate when right heagainst
is ordered to SCRA
admissible 509 (1987), (Waterous
in evidence. the Supreme Drug Corp. Court
v.
produce a sample
unreasonable of hisand
searches handwriting to be used
seizures, because itreconsidered
NLRC, G.R. No. its previous
113271, October decision16, holding
1997) that a
as evidence
allows that he istothe
police authorities requireauthor of ato letter
a drive takewarrantless search, made after 30 minutes from
wherein
the he agreed
breathalyzer testtoeven
kill the victim.
if there is Under Articlethe time of arrest, and, in a place several blocks
no probable
HI, Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution, "noaway ALTERNATIVE
cause from the place ANSWER: of arrest, was valid. It held
person shall be compelled to be a witness Thealetter
that is inadmissible
warrantless search is inlimited
evidence.to theThe search of
Requiring a driver to
against himself." take a
Since thebreathalyzer
provision test does
prohibits constitutional
the person of the injunction
arrestee declaring the privacy
at the time and incident of
not violate his
compulsory right against
testimonial self-incrimination,
incrimination, it does not tocommunication
his arrest and and correspondence
for dangerous to be
weapons or
because he is not
matter whether thebeing compelled
testimony to give
is taken inviolablewhich
by oral oranything is no less mayapplicable
be usedsimply as proofbecause of theit
testimonial
written means evidence.
as eitherHe way
is merely being the
it involves askedUSE to is the employer
offense. A contrary whorule is the partyjustify
would against thewhom
police in
submit to a physical test.
OF INTELLECTUAL This is not The
FACULTIES. covered by procuring
purpose the constitutional
a warrantprovision
of arrestisand, to bebyenforced. The
virtue thereof,
the constitutional
of the privilege isguarantee
to avoid against self- therebynot
and prohibit onlyonlyexception
arrest tothe the person
prohibition but inalso
the search his
incrimination.
the repetition Thus, and in South Dakota
recurrence vs. Neville, adwelling.
of compelling Constitution is if there
A warrant is a lawful
requires order
that all factsfromas the
to the
459 U.S.in553,
person, it was held
a criminal or any forother
this reason
case, tothat court or when
furnishcondition of thepublic
property safety andoritsorder requires and
surroundings
requiring
the missing a driverevidence
to take a blood-alcohol
necessary test for ishisitsotherwise,
improvements as prescribed and bycapabilities
law. Any violationmust ofbe
valid.
conviction (Bermudez v. Castillo, Per Rec. No.considered, this provision andrenders
this can theonly evidence
be done obtained
in a judicial
714-A, July 26, 1937; Beltran v. Samson, G.R.proceeding. inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
As
No.held in Mackey
32025, September vs. Afontrya
23,1929). 443 U.S. 1, (Zulueta v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107383,
because of compelling government interest in February 20, 1996)
Searches
safety alongand Seizure;
the streets, the Private
license ofIndividuals
a driver
refuses to take the breathalyzer test may be Searches and
(Q8-2005)
who andSeizures;
Seizures;Aliens Incidental
(2001) to Valid
(2) Emilio had
suspended long suspected
immediately pending thata Alvin,
post- his Search
No IV - A(1990)
is an alien. State whether, in the
employee, had
suspension been but
hearing, passing
theretrade be a to his No.
mustsecrets 9; Some he:
Philippines, police operatives,
Is entitled to theacting under a
right against
competitor,
provision forRandy, but he had no
a post-suspension hearing. Thus, lawfully issued warrant for the purpose of
searching for firearms in the House of X located at
No. 10 Shaw Boulevard, Pasig, Metro Manila,
found, instead of firearms, ten kilograms of
cocaine.
(1) May the said police operatives lawfully
seize the cocaine? Explain your answer.
(2) May X successfully challenge the legality
of the search on the ground that the peace
officers did not inform him about his right to
remain silent and his right to counsel? Explain
your answer.
(3) Suppose the peace officers were able to
find unlicensed firearms in the house in an
adjacent lot, that is. No, 12 Shaw Boulevard,
which is also owned by X. May they lawfully seize
the said unlicensed firearms? Explain your
answer.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(1) Yes, the police operatives may lawfully seize
the cocaine, because it is an item whose
possession is prohibited by law, it was in plain
view and it was only inadvertently discovered in
the course of a lawful search. The possession of
cocaine is prohibited by Section 8 of the
Dangerous Drugs Act. As held in Magoncia v.
Palacio, 80 Phil. 770, an article whose possession
is prohibited by law may be seized without the
need of any search warrant if it was discovered
during a lawful search. The additional requirement
laid down in Roan v. Gonzales, 145 SCRA 687
that the discovery of the article must have been
made inadvertently was also satisfied in this case.

(2) No, X cannot successfully challenge the


legality of the search simply because the peace
officers did not inform him about his right to
remain silent and his right to counsel. Section
12(1), Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides:
"Any person under investigation for the
commission of an offense shall have the right to
be informed of his right to remain silent and to
have competent and independent counsel
preferably of his own choice."
As held in People v. Dy, 158 SCRA 111. for
this provision to apply, a suspect must be
under investigation. There was no investigation
involved in this case.

(3) The unlicensed firearms stored at 12 Shaw


Boulevard may lawfully be seized since their
possession is illegal. As held in Magoncia a
Palacio, 80 Phil. 770, when an individual
possesses contraband (unlicensed firearms
belong to this category), he is committing a crime
and he can be arrested without a warrant and the
contraband can be seized.
peculiar smell and upon squeezing felt like dried ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
leaves. His curiosity aroused, the manager madepossession
In accordance of prohibited
with the rulings
drugs in
and Uywas
Keytin v,
an opening on one of the packages and took convicted.
Villareal, 42 OnPhil.
appeal
886 heandcontends
People v. that
Sy-Juco, 64
several grams of the contents thereof. He took thePhil. 667, the unlicensed firearms found in the
packages to the NBI, and in the presence of house at 12 Shaw Boulevard may not be lawfully
agents, opened the (1) The since they
seized, plastic
werebag
notand its contents
included in the are
inadmissible
description ofintheevidence
articles being
to be the product
seized of anof
by virtue
(2) search
The
illegal
the receipt
search andheseizure;
warrant. signed is alsowarrant
(3%)
The search inadmissible
and as
described
his articles
the rights under
to be custodial
seized asinvestigation
firearms in thewere not
house
ofobserved.
X located(2%)
at 10 Shaw Boulevard.
subsequently found, brought to the NBI
Office where he admitted ownership of the
attache case and the packages. He was Searches and Seizures; Place of Search
made to sign a receipt for the packages. (2001)
Larry was charged in court for possession No XI - Armed with a search and seizure warrant,
of prohibited drugs. He was convicted. On a team of policemen led by Inspector Trias
appeal, he now poses the following issues: entered a compound and searched the house
1) The packages are inadmissible in described therein as No. 17 Speaker Perez St.,
being
evidence the product of an illegal search Sta. Mesa Heights, Quezon City, owned by Mr.
and seizure; . Ernani Pelets, for a reported cache of firearms
2) Neither is the receipt he signed admissible,
and ammunition. However, upon thorough search
his rights under custodial investigation not of the house, the police found nothing.
having been observed. Decide. SUGGESTED
ANSWER: On the assumption that the issues
were timely raised the answers are as follows: 1) Then, acting on a hunch, the policemen
The packages are admissible in evidence. The proceeded to a smaller house inside the same
one who opened the packages was the manager compound with address at No. 17-A Speaker
of the motel without any interference of the agentsPerez St., entered it, and conducted a search
of the National Bureau of Investigation. As held intherein over the objection of Mr. Pelets who
People vs. Marti, 193 SCRA 57, the constitutionalhappened to be the same owner of the first
right against unreasonable searches and seizureshouse. There, the police found the unlicensed
refers to unwarranted intrusion by the governmentfirearms and ammunition they were looking for.
and does not operate as a restraint upon private As a result. Mr. Ernani Pelets was criminally
individuals. 2) The receipt is not admissible in charged in court with Illegal possession of
evidence. ... firearms and ammunition as penalized under
P.D. 1866, as amended by RA. 8294. At the trial,
he vehemently objected to the presentation of the
evidence against him for being inadmissible. Is Mr.
Searches and Seizures; search made by a Emani Pelet's contention valid or not? Why? (5%)
private citizen (2002)
No VIII. One day a passenger bus conductor found SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a man's handbag left in the bus. When the The contention of Ernani Pelet is valid. As held in
conductor opened the bag, he found inside a People vs. Court of Appeals, 291SCRA 400
catling card with the owner's name (Dante Galang)(1993), if the place searched is different from
and address, a few hundred peso bills, and a smallthat stated in the search warrant, the evidence
plastic bag containing a white powdery substance.seized is inadmissible. The policeman cannot
He brought the powdery substance to the Nationalmodify the place to be searched as set out in the
Bureau of Investigation for laboratory examination search warrant.
and it was determined to be methamphetamine
hydrochloride or shabu, a prohibited drug. Dante Searches and Seizures; search made by a
Galang was subsequently traced and found and private citizen (1993)
brought to the NBI Office where he admitted No. 4: Larry was an overnight guest in a motel.
ownership of the handbag and its contents. In the After he checked out the following day, the
course of the interrogation by NBI agents, and chambermaid found an attache case which she
without the presence and assistance of counsel, surmised was left behind by Larry. She turned it
Galang was made to sign a receipt for the plastic over to the manager who, to determine the name
bag and its shabu contents. Galang was charged and address of the owner, opened the attache
with illegal case and saw packages which had a
b) A warrantless search may be effected in the were found after a more extensive search of the
following cases: a) Searches incidental to a various compartments of the car. As held in
lawful arrest: b) Searches of moving vehicles; c) Valmonte vs. De Villa, 185 SCRA 665, for such a
Searches of prohibited articles in plain view: d) search to be valid, there must be a probable
Enforcement of customs law; e) Consented cause. In this case, there was no probable cause,
searches; f) Stop and frisk (People v. Monaco, as there was nothing to indicate that Antonio had
285 prohibited drugs inside the compartments of his
car.
SCRA 703 [1998]);
g) Routine searches at borders and ports of Searches Decide and the case Seizures; Waiver of Consent
with reasons.
entry (United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606 (1989)SUGGESTED ANSWER:
[1977]); and No.
A. The7: Pursuing
plastic bagreports and its that greatare
contents quantities
admissible of
h) Searches of businesses in the exercise ofprohibited
in evidence, drugssince are it was
being notsmuggled
the National at nighttime
Bureau
visitorial powers to enforce police regulations (Newthrough the shores
of Investigation but of theCavite, the Southern
bus conductor who Luzon
York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691 (1987]). Command
opened theset bagup and checkpoints
brought it toatthe theNational
end of the
Cavite
Bureau coastal road toAssearch
of Investigation. held In passing
People v.motor
vehicles.
Marti, 193ASCRA 19-year 57 (1991),
old boy, thewho
constitutional
finished fifth
Searches and Seizures; Visual Search (1992) grade, while driving, was
right against unreasonable search and seizure stopped by theis
No. 5: During the recent elections, checkpoints authorities
a restraint upon at the the government.
checkpoint.It does Withoutnot any
were set up to enforce the election period ban objection
apply so as from to him,
require his exclusion
car was inspected,
of evidence and the
on firearms. search
which came yielded intomarijuana
the possession leaves of the
hidden in the
trunk compartment
Government through of athe car. The
search made prohibited
by a privatedrug
During one such routine search one night, while was citizen.
promptly seized, and the boy was brought to
looking through an open window with a flashlight,the police B. It isstation
inadmissible....
for questioning. Was the search
the police saw firearms at the backseat of a car without warrant legal?
partially covered by papers and clothes. Antonio, Searches and Seizures; Valid Warrantless
owner and driver of the car in question, SearchSUGGESTED
(2000) ANSWER:
a)
No,Crack
the search
officerswas of the notAnti-Narcotics
valid, because Unitthere
werewas
was charged for violation of the firearms assigned
no probable cause for conducting
on surveillance of the environsthe search.
of a As
ban. Are the firearms admissible in cemetery
held in Almeda where the Sanchez sale and vs.use
Unitedof dangerous
States, 413
evidence against him? Explain. U.S. 266,
drugs are while
rampant. a moving
A manvehicle can beand
with reddish searched
If, upon further inspection by the police, prohibitedglassy
withouteyes a warrant,
was walking thereunsteadily
must stillmovingbe probable
drugs were found inside the various cause. Inthem
towards the casebut veeredin question,
away whenthere he was nothing
sensed
compartments of Antonio's car, can the drugs be the to indicate
presence thatof policemen.
marijuana leaves They approached
were hidden in
used in evidence against Antonio if he is the trunk
him, of thethemselves
introduced car. The mere fact that
as police the and
officers boy
prosecuted for possession of prohibited drugs? asked did nothim objectwhat to he
thehad inspection
clenched of inthehiscarhand.
does Asnot
Explain. constitute
he kept mum, consent to the search.
the policemen pried his As hand ruled
openin
SUGGESTED ANSWER: and
People foundvs.a Burgos,
sachet of144 shabu,
SCRA a dangerous
1, the failure drug. to
a) Yes, the firearms are admissible in evidence, Accordingly
object to a warrantless
charged in court, searchthe does not constitute
accused
because they were validly seized. In Valmonte objected
consent, to especially
the admission in the light
in evidence
of the fact. of the
vs. De Villa, 178 SCRA 211 and 185 SCRA 665, dangerous drug because it was the result of an
the Supreme Court held that checkpoints may be illegalALTERNATIVE
search and seizure. ANSWER: Rule on the objection.
set up to maintain peace and order for the benefit(3%)Yes. b) The
What requirement
are the instances of probable
whencause differs
warrantless
of the public and checkpoints are a security from casemay
searches to case. In this (2%)
be effected? one, since the police
measure against unauthorized firearms. Since agents are confronted with large-scale
the search which resulted in the discovery of the smuggling SUGGESTED of prohibited ANSWER: drugs, existence of which
firearms was limited to a visual search of the car, a)is The
of objection
public knowledge, is not tenable. theyIn accordance
can set up
it was reasonable. Because of the ban on with Manalili at
checkpoints v. Court
strategic of Appeals,
places, in 280theSCRA
same400 way
firearms, the possession of the firearms was (1997).
that of in since the accused had
a neighborhood red is
a child eyes and was it
kidnapped,
prohibited. Since they were found in plain view in walking
is lawfulunsteadily
to search and carsthe andplace is a known
vehicles leaving the
the course of a lawful search, in accordance with hang-out
neighborhood of drug oraddicts,
village:the police
This officersishad
situation also
the decision in Magancia vs. Palacio, 80 Phil. sufficient
similar to reason to stop thesearches
warrantless accused and of tomoving
frisk
770, they are admissible in evidence. him.
vehiclesSincein shabu
customs wasarea,actually found
which during the
searches have
investigation,
been upheld.it (Papa could be vs.seized
Mago, without
22 SCRA the need 857
for a search
(1968). The rule warrant.
is based on practical necessity.
b) No, the drugs cannot be used in evidence
against Antonio if he is prosecuted for possession
of prohibited drugs. The drugs
Searches and Seizures; Warrantless Arrests equipment. The warrant particularly describes the
(1993) electronic equipment and specifies the provisions
No. 9: Johann learned that the police wereof the Tariff and Customs Code which were
looking for him in connection with the rape of anviolated by the importation.
18-year old girl, a neighbor. He went to the police
station a week later and presented himself to theThe warrant was served and implemented in the
desk sergeant. Coincidentally. the rape victimafternoon of 2 January 1988 by Customs
was in the premises executing an extrajudicialpolicemen who then seized the described
statement. Johann, along with six equipment. The inventory of the seized articles
(6) other suspects, were placed in a police lineupwas signed by the Secretary of the Tikasan
and the girl pointed to him as the rapist. JohannCorporation. The following day, a hearing officer
was arrested and locked up in a cell. Johann wasin the Office of the Collector of Customs
charged with rape in court but prior toconducted a hearing on the confiscation of the
arraignment invoked his right to preliminaryequipment.
investigation. This was denied by the judge, and
thus, trial proceeded. After the prosecutionTwo days thereafter, the corporation filed with the
presented several witnesses, Johann throughSupreme Court a petition for certiorari, prohibition
counsel, invoked the right to bail and filed aand mandamus to set aside the warrant, enjoin
motion therefor, which was denied outright by thethe Collector and his agents from further
Judge. Johann now files a petition for certiorariproceeding with the forfeiture hearing and to
before the Court of Appeals arguing that: Hissecure the return of the confiscated equipment,
arrest was not in accordance with law. Decide. alleging therein that the warrant issued is null and
void for the reason that, pursuant to Section 2 of
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Article III of the 1987 Constitution, only a judge
Yes, the warrantless arrest of Johann was not in may issue a search warrant. In his comment to
accordance with law. As held in Go v. Court of the petition, the Collector of Customs, through the
Appeals, 206 SCRA 138, his case does not fall Office of the Solicitor General, contends that he is
under the Instances in Rule 113, sec. 5 (a) of theauthorized under the Tariff and Custom Code to
1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure authorizing order the seizure of the equipment whose duties
warrantless arrests. It cannot be considered and a taxes were not paid and that the corporation
valid warrantless arrest because Johann did not did not exhaust administrative remedies. Should
commit a crime in the presence of the police the petition be granted? Decide.
officers, since they were not present when Johann
had allegedly raped his neighbor. Neither can It be
considered an arrest under Rule 113 sec. 5 (b) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
which allows an arrest without a warrant to be The petition should not be granted. Under Secs.
made when a crime has in fact just been 2205 and 2208 of the Tariff and Customs Code,
committed and the person making the arrest has customs officials are authorized to enter any
personal knowledge offsets indicating that the warehouse, not used as dwelling, for the purpose
person to be arrested committed it. Since Johann of seizing any article which is subject to forfeiture.
was arrested a week after the alleged rape, For it this purpose they need no warrant issued by
cannot be deemed to be a crime which "has just a court. As stated in Viduya vs. Berdiago, 73
been committed". Nor did the police officers who SCRA 553. for centuries the seizure of goods by
arrested him have personal knowledge of facts customs officials to enforce the customs laws
indicating that Johann raped his neighbor. without need of a search warrant has been
recognized.

Searches and Seizures; Warrants of Arrest ARTICLE IV CitizenshipAction for


(1991) Cancellation; Prescription & Effect of Death
No. 8: On the basis of a verified report and (1994)
confidential information that various electronic No. 7: - Enzo, a Chinese national, was granted
equipment, which were illegally imported into the Philippine citizenship in a decision rendered by
Philippines, were found in the bodega of the the Court of First Instance of Pampanga on
Tikasan Corporation located at 1002 Binakayan January 10, 1956. He took his oath of office on
St., Cebu City, the Collector of Customs of Cebu June 5, 1959. In 1970, the Solicitor General filed
issued, in the morning of 2 January 1988, a a petition to cancel his citizenship on the ground
Warrant of Seizure and Detention against the that in July 1969 the Court of Tax Appeals found
corporation for the seizure of the electronic that Enzo had cheated the
government of income taxes for the years 1956 to
1959. Said decision of the Tax Court was affirmed(2) Whether or not Ferdie's act of filing his
by the Supreme Court in 1969. Between 1960 certificate of candidacy constitutes waiver of his
and 1970, Enzo had acquired substantial real status as a permanent resident of the United
property In the Philippines, States.
(1) Has the action for cancellation of Enzo's SUGGESTED ANSWER:
citizenship prescribed? 1) According to the ruling in Coast vs. Court of
(2) Can Enzo ask for the denial of the petition on Appeals, 191 SCRA 229, a green card is proof
the ground that he had availed of the Tax that the holder is a permanent resident of the
Amnesty for his tax liabilities? United States, for it identifies the holder as a
(3) What is the effect on the petition for resident of the United States and states that the
cancellation of Enzo's citizenship if Enzo died holder is entitled to reside permanently and work
during the pendency of the hearing on said in the United States.
petition?
2) The filing of a certificate of candidacy does not
SUGGESTED ANSWER: constitute a waiver of the status of the holder of a
1) No, the action has not prescribed. As held in green card as a permanent resident of the United
Republic vs. Li Yao, 214 SCRA 748, a certificate States. As held in Coast vs. Court of Appeals,
of naturalizalion may be cancelled at any time if it 191 SCRA229, the waiver should be manifested
was fraudulently obtained by misleading the court by an act independent of and prior to the filing of
regarding the moral character of the petitioner. his certificate of candidacy.

Dual Allegiance vs. Dual Citizenship (1987)


2) No, Enzo cannot ask for the denial of the No. VIII: "A" was born in 1951 in the United
petition for the cancellation of his certificate of States of a Chinese father and a Filipina mother.
naturalization on the ground that he had availed ofUnder Chinese laws, "A's" mother automatically
the tax amnesty. In accordance with the ruling in became a Chinese national by her marriage.
Republic vs. Li Yao, 224 SCRA 748, the tax
amnesty merely removed all the civil, criminal and
In 1973, upon reaching the age of majority, "A"
administrative liabilities of Enzo. It did not obliterate
his lack of good moral character and elected to acquire Philippine citizenship. However,
irreproachable conduct. 3) On the assumption that "A" continued to reside in California and to carry
he left a family, the death of Enzo does not render an American passport. He also paid allegiance to
the petition for the cancellation of his certificate ofthe Taipei government. In the 1987 Philippine
naturalization moot. As held in Republic vs. Li Yao, National elections, he was elected Senator. His
224 SCRA 748, the outcome of the case will affect opponent moved to disqualify him on the grounds:
his wife and children. a) That he was not a natural born citizen; and b)
That he had "dual allegiance" not only to

Citizenship; Elected Official (1993) the United States but also to the Republic of
No. 7: Ferdie immigrated to the United States in China. Decide. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
the 1980s. Thereafter, he visited his hometown, The electoral contest must be dismissed.
Makahoy, every other year during town fiestas. In
January 1993. Ferdie came home and filed his
certificate of candidacy for Mayor of Makahoy. He(a) "A" is a natural born citizen. Art. IV, Sec. 2 of
won in the elections. Joe, the defeated candidate, the 1987 Constitution provides that "those who
learned that Ferdie is a greencard holder which elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with
on its face identifies Ferdie as a "resident alien" paragraph (3), Sec. 1 hereof shall be deemed
and on the back thereof is clearly printed: natural born citizens." The purpose of this
provision is to equalize the status of those who
"Person identified by this card is entitled to elected Philippine citizenship before and those
reside permanently and work in the United who did so after January 17, 1973 when the
States." Joe filed a case to disqualify Ferdie previous Constitution took effect.
from assuming the mayorship of Maka-hoy.
Questions: (b) The "DUAL ALLEGIANCE" declared inimical
(1) Whether or not a green card is proof that the to national interest in Art. IV, Sec. 5 refers to the
holder is a permanent resident of the United dual allegiance of some such as naturalized
States. Filipino citizens (mostly Chinese) who maintain
allegiance to Nationalist China as
shown in some cases by their membership in the
legislative Yuan after their naturalization asof the Philippines (Art. IV, sec. 1(3)). Under Art.
citizens of the Philippines. The prohibition doesIV, sec, 2 he is also deemed a natural-born
not apply in situations brought about by dualcitizen.
citizenship, such as the one involved in the
problem. Indeed, a Filipino woman can have dual2. The Constitution requires, among other things,
allegiance resulting from her marriage to athat a candidate for member of the House of
foreigner under Sec. 4, so long as she does notRepresentatives must be at least 25 years of age
do or omit to do an act amounting to renunciation"on the day of the election." (Art. VI, sec. 6). As
under Commonwealth Act. No. 63, Sec. 1(2).Brown was born on May 15, 1962, he did not
Under this law, express renunciation is differentbecome 25 years old until May 15, 1987. Hence
from an act of allegiance to a foreign power as aon May 11, 1987, when the election was held, he
ground for loss of Philippine citizenship.was 4 days short of the required age.
Moreover, what constitutes "dual allegiance"
inimical to national interest is and what the
3. The Constitution provides that those who seek
sanctions for such dual allegiance will be, will still
have to be defined by law pending adoption of either to change their citizenship or to acquire the
such legislation, objection based on dual status of an immigrant of another country "during
allegiance will be premature. their tenure" shall be dealt with by law (Art. XI,
sec. 17). The provision cannot apply to Brown for
the following reasons: First, Brown is in addition
Dual Allegiance vs. Dual Citizenship (1988) an American citizen and thus has a dual
No. 13: Robert Brown was born in Hawaii on May citizenship which is allowed by the Constitution.
15, 1962, of an American father and a Filipina (Cf. Art. IV, sec. 4), Second, Brown did not seek
mother. On May 16, 1983 while holding an to acquire the status of an immigrant, but is an
American passport, he registered as a Filipino American by birth under the principle of jus soli
with the Philippine Consulate at Honolulu, Hawaii. obtaining in the United States. Third, he did not
In September, 1983 he returned to the seek to change his status during his tenure as a
Philippines, and took up residence at Boac, public officer. Fourth, the provision of Art. XI, sec.
Marinduque, hometown of his mother. He 17 is not self-executing but requires an
registered as a voter, voted, and even participatedimplementing law. Fifth, but above all, the House
Electoral Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide this
as a leader of one of the candidates in that district
in the 1984 Batasan elections. In the elections of question since it does not concern the
1987, he ran for Congressman, and won. His sole qualification of a member-elect.
opponent is now questioning his qualifications and
is trying to oust him on two basic claims:

(1) He is not a natural born Filipino citizen, but is Dual Citizenship (1994)
in fact, an American, born in Hawaii, an integralNo. 8: In 1989, Zeny Reyes married Ben Tulog, a
portion of the U.S.A., who holds an American national of the State of Kongo. Under the laws of
passport; Kongo, an alien woman marrying a Kongo national
(2) He did not meet the age requirement; and automatically acquires Kongo citizenship. After her
(3) He has a "green card" from the U.S. marriage, Zeny resided in Kongo and acquired a
Government. Kongo passport. In 1991, Zeny returned to the
Philippines to run for Governor of Sorsogon.

Assume that you are a member of the House (1) Was Zeny qualified to run for Governor?
Electoral Tribunal where the petition for Brown's (2) Suppose instead of entering politics. Zeny
ouster is pending. How would you decide the just got herself elected as vice-president of the
three issues raised against him? Philippine Bulletin, a local newspaper. Was she
SUGGESTED ANSWER: qualified to hold that position?
The first and third grounds have no merit. But
the second is well taken and, therefore, Brown
should be disqualified.
1. Robert Brown is a natural born citizen of the
Philippines. A person born of a Filipino mother
and an alien father before January 17, 1973, who
thereafter upon reaching the age of majority elect
Philippine citizenship, is a citizen
the day of the election, Zeny is not qualified to run not qualify to participate in the management of
for Governor of Sorsogon. Under Section 39(a) of the Bulletin as Vice-President thereof.
the Local Government Code, a candidate for
governor must be a resident in the province Effect of Marriage; Filipino (1989)
where he intends to run at least one No, 2: (1) Lily Teh arrived in Manila on one of her
(1) year immediately preceding the day of the regular tours to the Philippines from Taipeh. She
election. By residing in Kongo upon her marriagemet Peter Go, a naturalized Filipino citizen. After a
in 1989, Zeny abandoned her residence in the whirlwind courtship, Lily and Peter were married at
Philippines. This is in accordance with the the San Agustin Church. A week after the wedding,
decision in Caasi vs. Court of Appeals, 191 SCRA Lily Teh petitioned in administrative proceedings
229. before immigration authorities to declare her a
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: Filipino citizen stating that she had none of the
No. Zeny was not qualified to run for Governor. disqualifications provided in the Revised
Under the Constitution, "citizens of the Philippines
Naturalization Law. The jilted Filipino girlfriend of
who marry aliens shall retain their citizenship, Peter Go opposed the petition claiming that Lily
unless by their act or omission they are deemed, Teh was still a minor who had not even celebrated
under the law to have renounced it." (Sec. 4, Art. her 21st birthday, who never resided in the
IV, Constitution). Her residing in Kongo and Philippines except during her one-week visit as
acquiring a Kongo passport are indicative of her tourist from Taipeh during the Chinese New Year,
renunciation of Philippine citizenship, which iswho a spoke only Chinese, and who had radical
ground for loss of her citizenship which she was ideas liked advocating unification of Taiwan with
supposed to have retained. When she ran mainland for China. Lily Teh, however, swore that she
Governor of Sorsogon, Zeny was no longerwas a renouncing her Chinese allegiance and while
Philippine citizen and, hence, was disqualified shefor knew no Filipino customs and traditions as yet,
said position. she evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace
them. Would Lily Teh succeed in becoming a
Filipino citizen through her marriage to Peter Go?
2) Although under Section 11(1), Article XVI ofExplain.
the
Constitution, mass media must be wholly owned by
Filipino citizens and under Section 2 of the Anti-
Dummy Law aliens may not intervene in the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
management of any nationalized business activity. Yes, Lily Teh ipso facto became a Philippine
Zeny may be elected vice president of the Philippinecitizen upon her marriage to Peter Go, who is a
Bulletin, because she has remained a Filipino Philippine citizen, provided she possesses none of
citizen. Under Section 4, Article IV of the thedisqualifications laid down in Section 4 of the
Constitution, Filipino citizens who marry aliens Revised Naturalization Law. According to to the
retains their citizenship unless by their actruling or in Moy Ya Lim Yao vs. Commissioner of
omission they are deemed, under the law, to have Immigration, 41 SCRA 292, an alien woman who
renounced it. The acts or omission which will resultmarries a Filipino husband ipso facto becomes a
in loss of citizenship are enumerated Filipino in citizen without having to possess any of
Commonwealth Act No, 63. Zeny is not guilty of the any qualifications prescribed in Section 2 of the
of them. As held in Kawakita vs. United States, Revised
343 Naturalization Law provided she
U.S. 717, a person who possesses dual citizenship possesses none of the disqualifications set forth in
like Zeny may exercise rights of citizenship in bothSection 4 of the same law. All of the grounds
countries and the use of a passport pertaining invoked
to by the former girlfriend of Peter Go for
one country does not result in loss of citizenship opposing
in the petition of Lily Teh, except for the
the other country. last one, are qualifications, which Lily Teh need
not possess. The fact that Lily Teh is advocating
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: the unification of Taiwan with mainland China is
Neither, was Zeny qualified to hold the position ofnot a ground
SUGGESTED ANSWER: under Section 4 of
for disqualification
vice-president of Philippine Bulletin. Under the the1) Under Section
Revised 4, Article Law.
Naturalization IV of the Constitution.
Constitution, "the ownership and management ofZeny retained her Filipino citizenship. Since she
mass media shall be limited to citizens, of the also became a citizen of Kongo, she possesses
Philippines, or to corporation, cooperatives or dual citizenship.
Effect of Oath of Allegiance
Pursuant to Section(2004)
40 (d) of the
associations wholly owned and managed by such (4-a)Government
Local TCA, a Filipina medical
Code, she istechnologist, leftrun
disqualified to in
citizens" (Section XI [1], Art. XVI), Being a non- for1975 to work
governor. Ininaddition,
ZOZ State. In 1988
if Zeny she to
returned married
the
Philippine citizen, Zeny can ODH, a citizen
Philippines, of ZOZ.
less than Pursuant
a year to ZOZ's
immediately law,
before
by taking an oath of allegiance, she
acquired her husband's citizenship. ODH died in Effect of Repatriation (2002)
2001, leaving her financially secured. She No I - A was born in the Philippines of Filipino
returned home in 2002, and sought elective office parents. When martial law was declared in the
in 2004 by running for Mayor of APP, her Philippines on September 21, 1972, he went to the
hometown. Her opponent sought to have her United States and was naturalized as an American
disqualified because of her ZOZ citizenship. Shecitizen. After the EDSA Revolution, he came home
replied that although she acquired ZOZ's to the Philippines and later on reacquired Philippine
citizenship because of marriage, she did not lose citizenship by repatriation. Suppose in the May
her Filipino citizenship. Both her parents, she 2004 elections he is elected Member of the House
said, are Filipino citizens. Is TCA qualified to runof Representatives and a case is filed seeking his
for Mayor? (5%) disqualification on the ground that he is not a
natural-born citizen of the Philippines, how should
SUGGESTED ANSWER: the case against him be decided? Explain your
On the assumption that TCA took an oath answer. of (5%)
allegiance to ZOZ to acquire the citizenship of
her husband, she is not qualified to run for SUGGESTED ANSWER:
mayor. She did not become a citizen of ZOZThe case should be decided in favor of A. As held
merely by virtue of her marriage, she also tookIn Bengson v. House of Representatives
an oath of allegiance to ZOZ. By this act, she lostElectoral Tribunal, 357 SCRA 545 (2001),
her Philippine citizenship. (Section 1 [3],repatriation results in the recovery of the original
Commonwealth Act No. 63.) nationality. Since A was a natural-born Filipino
citizen before he became a naturalized American
Effect of Repatriation (1999) citizen, he was restored to his former status as a
No III - B. Julio Hortal was born of Filipinonatural-born Filipino when he repatriated.
parents. Upon reaching the age of majority, he
became a naturalized citizen in another country.
Later, he reacquired Philippine citizenship. Could Effect of Repatriation (2003)
Hortal regain his status as natural born Filipino No IV - Juan Cruz was born of Filipino parents in
citizen? Would your answer be the same whether 1960 in Pampanga. In 1985, he enlisted in the
he reacquires his Filipino-citizenship U.S. Marine Corps and took an oath of allegiance
by
repatriation or by act of Congress? Explain. (3%) to the United States of America. In 1990, he was
naturalized as an American citizen. In 1994, he
FIRST ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: was repatriated under Republic Act No. 2430.
Julian Mortal can regain his status as a natural During the 1998 National Elections, he ran for
born citizen by repatriating. Since repatriation and was elected representative of the First
involves restoration of a person to citizenship District of Pampanga where he resided since his
previously lost by expatriation and Julian Mortal repatriation. Was he qualified to run for the
was previously a natural born citizen, in case he position? Explain.
repatriates he will be restored to his status as a SUGGESTED ANSWER:
natural born citizen. If he reacquired his citizenshipCruz was qualified to run as representative of the
by an act of Congress, Julian Hortal will not be First a District of Pampanga. Since his parents were
natural born citizen, since he reacquired his Filipino citizens, he was a natural-born citizen.
citizenship by legislative naturalization. Although he became a naturalized American
citizen, under the ruling in Bengson v. House of
Representatives Electoral Tribunal. 357 SCRA
SECOND ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: 545 [2001], by virtue of his repatriation, Cruz was
Julian Hortal cannot regain his status as a naturalrestored to his original status as a natural-born
born citizen by repatriating. He had to performFilipino citizen.
an act to acquire his citizenship, i.e., repatriation.
Under Section 2, Article IV of the Constitution, Effects of Marriages (1999)
natural born citizens are those who are citizens No III- What are the effects of marriages of:
from birth without having to perform an act to 1a citizen to an alien; (1%)
acquire or perfect their citizenship. If he an alien to a citizen; on their spouses and
reacquired his citizenship by an act of Congress, children? Discuss. (1%)
Julian Hortal will not be a natural born citizen
since he reacquired his citizenship by legislative
naturalization.
omission they are deemed, under the law, to
have renounced it. Elected Official (1992)
No. 16: Edwin Nicasio, born in the Philippines of
2) According to Mo Ya Lim Yao v. CommissionerFilipino parents and raised in the province of
of Immigration, 41 SCRA 292, under Section 15 ofNueva Ecija, ran for Governor of his home
the Revised Naturalization Law, a foreign womanprovince. He won and he was sworn into office. It
who marries a Filipino citizen becomes a Filipinowas recently revealed, however, that Nicasio is a
citizen provided she possesses none of thenaturalized American citizen. a) Does he still
disqualifications for naturalization. A foreign manpossess Philippine citizenship? b) If the second-
who marries a Filipino citizen does not acquireplacer in the gubernatorial
Philippine citizenship. However, under Section elections
3 files a quo warranto suit against
of the Revised Naturalization Act, in such a Nicasio
case and he is found to be disqualified
from
the residence requirement for naturalization will be office, can the second-placer be sworn
reduced from ten (10) to five (5) years. Underinto office as governor? c) If, instead, Nicasio
Section 1(2), Article IV of the Constitution, thehad been born (of the
children of an alien and a Filipino citizensame are set of parents) in the United States
citizens of the Philippines. and he thereby acquired American
citizenship by birth, would your answer be
different? SUGGESTED ANSWER: a) No, Nicasio
Effects of Philippine Bill of 1902 (2001) no longer possesses Philippine citizenship. As held
No I - From mainland China where he was born in Frivaldo vs. COMELEC, 174 SCRA 245, by
of Chinese parents, Mr Nya Tsa Chan migrated becoming a naturalized American citizen, Nicasio
to the Philippines in 1894. As of April 11, 1899,lost his Philippine citizenship. Under Section 1(1) of
he was already a permanent resident of the Commonwealth Act No. 63, Philippine citizenship is
Philippine Islands and continued to reside in this
lost by naturalization in a foreign country,
country until his death. During his lifetime and
when he was already in the Philippines, Mr. Nya
Tsa Chan married Charing, a Filipina, with whom
he begot one son, Hap Chan, who was born on
October 18. 1897. Hap Chan got married also tob) 2nd placer can’t be sworn to office...
Nimfa, a Filipina, and one of their children was
Lacqui Chan who was born on September 27,c) If Nicasio was born in the United States, he
1936. Lacqui Chan finished the course Bachelorwould still be a citizen of the Philippines, since his
of Science in Commerce and eventually engagedparents are Filipinos. Under Section 1(2), those
in business. whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the
Philippines are citizens of the Philippines. Nicasio
In the May 1989 election, Lacqui Chan ran forwould and possess dual citizenship, since under
was elected Representative (Congressman). HisAmericanrival Law persons born in the United States
candidate, Ramon Deloria, filed a quo warranto areorAmerican citizens. As held in Aznor vs.
disqualification case against him on the groundCOMELEC.
that 185 SCRA 703, a person who
he was not a Filipino citizen. It was pointed out in
possesses both Philippine and American
particular, that Lacqui Chan did not elect Philippine
citizenship is still a Filipino and does not lose his
citizenship upon reaching the age of 21. Philippine citizenship unless he renounces it.

Decide whether Mr. Lacqui Chan suffers fromElecting


a Philippine Citizenship (Q8-2006)
disqualification or not. (5%) 1. Atty. Emily Go, a legitimate daughter of a
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Chinese father and a Filipino mother, was born in
Lacqui Chan is a Filipino citizen and need not1945. At 21, she elected Philippine citizenship
elect Philippine citizenship. His father, Hap Chan,and studied law. She passed the bar
was a Spanish subject, was residing in theexaminations and engaged in private practice for
Philippines on April 11, 1899, and continued tomany years. The Judicial and Bar Council
reside in the Philippines. In accordance withnominated her as a candidate for the position of
Section 4 of the Philippine Bill of 1902, he was aAssociate Justice of the Supreme Court. But her
Filipino citizen. Hence, in accordance withnomination SUGGESTED ANSWER:by Atty. Juris
is being contested
1.) According
Section 1(3} of the 1935 Constitution, LacquiCastillo, also antoaspirant
Section to
4, the
Article IV of the
position. She
Chan is a natural born Filipino citizen, since his Constitution, Filipino citizens who marry aliens
father was a Filipino citizen. retain their citizenship, unless by their act or
claims that Atty. Emily Go is not a natural- No, 2: (2) A child was born to a Japanese father
born citizen, hence, not qualified to be and a Filipina mother. Would he be eligible to run
appointed to the Supreme Court. Is this for the position of Member of the House of
contention correct? (5%) Representatives upon reaching twenty-five years
SUGGESTED ANSWER: of age?
The contention is not correct. Under Article IV, SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Section 1(3) of the 1987 Constitution, it The is child can run for the House of Representatives
provided that those born before January 17, 1973 provided upon reaching the age of majority he
of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine elected Philippine citizenship. Under Section 6,
Citizenship upon reaching the age of majority are Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, to qualify to be
Filipino citizens. Atty. Emily Go was born of aa member of the House of Representatives, one
Filipino mother in 1945 and elected citizenship must be a natural-born Philippine citizen.
upon reaching the age of 21. She is a natural born According to Section 1 (3), Article IV of the 1987
Filipino citizen as provided by Article IV, SectionConstitution,
2 children born before January 17,
of the Constitution — "x x x those who elect 1973 of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine
Philippine citizenship in accordance with citizenship upon reaching the age of majority are
paragraph (3), Section 1 hereof shall be deemed Philippine citizens.
natural-born citizens." Hence she is qualified to be
appointed to the Supreme Court.
Section 2, Article IV of the 1987 Constitution
provides: "Those who elect Philippine citizenship in
Electing Philippine Citizenship; When Proper accordance with paragraph (3), Section 1 hereof
(Q8-2006) shall be deemed natural-born citizens." On the
2. Atty. Richard Chua was born in 1964. He is hand, if the child was born after January 17,
other
a legitimate son of a Chinese father and a Filipino1973, he would be considered a natural born
mother. His father became a naturalized Filipino citizen without need of election pursuant to Art. IV,
citizen when Atty. Chua was still a minor. Sec. 1(2).
Eventually, he studied law and was allowed by the
Supreme Court to take the bar examinations, Natural Born Filipino (1998)
subject to his submission to the Supreme Court No IV - Andres Ang was born of a Chinese father
proof of his Philippine citizenship. Although and he a Filipino mother in Sorsogon, Sorsogon. On
never complied with such requirement, Atty. Chua January 20, 1973, in 1988, his father was
practiced law for many years until one Noel naturalized as a Filipino citizen. On May 11, 1998,
Eugenio filed with the Supreme Court a complaint Andres Ang was elected Representative of the
for disbarment against him on the ground that heFirst is District of Sorsogon. Juan Bonto who
not a Filipino citizen. He then filed with the Bureaureceived the second highest number of votes,
of Immigration an affidavit electing Philippine filed a petition for Quo Warranto against Ang. The
citizenship. Noel contested it claiming it was filed petition was filed with the House of
many years after Atty. Chua reached the age Representative
of Electoral Tribunal (HRET). Bonto
majority. Will Atty. Chua be disbarred? Explain. contends that Ang is not a natural born citizen of
(5%) the Philippines and therefore is disqualified to be
a member of the House.

The HRET ruled in favor of Ang. Bonto filed a


SUGGESTED ANSWER: petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court. The
No, Atty. Chua will not be disbarred. Atty. Chua is following issues are raised:
already a Filipino citizen and there was no need
for him to file the affidavit electing Filipino(1) Whether the case is justiciable considering that
citizenship. An election of Philippine citizenshipArticle VI. Section 17 of the Constitution declares
presupposes that the person electing is an alien.the HRET to be the "sole Judge" of all contests
His father, however, already became a Filipinorelating to the election returns and
citizen when Atty. Chua was still a minor anddisqualifications of members of the House of
thus, he was already a Filipino before the age ofRepresentatives. [5%]
majority (Co v. HRET, G.R. Nos. 92191-92, July (2) Whether Ang is a natural bom citizen of the
30,1991).

Natural Born Filipino (1989)


1. The case is justiciable. (grave abuse of
discretion)... with Section 2, Article IV of the Constitution,
2. Andres Ang should be considered a natural which reads:
born citizen of the Philippines. He was bornThoseof a who elect Philippine citizenship in
Filipino mother on January 20, 1973. This was accordance with paragraph (3), Section 1
after the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution onhereof shall be deemed natural born citizens."
January 17, 1973. Under Section (1), Article III of
the 1973 Constitution, those whose fathers or 2) Ernest is not under-aged. (minimum 25
mothers are citizens of the Philippines are citizens yrs old)....
of the Philippines. Andres Ang remained a citizen
of the Philippines after the effectivity of the 1987 Naturalization; Cancellation of Citizenship
Constitution. Section 1, Article IV of the 1987 (1998)
Constitution provides: "The following are citizens No X. - Lim Tong Biao, a Chinese citizen applied
of the Philippines: "(l) Those who are citizens of for and was granted Philippine citizenship by the
the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this court. He took his oath as citizen of the Philippines
Constitution;" to July 1963, in 1975, the Office of the Solicitor
General filed a petition to cancel his Philippine
citizenship for the reason that in August 1963, the
Natural-Born Filipino(1993) Court of Tax Appeals found him guilty of tax
No. 1: In 1964, Ruffa, a Filipina domestic helper evasion for deliberately understating his income
working in Hongkong, went to Taipei for a taxes for the years 1959-1961.
vacation, where she met Cheng Sio Pao, whom
she married. Under Chinese Law, Ruffa (1) Could Lim Tong Biao raise the defense of
automatically became a Chinese citizen. The prescription of the action for cancellation of his
couple resided in Hongkong, where on May 9, Filipino citizenship? [3%]
1965, Ruffa gave birth to a boy named Ernest. (2) Supposing Lim Tong Biao had availed of the
Upon reaching the age of majority, Ernest elected Tax Amnesty of the government for his tax
Philippine citizenship. After the EDSA Revolution, liabilities, would this constitute a valid defense to
Ernest decided to live permanently in the the cancellation of his Filipino citizenship? [2%]
Philippines, where he prospered as a
businessman. During the May 11, 1993 election,
Ernest ran and won as a congressman. His SUGGESTED ANSWER:
opponent, noting Ernest's Chinese ancestry, filed1. a No, Lim Tong Biao cannot raise the defense of
petition to disqualify the latter on the following prescription. As held in Republic us. Go Bon Lee,
grounds; (1) Ernest Cheng is not a natural born 1 SCRA 1166, 1170, a decision granting
Filipino; and (2) he is under-aged. Decide. citizenship is not res judicata and the right of the
government to ask for the cancellation of a
SUGGESTED ANSWER: certificate cancellation is not barred by the lapse
1) Ernest cannot be disqualified. Section 1, Articleof time.
IV of the Constitution provides: "The following are
citizens of the Philippines; XXX XXX XXX "(3) 2. The fact that Lim Tong Biao availed of the tax
Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino amnesty is not a valid defense to the cancellation
mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon of his Filipino citizenship. In Republic vs. Li Yao,
reaching the age of majority;" Ernest could elect 214 SCRA 748, 754, the Supreme Court held:
Philippine citizenship since he was born before
January 17, 1973 and his mother is a Filipino. As
stated in the cases of Torres vs. Tan Chim, 69 Phil.
518 and Cu vs. Republic, 83 Phil. 473, for this
provision to apply, the mother need not be a
Filipino citizen at the time she gave birth to the
child in question. It is sufficient that she was a
Filipino citizen at the time of her marriage.
Otherwise, the number of persons who would be
benefited by the foregoing provision would be
limited.
Philippines. |5%] How should this case be
decided? SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Having elected Philippine citizenship, Ernest is a
natural-born Filipino citizen in accordance
he is a repatriated Filipino citizen and a
resident of the Province of Laguna. To be
qualified for the office to which a local
official has been elected, when at the latest
should he be: (5%)

(a) A Filipino Citizen? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The citizenship requirement is to be possessed by
an elective official at the latest as of the time he is
proclaimed and at the start of the term of office to
which he has been elected. Section 39 of the
Local Government Code, which enumerates the
qualifications of elective local government officials,
does not specify any particular date or time when
the candidate must possess citizenship. (Frivaldo
v. COMELEC,
G.R. No. 120295, June 28,1996)

(b) A resident of the locality? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Under Section 39 of the Local Government
Code, an individual must possess the residency
requirement in the locality where he intends to
run at least one year immediately preceding the
day of election.

Status; Illegitimate Child (1990)


No. 3: Y was elected Senator in the May 1987
national elections. He was born out of wedlock in
1949 of an American father and a naturalized
Filipina mother. Y never elected Philippine
citizenship upon reaching the age of majority.
(1) Before what body should T, the losing
candidate, question the election of Y? State the
reasons for your answer.
(2) Is Y a Filipino citizen? Explain your
answer.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(1) T, the losing candidate, should question the
election of Y before the Senate Electoral Tribunal, "In other words, the tax amnesty does not have
.... the effect of obliterating his lack of good moral
character and irreproachable conduct which
(2) Yes, Y is a Filipino citizen. More than that he are grounds for denaturalization,"
is a natural born citizen of the Philippines
qualified to become a Senator. Since Y is an Residency Requirements; Elective Official
illegitimate child of a Filipino mother, he follows (Q9-2005)
the citizenship of his mother. He need not elect (1) In the May 8,1995 elections for local
Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of officials whose terms were to commence on June
majority as held In re Mallare. 59 SCRA 45. In 30, 1995, Ricky filed on March 20, 1995 his
Osias v. Antonino, Electoral Case No. 11, August certificate of candidacy for the Office of Governor
6, 1971, the Senate Electoral Tribunal held that of Laguna. He won, but his qualifications as an
the illegitimate child of an alien father and a elected official was questioned. It is admitted that
Filipino mother is a Filipino citizen and is qualified
to be a Senator.
lawfully married just two years ago. Is Miguel Sin Status; Illegitimate Child; Dual Citizenship
a Filipino citizen? (1996)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No. 8: 2) X was born in the United States of a
Miguel Sin is a Filipino citizen because he is theFilipino father and a Mexican mother. He returned
legitimate child of a Filipino mother. Under Articleto the Philippines when he was twenty-six years
IV, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution, his motherof age, carrying an American passport and he
retained her Philippine citizenship despite herwas registered as an alien with the Bureau of
marriage to an alien husband, and according toImmigration.
Article IV, Section 1(2) of the 1987 Constitution,
children born of a Filipino mother are FilipinoWas X qualified to run for membership in the
citizens. House of Representatives in the 1995 elections?
Explain.
Ways of Reacquiring Citizenship (2000) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No XVIII. - Cruz, a Filipino by birth, became an Whether or not X was qualified to run for
American citizen. In his old age he has returned membership in the House of Representatives in the
to the country and wants to become a Filipino 1995 election depends on the circumstances.
again. As his lawyer, enumerate the ways by
which citizenship may be reacquired. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: If X was an Illegitimate child, he is not qualified to
Cruz may reacquire Philippine citizenship in the run for the House of Representatives. According
following ways: to the case of in re Mallare, 59 SCRA 45, an
1By naturalization; illegitimate child follows the citizenship of the
By repatriation pursuant to Republic Act No. 8171;mother.
and Since the mother of X is a Mexican, he
By direct act of Congress (Section 2 of will be a Mexican citizen if he is an illegitimate
Commonwealth Act No. 63). child, even if his father is a Filipino.

If X is a legitimate child, he is a Filipino citizen.


Under Section 2(2), Article IV of the Constitution,
those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines
are Filipino citizens. Since X was born in the
United States, which follows jus soli, X is also an
American citizen. In accordance with Aznar vs.
Commission, on Elections, 185 SCRA 703, the
mere fact a person with dual citizenship registered
as an alien with the Commission on Immigration
and Deportation does not necessarily mean that
he is renouncing his Philippine citizenship.
Likewise, the mere fact that X used an American
passport did not result in the loss of his Philippine
citizenship. As held in Kawakita vs. Untied States,
343 U.S. 717, since a person with dual citizenship
has the rights of citizenship in both countries, the
use of a passport issued by one country is not
inconsistent with his citizenship in the other
country.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
If X has taken an oath of allegiance to the U.S. he
will be deemed to have renounced his Philippine
citizenship. Consequently, he is disqualified to run
for the House of Representatives.

Status; Legitimate Child (2003)


No IV - Miguel Sin was born a year ago in China
to a Chinese father and a Filipino mother His
parents met in Shanghai where they were
The use of discretionary funds for purely religious of public funds
Commission by PAGCOR, not
on Appointments, being made
Otherwise, the
purpose is thus unconstitutional, and the fact that pursuant toon
Commission anAppointments
appropriation will made have by tolaw,
be
the disbursement is made by resolution of a local violates theasConstitution.
reorganized often as votes shift from one side to
legislative body and not by Congress does not another in the House of Representatives.
make it any less offensive to the Constitution. Appropriation of Public Funds; Debt Servicing
Above all, the resolution constitutes a clear (1992)
violation of the Non-establishment Clause (art. III,No 13: Explain how
Delegation the automatic
of Powers (2002)appropriation of
sec. 5) of the Constitution. Nopublic
XVII.funds
- Suppose
for debtthat servicing
Congress can passed
be reconcileda law
with Article
creating VI, Section 29(1)
a Department of Humanof the Habitat
Constitution. and
authorizing
Said provisionthe says Department
that "no moneySecretary shall be paid to
Commission on Appointments (2002) out of the Treasury
promulgate implementing except in pursuance
rules and regulations. of an
No III - Suppose there are 202 members in Suppose the
appropriationfurther made
that bythelaw".
law declared that violation
House of Representatives. Of this number, 185 of theSUGGESTED
implementingANSWER: rules and regulations so
belong to the Progressive Party of the Philippines As stated
issued wouldin Guingona
be punishable vs. Carague,as a 196 crimeSCRA and
or PPP, while 17 belong to the Citizens Partyauthorized 221,
or the presidential
the Department decrees providing
Secretary for the
to prescribe
CP. How would you answer the following questions appropriation
the penalty for of funds to pay theIfpublic
such violation. the law debtdefines
do not
regarding the representation of the House in certain violate Section
the 29(1), Article VI
acts as violations of the law and makesof the Constitution.
Commission on Appointments? They provide
them punishable, for afor continuing
example,appropriation,
with imprisonment there
of three (3) years or a fine in the amountThe
is no constitutional prohibition against this. of
A. A How many seats would the PPP be entitled presidential decrees
P10,000.00, or both such appropriate as much
imprisonment and money
fine,
to have in the Commission on Appointments? as the
in is needed
discretion to ofpaythethe principal,
court, can it be interest,
provided taxes in
Explain your answer fully. (5%) and other
the normal banking
implementing rulescharges and onregulations
the loan.
Although no specific
promulgated by the amountsDepartment are mentioned,
Secretary that the
B. Suppose 15 of the CP representatives, while amounts
their violationare will certain
also be because
subjectthey to the cansame be
maintaining their party affiliation, entered into penalties a
computed fromthose
as the books of the in
provided National
the law Treasury.
itself?
political alliance with the PPP in order to form the Explain your answer fully. (5%)
"Rainbow Coalition'' in the House. What effect, if
any,
ARTICLEwould this VI have Legislative
on the right of the CP to have SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a seat or seats in the Commission on Appropriation
The rules and regulations of Publicpromulgated Funds; by Publicthe
Department
Appointments? Explain your answer fully. (5%) Purposes Secretary (1988)of Human Habitat cannot provide that
No. the7:penalties
- Tawi-Tawi for their is violation
a predominantly
will be the Moslem
same
Appropriation
SUGGESTED ANSWER: of Public Funds (1988) province. The Governor,
as the penalties for the the Vice-Governor,
violation of the law.and As
No.
A. The6: - 185
Metropolitan
membersnewspapers have reported
of the Progressive that
Partymembers
of
held in of its Sangguniang
United States v. Barrias, Panlalawigan 11 Phil. are327 all
the Philippine Games
the Philippines represent and Amusement
91.58 per cent of Corporation
the 202
Moslems.
(1908), Its thebudget
fixing provides the Governor
of the penalty with a
for criminal
(PAGCOR)
members ofgives the hefty
House contributions to Malacanang,
of Representatives. In
certain
offenses amount
involvesas the his exercise
discretionary funds.
of legislative
to
accordance with Article VI, Section 18 of ofRecently,
fund "socioeconomic and civic projects" thethe
power however,
and cannotthe beSangguniang
delegated. The Panlalawigan
law itself
President,
Constitution,The it is reports
entitled add
to havethattenforof 1988 alone,
the twelve
passed a resolution
must prescribe appropriating P100,000 as a
the penalty.
some six hundred million
seats in the Commission on Appointments. (P600M) pesos have discretionary fund of the Governor, to. be
special
already
Althoughbeen the 185earmarked
members forofremittance
Progressive to the
PartyOffice
of Delegation
spent by him inofleading Powers;a(Q6-2005) pilgrimage of his
of the President.
the Philippines represent PAGCOR had also been reported
(2) Section 32to ofMecca,
provincemates Republic Act Arabia,
Saudi No. 4670Islam's (The
to haveseats
10.98 funded,in the as Commission
coordinated by on aAppointments,
Congressman Magna
holiest Carta for Public School Teachers) reads:
city.
from
underMindanao,
the rulingspecial projects of
in Guingona v. quite a number
Gonzales, 214of
members of the House of Representatives.
SCRA 789 (1992), a fractional membership cannotSec. 32. Penal Provision. — A person who shall
be rounded off to full membership because it will willfully interfere
Philconsa, with, restrain
on constitutional grounds, or hascoercefiledany
result in over-representation of that political party suit
teacher
to nullify
in the theexercise
resolution of of
histherights
Sangguniang
guaranteed
and under-representation of the other political by this Act or
Panlalawigan whothe
giving shall in any
special other manner
discretionary
Assuming
parties. that money earned by PAGCOR from itsfund committo the any Governor
act to defeat
for theany statedof purpose.
the provisions How
operations are public funds, are such contributionswould of thisyou Actdecide
shall, theupon case?conviction,
Give your bereasons.
punished
to Malacañang
B. The and to formed
political alliance certain byCongressmen
the 15 andby a fine of not less than one hundred pesos nor
their expenditure as
members of the Citizens Party with thereported, legal? Cite more SUGGESTED
than oneANSWER: thousand pesos, or by
constitutional
Progressive Party or decisional rules in support
of the Philippines of your
will not result The resolution isinunconstitutional
imprisonment, the discretion ofFirst, it violates
the court.
answer.
in the diminution of the number of seats in the art. VI, sec. 29(2) of the Constitution which
SUGGESTED
Commission onANSWER: Appointments to which the prohibits the appropriation of public money or
The contributions
Citizens made toAs
Party is entitled. Malacañang and to v. property,
held in Cunanan Is the proviso directly granting the court
or indirectly, for the use, authority
benefitto
certain congressmen
Tan, 5 SCRA 1 (1962), are
a Illegal.
temporaryUnder art. VI, sec.
alliance impose
or support a penalty or imprisonment
of any system of religion, in and,
its discretion
second,
29(1)
between no money
the members can beofpaidoneout of theparty
political Treasury
and itconstitutional?
contravenes Explain art. VI, sec,briefly. (4%)which limits the
25(6)
except
another political party does not authorizemade
in pursuance of an appropriation a by appropriation
SUGGESTED ANSWER:funds only for public
of discretionary
law.
change Theindisbursement
the membership of the purposes.
The proviso is unconstitutional. Section 32 of when it reaches him except to enforce it. (See
R.A. No. 4670 provides for an indeterminableITS v. Ang Tang Ho, G.R. No. L-17122, February
period of imprisonment, with neither a minimum27, 1922)
nor a maximum duration having been set by the
legislative authority. The courts are thus given SUFFICIENT STANDARD TEST. A sufficient
wide latitude of discretion to fix the term standardof is intended to map out the boundaries of
imprisonment, without even the benefit of any the delegate's authority by defining the legislative
sufficient standard, such that the duration thereofpolicy and indicating the circumstances under
may range, in the words of respondent judge, which it is to be pursued and effected; intended to
from one minute to the life span of the accused. prevent a total transference of legislative power
This cannot be allowed. It vests in the courtsfrom a the legislature to the delegate. The standard is
power and a duty essentially legislative in nature usually indicated in the law delegating legislative
and which, as applied to this case, does violence power. (See Ynot u. Intermediate Appellate Court,
to the rules on separation of powers as well G.R. as No. 74457, March 20, 1987)
the non-delegability of legislative powers. (People
v. Judge Dacuycuy,
G.R. No. L-45127, May 5, 1989)
Discipline; Modes of Removal (1993)
Delegation of Powers; Completeness Test; No. 11: - How may the following be removed
Sufficient Standard Test (Q6-2005) from office: 1) Senators & Congressmen 2)
(1) The two accepted tests to determineJudges of lower courts 3) Officers and
whether or not there is a valid delegation ofemployees in the Civil Service
legislative power are the Completeness Test and
the Sufficient Standard Test. Explain each. (4%) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1) In accordance with Art. III, section 16(3), of the
Constitution, Senators and Congressmen may be
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: removed by their EXPULSION for disorderly
Under the COMPLETENESS TEST, a law must behavior, with the concurrence of at least two-
be complete in all its terms and provisions when thirds of all the members of the House to which
it leaves the legislature that nothing is left to the they belong. In addition, they may also be
judgment of the delegate. The legislature does removed in consequence of an election contest
not abdicate its functions when it describes what filed with the Senate or House of Representatives
job must be done, who is to do it, and what is theElectoral Tribunal.
scope of his authority. However, a delegation of
power to make the laws which necessarily 2) As to Judges, Art. VIII, sec. 11 of the
involves a discretion as to what it shall be may Constitution, ....
not constitutionally be done. (Edu
v. Ericta, G.R. No. L-32096, October 24, 1970) 3) As to Civil Service Employees, Art. IX-B. Sec.
2(3) of the Constitution....
Under the SUFFICIENCY OF STANDARDS
TEST, the statute must not only define a Discipline; Suspension of a Member of the
fundamental legislative policy, mark its limits and Congress (2002)
boundaries, and specify the public agency to No II. - Simeon Valera was formerly a Provincial
exercise the legislative power. It must also Governor who ran and won as a Member of the
indicate the circumstances under which the House of Representatives for the Second
legislative command is to be effected. To avoid Congressional District of lloilo. For violation of
the taint of unlawful delegation, there must be a Section 3 of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
standard, which implies at the very least that the Act (R.A. No.3019), as amended, allegedly
legislature itself determines matters of principle committed when he was still a Provincial
and lays down fundamental policy. (Free Governor, a criminal complaint was filed against
Telephone Workers Union v. Minister of Labor, him before the Office of the Ombudsman for
G.R. No. L-58184, October 30, 1981) which, upon a finding of probable cause, a
criminal case was filed with the Sandiganbayan.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: During the course of trial, the Sandiganbayan
COMPLETENESS TEST. The law must be issued an order of preventive suspension for 90
complete in all its essential terms and conditions days against him.
when it leaves the legislature so that there will be
nothing left for the delegate to do
Representative Valera questioned the validity of was a de facto officer while he was in possession
the Sandiganbayan order on the ground that, of the office. To allow AVE to collect the salaries
under Article VI, Section 16(3) of the Constitution,and allowances will result in making the
he can be suspended only by the House of government pay a second time. (Mechem, A
Representatives and that the criminal case Treatise on the Law of Public Offices and Public
against him did not arise from his actuations as a Officers, [1890] pp. 222-223.)
member of the House of Representatives. Is
Representative Valera's contention correct? Why? BART is not required to refund to the government
(5%) the salaries and allowances he received. As a de
SUGGESTED ANSWER: facto officer, he is entitled to the salaries and
The contention of Representative Valera is not allowances because he rendered services during
correct As held in Santiago v. Sandiganbayan, his incumbency. (Rodriguez v. Tan, 91 Phil. 724
356 SCRA 636, the suspension contemplated in [1952])
Article VI, Section 16(3) of the Constitution is a
punishment that is imposed by the Senate or The bills which BART alone authored and were
House of Representatives upon an erring approved by the House of Representatives are
member, it is distinct from the suspension under valid because he was a de facto officer during
Section 13 of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices his incumbency. The acts of a de facto officer are
Act, which is not a penalty but a preventive valid insofar as the public is concerned. (People
measure. Since Section 13 of the Anti-Graft and v. Garcia, 313 SCRA 279 [1999]).
Corruption Practices Act does not state that the
public officer must be suspended only in the Electoral Tribunal; HRET Members’ Right &
office where he is alleged to have committed the Responsibilities (2002)
acts which he has been charged, it applies to anyNo IV. In an election case, the House of
office which he may be holding. Representatives Electoral Tribunal rendered a
decision upholding the election protest of
protestant A, a member of the Freedom Party,
Elected Official; De Facto Officer (2004) (10-b) against protestee B, a member of the Federal
AVE ran for Congressman of QU province. Party. The deciding vote in favor of A was cast by
However, his opponent, BART, was the one Representative X, a member of the Federal
proclaimed and seated as the winner of the Party .
election by the COMELEC. AVE filed seasonably
a protest before HRET (House of RepresentativesFor having voted against his party mate,
Electoral Tribunal). After two years, HRET Representative X was removed by Resolution of
reversed the COMELEC's decision and AVE was the House of Representatives, at the instance of
proclaimed finally as the duly elected his party (the Federal Party), from membership in
Congressman. Thus, he had only one year to the HRET. Representative X protested his
serve in Congress. removal on the ground that he voted on the basis
of the evidence presented and contended that he
Can AVE collect salaries and allowances from had security of tenure as a HRET Member and
the government for the first two years of his term that he cannot be removed except for a valid
as Congressman? cause.

Should BART refund to the government the With whose contention do you agree, that of the
salaries and allowances he had received as Federal Party or that of Representative X? Why?
Congressman? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
What will happen to the bills that BART alone I agree with the contention of Representative X. As
authored and were approved by the House of held In Bondoc v. Pineda, 201 SCRA 792 (1991),
Representatives while he was seated as the members of the House of Representatives
Congressman? Reason and explain briefly. (5%) Electoral Tribunal are entitled to security of tenure
like members of the judiciary. Membership in it may
not be terminated except for a just cause. Disloyalty
SUGGESTED ANSWER: AVE cannot collect to party is not a valid ground for the expulsion of a
salaries and allowances from the government for member of the House of Representatives Electoral
the first two years of his term, because in the Tribunal. Its members must discharge their
meanwhile BART collected the salaries and functions with impartiality and
allowances. BART
independence from the political party to which
they belong. agreement must be concurred in by at least two-
thirds of all the Members of the Senate.
Electoral Tribunal; Senate; Jurisdiction (1990)
Section 4, Article XVIII of the Constitution
No. 3: Y was elected Senator in the May 1987 provides: "All existing treaties or international
national elections. He was born out of wedlock in agreements which have not been ratified shall not
1949 of an American father and a naturalized be renewed or extended without the concurrence
Filipina mother. Y never elected Philippine of at least two-thirds of all the Members of the
citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. Senate.”
Before what body should T, the losing
candidate, question the election of Y? Investigations in Aid of Legislation (1992)
State the reasons for your answer. Is Y a No. 8: A case was filed before the Sandiganbayan
Filipino citizen? Explain your answer. regarding a questionable government transaction.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: In the course of the proceedings, newspapers
(1) T, the losing candidate, should question the linked the name of Senator J. de Leon to the
election of Y before the Senate Electoral Tribunal, scandal.
because the issue involved is the qualification of
Y to be a Senator. Section 17, Article VI of the Senator de Leon took the floor of the Senate to
1987 Constitution provides that. The Senate and speak on a "matter of personal privilege" to
the House of Representatives shall each-have anvindicate his honor against those "baseless and
Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge ofmalicious" allegations. The matter was referred to
all contests relating to the election, returns, and the Committee on Accountability of Public
qualifications of their respective Members." Officers, which proceeded to conduct a legislative
inquiry. The Committee asked Mr. Vince
Ledesma, a businessman linked to the transaction
(2) Yes, Y is a natural born Filipino citizen. .... and now a respondent before the Sandiganbayan,
to appear and to testify before the Committee.

Foreign Affairs; Role of House of Rep (1996)


No. 7: 5) Can the House of Representatives take Mr Ledesma refuses to appear and file suit before
active part in the conduct of foreign relations, the Supreme Court to challenge the legality of the
particularly in entering into treaties and proceedings before the Committee. He also asks
international agreements? Explain. whether the Committee had the power to require
SUGGESTED ANSWER: him to testify.
No, the House of Representatives cannot take
active part in the conduct of foreign relations,
particularly in entering into treaties Identifyand the issues Involved and resolve them.
international agreements. As held in United States SUGGESTED ANSWER:
vs. Curtiss-Wright Export Corporation, 299 U.S.The issues involved in this case are the following:
304, the President alone is the representative of
the nation in the conduct of foreign affairs. 1Whether or not the Supreme Court has
Although the Senate has the power to concur jurisdiction
in to entertain the case;
treaties, the President alone negotiates treatiesWhether or not the Committee on Accountability of
and Congress is powerless to intrude into this. Public Officers has the power to investigate a
However, if the matter involves a treaty or an matter which is involved in a case pending in
executive agreement, the House court;
of and
Representatives may pass a Whether or not the petitioner can invoke his right
resolution
expressing its views on the matter. against self-incrimination.

Foreign Affairs; Role of Senate (1994)


No. 13: 1) Under the Constitution, what is the
role of the Senate in the conduct of foreign
affairs?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The Senate plays a role in the conduct of foreign
affairs, because of the requirement in Section 21,
Article VII of the Constitution that to be valid and
effective a treaty or international
The Committee on Accountability of Public
Officers has no power to investigate the scandal. measure if the appropriation of public funds is
(no judicial functions)... not its principal purpose and the appropriation is
only incidental to some other objective.
The petitioner can invoke his right against self-
incrimination, because this right is available in all Law-Making; Appropriation Law; Automatic
proceedings. Since the petitioner is a respondent Renewal & Power of Augmentation (1998)
in the case pending before the Sandiganbayan, No XI. - Suppose the President submits a budget
he may refuse to testify. which does not contain provisions for CDF
(Countrywide Development Funds), popularly
Law Making; Process & Publication (1993) known as the pork barrel, and because of this
No. 2; Ernest Cheng, a businessman, has no Congress does not pass the budget.
knowledge of legislative procedure. Cheng
retains you as his legal adviser and asks 1. Will that mean paralization of government
enlightenment on the following matters: operations in the next fiscal year for lack of an
(1) When does a bill become a law even without appropriation law? (2%)
the signature of the President?
(2) When does the law take effect? 2. Suppose in the same budget, there is a special
provision in the appropriations for the Armed
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Forces authorizing the Chief of Staff, AFP, subject
1) Under Section 27(1), Article VI of the to the approval of the Secretary of National
Constitution, a bill becomes a law even without Defense, to use savings in the appropriations
the signature of the President if he vetoed it but provided thereto to cover up whatever financial
his veto was overriden by two-thirds vote of all losses suffered by the AFP Retirement and
the members of both the Senate and the House Separation Benefits System (RSBS) in the last
of Representatives and If the President failed to five (5) years due to alleged bad business
communicate his veto to the House from which judgment. Would you question the
the bill originated, within thirty days after the date constitutionality validity of the special provision?
of receipt of the bill by the President. [3%]

2) As held in Tanada vs. Tuvera, 146 SCRA 446, a


law must be published as a condition for its
effectivity and in accordance with Article 2 of the
Civil Code, it shall take effect fifteen days following
the completion of its publication in the Official
Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation
unless it is otherwise provided. (Executive Order
No. 292, Revised Administrative Code of 1989)

Law-Making; Appropriation Bill (1996)


No 5: Are the following bills filed in Congress
constitutional?
A bill originating from the Senate which
provides for the creation of the Public Utility
Commission to regulate public service
companies and appropriating the initial funds
needed to establish the same. Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: A bill providing for the
creation of the Public Utility Commission to All these Issues were resolved in the case of
regulate public service companies and Bengzon vs. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee,
appropriating funds needed to establish it may 203 SCRA 767.
originate from the Senate. It is not an
appropriation bill, because the appropriation of The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the case
public funds is not the principal purpose of the bill.(determination of grave abuse of discretion)....
In Association of Small Landowners of the
Philippines, Inc. vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform
175 SCRA 343, it was held that a law is not an
appropriate
general appropriation law for their respective entered into by the President. The bill contains
offices from savings in other Items of their the guidelines to be followed by the commission
respective appropriations." In the discharge of its functions. Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
In Philippine Constitution vs Enriquez, 235 SCRA A bill creating a joint legislative-executive
506, 544, the Supreme Court held that a provision in
commission to give, on behalf of the Senate, its
the General Appropriation Act authorizing the Chief advice, consent and concurrence to treaties
of Staff to use savings to augment the funds ofenteredthe into by the President. The Senate cannot
AFP Retirement and Separation Benefits Systems delegate this function to such a commission,
was unconstitutional. "While Section 25(5) allows as
because under Section 21, Article VII of the
an exception the realignment of savings to augment Constitution, the concurrence of at least two-
items in the general appropriations law for thirds the of the Senate itself is required for the
executive branch, such right must and canratification be of treaties.
exercised only by the President pursuant to a specific
law." Law-Making; Overriding the Presidential Veto
(1991)
No. 2: The President signs into law the
Law-Making; Appropriation Law; Rider Appropriations Act passed by Congress but she
Provision (2001) vetoes separate items therein, among which is a
No VII - Suppose that the forthcoming Generalprovision stating that the President may not
Appropriations Law for Year 2002, in the portionincrease an item of appropriation by transfer of
pertaining to the Department of Education,savings from other items.
Culture and Sports, will contain a provision to the
effect that the Reserve Officers Training CourseThe House of Representatives chooses not to
(ROTC) in all colleges and universities is herebyoverride this veto. The Senate, however,
abolished, and in lieu thereof all male collegeproceeds to consider two options: (1) to override
students shall be required to plant ten the veto and (2) to challenge the constitutionality
(10) trees every year for two (2) years in areas to of the veto before the Supreme Court. a) Is option
be designated by the Department of Environment SUGGESTED
(1) viable? If so. what ANSWER:
is the vote
and Natural Resources in coordination with the1. No, the failure of Congress to pass the
Department of Education, Culture and Sports and required
budget will to override the veto?
not paralyze theb)operations
Is option (2)of the
the local government unit concerned. It further viable? If not. why not? If
Government.
provides that the same provision shallviable, be Section
how should 25(7),theArticle
Court decide
VI of the the Constitution
case? SUGGESTED
incorporated In future General appropriations Acts. provides: "If, by the end of any fiscal year, the
There is no specific item of appropriation of funds CongressANSWER: shall have failed to pass the general
for the purpose.Comment on the constitutionality (a)appropriations
Option 1 is notbill viable
for intheasensuing
much asfiscalthe House
year,
of said provision. (5%) of the
Representatives, from which
general appropriations lawtheforAppropriations
the preceding
Actfiscal
originated
year shall and be
to which
deemed thereenacted
President andmustshall
SUGGESTED ANSWER: have returned
remain the law,
in force andis unwilling
effect until to override the
the general
The provision is unconstitutional, because it ispresidential
aappropriations veto. bill
There is, therefore,
is passed by the no basis for
Congress.
rider. Section 25(2), Article VI of the Constitutionthe Senate to even consider the possibility of
provides, "No provision or enactment shall overridingbe the President's veto. Under the
embraced in the general appropriations bill unless it SUGGESTED
Constitution the voteANSWER:
of two-third of all the
relates specifically to some particular appropriation2. Yes, the
members of the provision
House ofauthorizing
Representatives the Chief
and of
therein." The abolition of the Reserve Officers Staff,
the with voting
Senate, the approval
separately, ofwillthebe Secretary
needed to of
Training Course involves a policy matter. As heldoverride
National
in theDefense,
presidential
to use veto.savings to cover the
Philippine Constitution Association vs. Enriquez, losses suffered by the AFP Retirement and
235 SCRA 506 (1994), this cannot be incorporated Separation Benefits System is unconstitutional.
in the General Appropriations Act but must (b) beIt is not feasible to question the constitutionality
embodied in a separate law. Sectionof25(5],
the veto
Article
beforeVI of
the
theSupreme
ConstitutionCourt. In Gonzales
vs.
provides:
Macaraig,"No191 law SCRA
shall be 152,
passed
the Supreme
authorizingCourt
any
upheld
transfertheof constitutionality
appropriations; however,of a similar theveto.
President,
Under
Law-Making; Foreign Affairs; Treaties (1996) Articlethe President
VI, Sec.of 27(2)
the Senate,
of the Constitution,
the Speakera of distinct
the
No 5: Are the following bills filed in Congress and House severable
of Representatives,
part of the Generalthe ChiefAppropriations
Justice of the
constitutional? 2) A bill creating a joint act
Supreme
may beCourt,the subject
and the of heads
a separateof Constitutional
veto.
legislative-executive commission to give, on Moreover,
Commissions the vetoed
may, byprovision
law, be authorized
does not relate
to to
behalf of the Senate, its advice, consent and any
augment
particular
any appropriation
item in the and is more an
concurrence to treaties
expression of a congressional policy in respect of(1) The contention of X Corporation should be
augmentation from savings than a budgetary rejected. Executive Orders Nos. 1, 2 and 14 were
provision. It is therefore an inappropriate issued in 1986. At that time President Corazon
provision and it should be treated as an item for Aquino exercised legislative power Section 1,
purposes of the veto power of the President. Article II of the Provisional Constitution
established by Proclamation No, 3, provided:
The Supreme Court should uphold the validity of
the veto in the event the question is brought "Until a legislature is elected and convened
before it. under a new constitution, the President shall
continue to exercise legislative power."
Law-Making; Passage of a Law (1988)
No. 12: - 2. A bill upon filing by a Senator Likewise,
or a Section 6, Article XVIII of the 1987
Member of the House of Representatives goes Constitution reads:
through specified steps before it leaves the The incumbent President shall continue to
House of Representatives or the Senate, as exercise
the legislative power until the first
case may be. After leaving the legislature, please Congress is convened."
name the three methods by which said bill may
become a law. In the case of Kapatiran ng mga Naglilingkod sa
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Pama-halaan ng Pilipinas. Inc. v. Tan, 163 SCRA
A bill passed by Congress may become a law in371. the Supreme Court ruled that the Provisional
any of the following cases: If it is signed into lawConstitution and the 1987 Constitution, both
by the President. (Art. VI, recognized the power of the president to exercise
sec. 27(1)). legislative powers until the first Congress created
under the 1987 Constitution was convened on July
If it is re-passed over the President's veto by the27, 1987.
vote of two thirds of all the members of the (2) Executive Orders Nos. 1, 2 and 14 are not
House of Representatives and of the Senate. bills of attainder. ....
(Id.)
Legislative Powers (1989)
If the President fails to veto it within thirty days No. 14: An existing law grants government
after receipt thereof and communicate the veto employees the option to retire upon reaching the
to the House from which it originated, (Id.) age of 57 years and completion of at least 30
years of total government service. As a fiscal
retrenchment measure, the Office of the President
Legislative Power; Pres. Aquino’s Time (1990)later issued a Memorandum Circular requiring
physical incapacity as an additional condition for
No. 1; - Executive Orders Nos. 1 and 2 issued byoptional retirement age of 65 years. A government
President Corazon C. Aquino created the employee, whose application for optional
Presidential Commission on Good Government retirement was denied because he was below 65
(PCGG) and empowered it to sequester any years of age and was not physically incapacitated,
property shown prima facie to be ill-gotten wealthfiled an action in court questioning the disapproval
of the late President Marcos, his relatives and of his application claiming that the Memorandum
cronies. Executive Order No. 14 vests on the Circular is void. Is the contention of the employee
Sandiganbayan jurisdiction to try hidden wealth correct? Explain.
cases. On April 14, 1986, after an investigation,
the PCGG sequestered the assets of X SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Corporation, Inc. X Corporation, Inc. claimed thatYes, the contention of the employee is correct. In
President Marasigan vs. Cruz, 150 SCR A 1, it was held that
Aquino, as President, could not lawfully issuesuch a memorandum circular is void. By
Executive Orders Nos. 1, 2 and 14, which introducing physical capacity as an additional
have the force of law, on the ground that condition for optional retirement, the
legislation is a function of Congress. Decide. memorandum circular tried to amend the law.
Such a power is lodged with the legislative branch
Said corporation also questioned the validity of and not with the executive branch.
the three executive orders on the ground that they
are bills of attainder and, therefore, Loans Extended to Members of Congress
unconstitutional. Decide. (1991)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. 9: A. After 2 February 1987, the Philippine(1) To act as national board of canvassers
National Bank (PNB) grants a loan tofor President and Vice President. (Art. VII, sec. 4).
Congressman X. Is the loan violative of the
Constitution? (2) To decide whether the President is
temporarily disabled in the event he reassumes
Suppose the loan had instead been grantedhis office after the Cabinet, by a majority of vote of
before 2 February 1987, but was outstanding onits members, declared that he is unable to
that date with a remaining balance on thedischarge the powers and duties of his office and
principal in the amount of P50,000.00, can thenow within five days insists that the President is
PNB validly give Congressman X an extension ofreally unable to discharge the powers and duties
time after said date to settle the obligation? of the presidency. (Art. VII, sec. 11)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. Whether or not the loan is violative of the 1987
Constitution depends upon its purpose. If it was(3) To concur in the grant of amnesty by the
obtained for a business purpose, it is violative ofPresident. (Art. VII, sec. 19),
the Constitution. If it was obtained for some other
purpose, e.g., for housing. It is not violative of the
(4) To initiate through the House of
Constitution because under Section 16, Article XI. Representatives and, through the Senate, to try all
Members of Congress are prohibited from cases of impeachment against the President, Vice
obtaining loans from government-owned banks President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the
only if it is for a business purpose. Members of the Constitutional Commissions and
the Ombudsman, for culpable violation of the
Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption,
If the loan was granted before the effectivity of other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. (Art.
the Constitution on February 2, 1987, the XI, secs. 2-3).
Philippine National Bank cannot extend its
maturity after February 2, 1987, if the loan was
obtained for a business purpose. In such a case (5) To act as a constituent assembly for the
the extension is a financial accommodation which revision or amendment of the Constitution. (Art.
is also prohibited by the Constitution. XVII).

Multi-Party System (1999)


No XIV - Discuss the merits and demerits of theNon-Legislative Powers; Emergency Powers;
multi-party system. (2%) Requisites (1997)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No. 11: During a period of national emergency.
A multi-party system provides voters with a Congress may grant emergency powers to the
greater choice of candidates, ideas, and platforms President, State the conditions under which such
instead of limiting their choice to two parties, vesture is allowed.
whose ideas may be sterile. It also leaves room SUGGESTED ANSWER:
for deserving candidates who are not acceptable Under Section 23(2), Article VI of the Constitution.
to those who control the two dominant parties to Congress may grant the President emergency
seek public office. powers subject to the following conditions:

On the other hand, a multi-party system may (1) There is a war or other national emergency:
make it difficult to obtain a stable and workable (2) The grant of emergency powers must be for
majority, since probably no party will get a a limited period;
majority. Likewise, the opposition will be(3) The grant of emergency powers is subject to
weakened if there are several minority parties. such restrictions as Congress may prescribe; and

Non-Legislative Powers (1988) (4) The emergency powers must be exercised to


No. 12: Legislative powers had been vested by carry out a declared national policy.
the Constitution in the Congress of the
Philippines. In addition, the Constitution also
granted the lawmaking body, non-legislative
powers. Kindly name five of the latter.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Congress has the following non-legislative
powers:
now contemplates public service but without Assume that you are a member of the House
losing the flexibility to engage in corporate affairs Electoral Tribunal where the petition for Brown's
or participate in professional activities within ouster is pending. How would you decide the
ethical bounds. three issues raised against him?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Taking into account the prohibitions and The first and third grounds have no merit. But
inhibitions of public office whether as Senator or the second is well taken and, therefore, Brown
Secretary, he turns to you for advice to resolve hisshould be disqualified.
dilemma. What is your advice? Explain briefly. 1. Robert Brown is a natural born citizen of the
(5%) Philippines. A person born of a Filipino mother
SUGGESTED ANSWER: and an alien father before January 17, 1973, who
I shall advise JAR to run for SENATOR. As a thereafter upon reaching the age of majority elect
Senator, he can retain his investments in his Philippine citizenship, is a citizen of the
business, although he must make a full disclosurePhilippines (Art. IV, sec. 1(3)). Under Art. IV, sec,
of his business and financial interests and notify 2 he is also deemed a natural-born citizen.
the Senate of a potential conflict of interest if he
authors a bill. (Section 12, Article VI of the 1987
Constitution.) He can continue practicing law, but 2. The Constitution requires, among other things,
he cannot personally appear as counsel before that a candidate for member of the House of
any court of justice, the Electoral Tribunals, or Representatives must be at least 25 years of age
quasi-judicial and other administrative bodies. "on the day of the election." (Art. VI, sec. 6). As
(Section 14, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution.) Brown was born on May 15, 1962, he did not
become 25 years old until May 15, 1987. Hence
on May 11, 1987, when the election was held, he
As a member of the Cabinet, JAR cannot directly was 4 days short of the required age.
or indirectly practice law or participate in any
business. He will have to divest himself of his
investments in his business. (Section 13, Article 3. The Constitution provides that those who seek
VII of the 1987 Constitution.) In fact, the either to change their citizenship or to acquire the
Constitutional prohibition imposed on members ofstatus of an immigrant of another country "during
the Cabinet covers both public and private office their tenure" shall be dealt with by law (Art. XI,
or employment. (Civil Liberties Union v. sec. 17). The provision cannot apply to Brown for
Executive Secretary, 194 SCRA 317) the following reasons: First, Brown is in addition
an American citizen and thus has a dual
Qualifications; Congressmen (1988) citizenship which is allowed by the Constitution.
No. 13: -Robert Brown was born in Hawaii on May (Cf. Art. IV, sec. 4), Second, Brown did not seek
15, 1962, of an American father and a Filipina to acquire the status of an immigrant, but is an
mother. On May 16, 1983 while holding an American by birth under the principle of jus soli
American passport, he registered as a Filipino obtaining in the United States. Third, he did not
with the Philippine Consulate at Honolulu, Hawaii.seek to change his status during his tenure as a
In September, 1983 he returned to the public officer. Fourth, the provision of Art. XI, sec.
Philippines, and took up residence at Boac, 17 is not self-executing but requires an
Marinduque, hometown of his mother. He implementing law. Fifth, but above all, the House
registered as a voter, voted, and even participated Electoral Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide this
as a leader of one of the candidates in that districtquestion since it does not concern the
in the 1984 Batasan elections. In the elections of qualification of a member-elect.
1987, he ran for Congressman, and won. His sole
opponent is now questioning his qualifications and
is trying to oust him on two basic claims: He is not
a natural born Filipino citizen, but is in

fact, an American, born in Hawaii, an Prohibitions and Inhibitions of Public Office


integral portion of the U.S.A., who holds an (2004) (3-a) JAR faces a dilemma: should he
American passport; He did not meet the age accept a Cabinet appointment now or run later for
requirement; and He has a "green card" from the Senator? Having succeeded in law practice as
U.S. well as prospered in private business where he
Government. and his wife have substantial investments, he
Revolution, Ernest decided to live permanently in Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of
the Philippines, where he prospered as a majority to be considered a natural born citizen
businessman. During the May 11, 1993 election, and qualified to run for Congress. Republic Act
Ernest ran and won as a congressman. His No. 6809 reduced the majority age to eighteen
opponent, noting Ernest's Chinese ancestry, filed a(18) years. Cuenco v. Secretary of Justice, 5
petition to disqualify the latter on the following SCRA 108 recognized three (3) years from
grounds; (1) Ernest Cheng is not a natural bom reaching the age of majority as the reasonable
Filipino; and (2) he is underaged. Decide. period for electing Philippine citizenship. Since
Republic Act No. 6809 took effect in 1989 and
SUGGESTED ANSWER: there is no showing that Victor Ahmad elected
1) Ernest cannot be disqualified..... Philippine citizenship within three (3) years from
the time he reached the age of majority on
2) Ernest is not under-aged. Having been born onDecember 16, 199C, he is not qualified to run for
May 9, 1965, he was over twenty-five years old onCongress.
the date of the May 11, 1993 election. (Election
was held on May 11, 1992). Section 6, Article VI ofIf he consulted me on December 16, 1991, I
the Constitution, requires congressmen to be atwould inform him that he should elect Philippine
least twenty-five years of age on the day of thecitizenship so that he can be considered a
election. natural born citizen.

Qualifications; Congressmen; (1999) Separation of Powers (1988)


No III - C. Victor Ahmad was born on DecemberNo. 25: Can any other department or agency of
16, 1972 of a Filipino mother and an alien father.the Government review a decision of the
Under the law of his father's country, his motherSupreme Court? Why or why not?
did not acquire his father's citizenship. Victor SUGGESTED ANSWER:
consults you on December 21, 1993 and informsNo. The Supreme Court is the highest arbiter of
you of his intention to run for Congress in thelegal questions. (Javier v. Comelec, 144 SCRA
1995 elections. Is he qualified to run? What194 (1986)) To allow review of its decision by the
advice would you give him? Would your answerother departments of government would upset the
be the same if he had seen and consulted you onclassic pattern of separation of powers and
December 16, 1991 and informed you of hisdestroy the balance between the judiciary and the
desire to run for Congress in the 1992 elections?other departments of government. As the Justices
Discuss your answer. (3%) said in their answer to the complaint for
impeachment in the Committee on Justice of the
FIRST ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: House of Representatives, "Just as it is
C. No, Victor Ahmad is not qualified to run forcompletely unacceptable to file charges against
Congress in the 1995 elections. Under Section 6,the individual members of Congress for the laws
Article VI of the Constitution, a member of theenacted by them upon the argument that these
House of Representatives must be at leastlaws are violative of the Constitution, or are a
twenty-five (25) years of age on the day of thebetrayal of public trust, or are unjust. So too,
election. Since he will be less than twenty-fiveshould it be equally impermissible to make the
(25) years of age in 1995, Victor Ahmad is notindividual members of the Supreme Court
qualified to run. accountable for the court's decisions or rulings.

Under Section 2, Article IV of the Constitution, to


be deemed a natural-born citizen, Victor Ahmad Separation of Powers (2003)
must elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching No II - A group of losing litigants in a case
the age of majority. I shall advise him to elect decided by the Supreme Court filed a complaint
Qualifications;
Philippine citizenship, if he has not yet done so, before Congressmen;
the Ombudsman charging(1993)
the Justices
and to wait until the 1998 elections. No.
with1: knowingly
In 1964. Ruffa,
and a deliberately
Filipina domestic helper an
rendering
working in Hongkong,
unjust decision in utterwent to Taipei
violation forpenal
of the a laws
My answer will be the same if he consulted me vacation, where
of the land. shethe
Can metOmbudsman
Cheng Sio Pao. whom
validly take
in 1991 and informed me of his desire to run in she married. of
cognizance Under Chinese
the case? Law, Ruffa
Explain.
the 1992 elections. SUGGESTED
automatically became ANSWER:
a Chinese citizen. The
No, the resided
couple Ombudsman cannot entertain
in Hongkong, where onthe May 9,
SECOND ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: complaint.
1965, Ruffa Asgave
stated in the
birth to acase of In re:Ernest.
boy named Laureta.
C. Under Section 2, Article IV of the Constitution,148
UponSCRA 382 [1987],
reaching the agepursuant to the
of majority, principle
Ernest of
elected
Victor Ahmad must have elected separation of powers, the
Philippine citizenship. After the EDSA
correctness of the decisions of the Supreme Representatives for a third term. This term should
Court as final arbiter of all justiciable disputes isbe included in the computation of the term limits,
conclusive upon all other departments of the even if "A" did not serve for a full term. (Record of
government; the Ombudsman has no power to the Constitutional Commission, Vol. n, p. 592.) He
review the decisions of the Supreme Court by remained a Member of the House of
entertaining a complaint against the Justices of Representatives even if he was suspended.
the Supreme Court for knowingly rendering an
unjust decision.
SECOND ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Article XI, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution ARTICLE VII
provides that public officers must at all times be
accountable to the people. Section 22 of the Executive
Ombudsman Act provides that the Office of the Department
Ombudsman has the power to investigate any Appointing Power; Acting vs.
serious misconduct allegedly committed by Permanent Appointment (2003)
officials removable by impeachment for the No V - What is the nature of an "acting
purpose of filing a verified complaint for appointment" to a government office? Does such
impeachment if warranted. The Ombudsman can an appointment give the appointee the right to
entertain the complaint for this purpose. claim that the appointment will, in time, ripen into
a permanent one? Explain.
Three-Term Limit: Congressmen (1996) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. 13: - X, a member of the House of According to Sevilla v. Court of Appeals. 209
Representatives, was serving his third consecutive SCRA 637 [1992], an acting appointment is
term in the House. In June 1996 he was appointed merely temporary. As held in Marohombsar v.
Secretary of National Defense. Can he run for Alonto, 194 SCRA 390 [1991], a temporary
election to the Senate in the 1998 elections? appointment cannot become a permanent
Explain. appointment, unless a new appointment which is
permanent is made. This holds true unless the
SUGGESTED ANSWER: acting appointment was made because of a
Yes, X can run for the Senate in the 1988 election. temporary vacancy. In such a case, the temporary
Under Section 7, Article X of the Constitution, appointee holds office until the assumption of
having served for three consecutive terms as office by the permanent appointee.
Member of the House of Representatives. X is only
prohibited from running for the same position.
Appointing Power; ad interim appointments
(1991)
Three-Term Limit; Congressmen (2001) No. 3: - On 3 May 1992, while Congress is on a
No V - During his third term, "A", a Member of the short recess for the elections, the president
House of Representatives, was suspended from appoints Renato de Silva to the rank of General
office for a period of 60 days by his colleagues (4-star) in the Armed Forces. She also designates
upon a vote of two-thirds of all the Members of him as Chief of Staff of the AFP. He immediately
the House. In the next succeeding election, he takes his oath and assumes that office, with the
filed his certificate of candidacy for the same rank of 4-star General of the AFP.
position. "B", the opposing candidate, filed an
action for disqualification of "A" on the ground
that the latter's, candidacy violated Section 7. When Congress resumes its session on 17 May
Article VI of the Constitution which provides that 1992, the Commission on Appointments informs
no Member of the House of Representatives shallthe Office of the President that it has received
serve for more than three consecutive terms. "A"from her office only the appointment of De Silva to
answered that he was not barred from running the rank of 4-star General and that unless his
again for that position because his service was appointment to the Office of the Chief of Staff of
interrupted by his 60day suspension which was the AFP is also submitted, the Commission will not
involuntary. Can 'A', legally continue with his act on the matter.
candidacy or is he already barred? Why? (5%)
The President maintains that she has submitted
SUGGESTED ANSWER: to the Commission all that the Constitution calls
"A" cannot legally continue with his candidacy. for.
He was elected as Member of the House of (a) Who is correct?
(b) Did Gen. de Silva violate the Constitution in
immediately assuming office prior to a
confirmation of his appointment?
(c) Are the appointment and designation valid?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) The President is correct. Under Presidential
Decree No. 360, the grade of four-star general is
conferred only upon the Chief of Staff. Hence, the
appointment of Renato de Silva as a four-star
general must be deemed to carry with it his
appointment as Chief of Staff of the AFP,

(b) Gen. Renato de Silva did not violate the


Constitution when he immediately assumed office
before the confirmation of his appointment, since
his appointment was an ad interim appointment.
Under Article VI I, Sec. 16 of the Constitution, such
appointment is immediately effective and is subject
only to disapproval by the Commission on
Appointments or as a result of the next adjournment
of the Congress.

(c) The appointment and designation of Gen. de


Silva are valid for reasons given above. However,
from another point of view they are not valid
because they were made within the period of the
ban for making appointments. Under Article VII,
Sec. 15 the President is prohibited from making
appointments within the period of two (2) months
preceding the election for President and Vice
President. The appointment in this case will be
made on May 3, 1992 which is just 8 days away
from the election for President and Vice President
on May 11, 1992. For this reason the appointment
and designation of Gen. de Silva are after all
invalid.
Determine with reasons the legality of the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
appointments and the disbursements for salaries 1) A is senior to B. In accordance with the ruling
by discussing the constitutional validity of Sectionsin Summers vs. Ozaeta. 81 Phil. 754, the ad
26 and 31 of R.A. No. 6975. (5%) interim appointment extended to A is permanent
SUGGESTED ANSWER: and is effective upon his acceptance although it is
The appointments of Matapang and Mahigpit are subject to confirmation by the Commission on
valid even if they were not confirmed by the Appointments.
Commission on Appointments, because they are
not among the public officials whose appointments 2) If Congress adjourned without the appointments
are required to be confirmed by the first sentence of A and B having been confirmed by the
of Article VII, Section 16 of the Constitution. Commission on Appointments, A cannot return to
According to Manalo v. Sistoza, 312 SCRA 239 his old position. As held in Summers vs. Qzaeta,
(1999), Sections 26 and 31 of Republic Act 6975 81 Phil. 754, by accepting an ad interim
are unconstitutional, because Congress cannot appointment
by to a new position, A waived his right
law expand the list of public officials required to to
behold his old position. On the other hand, since B
confirmed by the Commission on Appointments. did not assume the new position, he retained his
Since the appointments of Matapang and Mahigpit old position.
are valid, the disbursements of their salaries and
emoluments are valid.
Appointing Power; Appointments Requiring
Confirmation; RA 6975-Unconstitutional (2002)

Appointing Power; Categories of Officials No V - On December 13, 1990, the President


(1999) signed into law Republic Act No. 6975
A. 1.) What are the six categories of officials (subsequently amended by RA No. 8551) creating
who are subject to the appointing power of the the Department of Interior and Local Government.
President? (2%) Sections 26 and 31 of the law provide that senior
officers of the Philippine National Police (PNP),
2.) Name the category or categories of officials from Senior Superintendent, Chief Superintendent,
whose appointments need confirmation by the Deputy Director General to Director General or
Commission on Appointments? (2%) Chief of PNP shall, among others, be appointed by
the President subject to confirmation by the
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Commission on Appointments.
Under Section 16, Article VII of the Constitution,
the six categories of officials who are subject to
the appointing power of the President are the In 1991 the President promoted Chief
following: Superintendent Roberto Matapang and Senior
1Head of executive departments; Superintendent Conrado Mahigpit to the positions of
[Note: May
Ambassadors, 3, 1991
other andministers
public May 17, 1992
andareconsuls;
Director and Chief Superintendent of the PNP,
OfficersSundays. However
of the armed the Committee
forces finds no
from the rank of colonel or
respectively. Their appointments were in a
relevance in the fact that these are holidays and
naval captain; permanent capacity. Without undergoing
therefore decided to ignore this fact.]
Other officers whose appointments are vested confirmationin him by the Commission on Appointments,
by the Constitution;
Appointing Power; Ad Interim Appointments Matapang and Mahigpit took their oath of office and
All other
(1994) officers of the government whose assumed their respective positions. Thereafter, the
appointments are not otherwise provided
No. 16; In December 1988, while Congress was by law; and
Department
in of Budget and Management authorized
Those whom he may be authorized
recess, A was extended an ad interim by law to appoint.
disbursements for their salaries and other
(Cruz, Philippine Political Law, 1998
appointment as Brigadier General of the ed., pp. 204-205)
emoluments.
Philippine Army, in February 1989. When
Congress was in session, B was nominated as
Juan Bantay filed a taxpayer's suit questioning the
Brigadier General of the Philippine Army. B's
legality of the appointments and disbursements
nomination was confirmed on August 5, 1989
made. Bantay argues that the appointments are
while A's appointment was confirmed on
invalid inasmuch as the same have not been
September 5, 1989. Who is deemed more senior
confirmed by the Commission on Appointments, as
of the two, A or B? Suppose Congress adjourned
required under Sections 26 and 31 of R.A. No.
without the
Commission on Appointments acting on 6975.
both appointments, can A and B retain their
original ranks of colonel?
APPOINTMENT as one Issued upon the prior confirmation to be finishedby the Commission
in not more on Appointments
than six months are the but
head of
executive departments,
authorization of the Civil Service Commission in because the interest of the service requires that
accordance with its provisions and the rules and certain work be done by a regular employee, only
standards promulgated in pursuance thereto to a that ambassadors,
no one withother public ministers
appropriate eligibility can and be
person who has not qualified in an appropriate appointed consuls, officers of theany
to it. Hence, armedotherforces
eligiblefrommay thebe
examination but who otherwise meets the appointed
rank of to do such work in the meantime that a
requirements for appointment to a regular positionsuitable colonel or naval does
eligible captain, and other
not qualify for theofficials
position.
in the competitive service, whenever a vacancy whose appointments are
occurs and the filling thereof is necessary in thevested in the President by the Constitution.
interest of the service and there is no appropriate To be more precise, a provisional appointment
register of eligibles at the time of appointment. may Appointing
be extended Power; onlyKinds
to a of Appointments
person who has not
(1994) in an appropriate examination but who
qualified
When otherwise
is an appointment meets the in the civil servicefor appointment
requirements
Provisional appointments in general have already topermanent?
a regular positionDistinguish in between an
the competitive service,
been abolished by Republic Act 6040. However,meaning it"appointment one who in an must any way be a civil service
still applies with regard to teachers under acting the
eligible. capacity" extended by a Department
Magna Carta for Public School Teachers. Secretary from an ad interim appointment
Inextended
the caseby of the President.appointment,
a temporary Distinguish betweenall that thea
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: provisional
law enjoinsand is athat "preference in filling such
The case of Regis vs. Osmena, 197 SCRA 308,position temporary appointment.
be given to persons SUGGESTED
on appropriate eligible
laid down the distinction between a provisionallists." ANSWER: Merely1)giving
Underpreference
Section 25(a) of the Civil that
presupposes
and a temporary appointment. Service Decree, an
even a non-eligible may be appointed. appointment in the civil
Under the
service is PERMANENT
law, even if the appointee has the required when issued to a personcivil
A PROVISIONAL APPOINTMENT is extended service towho meets all the
eligibility, hisrequirements
appointmentfor is the
still position
temporary to
a person who has not qualified in an appropriate which because
simply he is being appointed,
such including
is the nature of thethe work to
examination but who otherwise meets the beappropriate
done. eligibility prescribed, in accordance
requirements for appointment to a regular positionwith NOTE: theSince provisional
provisions appointments
of law, rules and havestandards
in the competitive service whenever a vacancypromulgated in pursuance thereof. be
already been abolished examinees should
given full credit for whatever answer they may
occurs and the filling thereof is necessary in the or may not give.
interest of the service and there is no appropriate
register of eligible at the time of the appointment. 2) An appointment
Appointing Power;inLimitations
an ACTING CAPACITYon Presidential
On the other hand, a TEMPORARY extended
Appointments (1997) by a Department Secretary is not
APPOINTMENT given to a non-civil service permanent
No. 7: A month but temporary. Hence, the Department
before a forthcoming election, "A"
eligible is without a definite tenure and Secretary isone of the may incumbent
terminate theCommissioners
services of the of the
dependent on the pleasure of the appointing appointee
COMELEC, at any
diedtime.while Oninthe other
office and hand,"B",an AD
another
power. INTERIM APPOINTMENT extended
Commissioner, suffered a severe stroke. In view by the
President
of the proximityis an appointment which is subject
of the elections and to toavoid
A provisional appointment is good only until confirmation by the Commission on Appointments
paralyzation in the COMELEC, the President who
replacement by a civil service eligible and in no andwaswasnot made during the
running for recess of Congress.
any office, As
appointed
case beyond 30 days from date of receipt by the held in Summers vs. Qzaeta, 81 Phil. 754, an ad
Commissioner C of the Commission on Audit,
appointing officer of the certificate of eligibility. interim appointment is permanent.
who was not a lawyer but a certified public
(Sec. 24 [c|. Republic Act 2260).
accountant by profession, ad interim
Commissioner to succeed Commissioner A and
A provisional appointment contemplates a different 3) In Section 24 (d) of the Civil Service Act of
designated by way of a temporary measure.
situation from that of a temporary appointment. 1959, a TEMPORARY APPOINTMENT is one
Associate Justice D of the Court of Appeals as
Whereas a temporary appointment is designed toissued fill to a person to a position needed only for a
acting Associate Commissioner during the
a position needed only for a limited period limited not period not exceeding six months. Under
absence of Commissioner B.
exceeding six (6) months, a provisional appointment, Section 25(b) of the Civil Service Decree, a
on the other hand, is intended for the contingency temporary
Did appointment
the President do the is one
rightissued
thing in to a person
extending
that "a vacancy occurs and the filling thereofsuch who is meets ad interim appointment in favor to
all the requirements for the position of
necessary(It isinsuggested that ifofthe
the interest theexaminee
servicefollowed thewhich
and there is he is being appointed except the D acting
classification in Sarmiento v. Mison, 156 SCRA 549 Commissioner C and designating Justice
no appropriate
and named register
only of
foureligibles at the
categories, time of
because appropriate
the
heCommissioner civilofservice eligibility because of the
the COMELEC?
combined the first three categories into one, he beabsence
appointment."
given full credit.)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: and it is
of appropriate eligibles
necessary
No. The President in the public Interestintoextending
was wrong fill the vacancy.
an ad
interim appointment in favor of Commissioner C. In
2.) According to Sarmiento v. Mison, 156 SCRA 549, the only
In other words, the reason for extending a
officers whose appointments need Summers vs. Ozaeta, 81 Phil. 754, it was held that
provisional appointment is not because there is On the other hand. Section 24(e) of the Civil
an ad interim appointment is a permanent
an occasional work to be done and is expected Service Act of 1959 defined a PROVISIONAL
appointment.
Under Section 15, Article VII of the Constitution, adjournment of Congress. A temporary or acting
within two months immediately before the next appointee does not enjoy any security of tenure,
presidential elections and up to the end of his no matter how briefly. (Matibag v. Benipayo, G.R.
term, the President cannot make permanent No. 149036, April 2, 2002)
appointments. The designation of Justice D as ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
acting Associate Commissioner is also invalid. An ad interim appointment is a permanent
Section 1(2). Article IX-C of the Constitution appointment and does not violate Section 1(2),
prohibits the designation of any Commissioner of Article IX-C of the Constitution. (Pamantasan ng
the COMELEC in a temporary or acting capacity. Lungsod ng Maynila v. IAC, G.R. No. L65439,
Section 12, Article VIII of the Constitution prohibitsNovember 13,1985)
the designation of any member of the Judiciary to
any agency performing quasi-judicial or (b) Assuming the legality of the first ad interim
administrative functions. appointment and assumption of office by
Santos, were his second ad interim
appointment and subsequent assumption of
Appointing Powers; Ad Interim Appointments office to the same position violations of the
(Q4-2005) prohibition on reappointment under Section
(1) In March 2001, while Congress was 1(2), Article IX-C of the Constitution?
adjourned, the President appointed Santos as
Chairman of the COMELEC. Santos immediately SUGGESTED ANSWER:
took his oath and assumed office. While his No, the second ad interim appointment and
appointment was promptly submitted to the subsequent assumption of office does not violate
Commission on Appointments for confirmation, itthe Constitution. The prohibition on reappointment
was not acted upon and Congress again in Section 1(2), Article IX-C of the Constitution
adjourned. In June 2001, the President extendeddoes a not apply to by-passed ad interim
second ad interim appointment to Santos for the appointments. It can be revived by a new ad
same position with the same term, and this interim appointment because there is no final
appointment was again submitted to the disapproval under Section 16, Article VII of the
Commission on Appointments for confirmation. Constitution, and such new appointment will not
Santos took his oath anew and performed the result in the appointee serving beyond the fixed
functions of his office. term of seven years. The phrase "without
reappointment" applies only to one who has been
appointed by the President and confirmed by the
Reyes, a political rival, filed a suit assailing Commission on Appointments, whether or not
certain orders issued by Santos. He also such person completes his term of office. To hold
questioned the validity of Santos' appointment. otherwise will lead to absurdities and negate the
Resolve the following issues: (5%) President's power to make ad interim
appointments. (Matibag v. Benipayo, G.R. No.
149036, April 2, 2002)
(a) Does Santos' assumption of office on the
basis of the ad interim appointments issued by
the President amount to a temporary Cabinet Members; limitation on accepting
appointment which is prohibited by Section additional duties (1996)
1(2), Article IX-C of the Constitution? 1996 No. 7: Can the Secretary of Finance be
elected Chairman of the Board of Directors of
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: the San Miguel Corporation? Explain.
No, Santos' appointment does not amount to a SUGGESTED ANSWER:
temporary appointment. An ad interim appointment No, the Secretary of Finance cannot be elected
is a permanent appointment because it takes effect Chairman of the Board of Directors of the San
immediately and can no longer be withdrawn by Miguel Corporation. Under Section 13, Article VII
the President once the appointee has qualified into of the Constitution, members of the Cabinet
office. The fact that it is subject to confirmation bycannot hold any other office or employment
the Commission on Appointments does not alter its during their tenure unless it is otherwise provided
permanent character. The Constitution itself makes in the Constitution. They shall not also during
an ad interim appointment permanent in charactersaid tenure participate in any business or be
by making it effective until disapproved by the financially interested in any contract with, or in
Commission on Appointments or until the next any franchise, or special privilege granted by the
Government or any
subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof,
including government-owned or controlled
corporations or their subsidiaries. They shall
strictly avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of
their office.

Calling-out Power; President (Q1-2006)


1. What do you mean by the "Calling-out
Power" of the President under Section 18, Article
VII of the Constitution? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Under Article VII, Sec. 18 of the 1987
Constitution, whenever it becomes necessary, the
President, as Commander-in-Chief, may call out
the armed forces to aid him in preventing or
suppressing lawless violence, invasion or
rebellion (David v. Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396, May
3, 2006).

Declaration; State of Calamity; Legal Effects


(Q1-2005)
(b) To give the much needed help to the
Province of Aurora which was devastated by
typhoons and torrential rains, the President
declared it in a "state of calamity." Give at least
four (4) legal effects of such declaration. (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Declaration of a state of calamity produces, inter
alia, these legal effects within the Province of
Aurora —
1. Automatic Price Control — under R.A.
No. 7581, The Price Act;
2. Authorization for the importation of rice
under R.A. No. 8178, The Agricultural
Tarrification Act;
3. Automatic appropriation under R.A. No.
7160 is available for unforeseen expenditures
arising from the occurrence of calamities in areas
declared to be in a state of calamity;

4. Local government units may enact a


supplemental budget for supplies and materials or
payment of services to prevent danger to or loss
of life or property, under
R.A. No. 7160;
5. Entitlement to hazard allowance for Public
Health Workers (under R.A. No. 7305, Magna
Carta for Public Health Workers), who shall be
compensated hazard allowances equivalent to at
least twenty-five percent (25%) of the monthly
basic salary of health workers receiving salary
grade 19 and below, and five percent (5%) for
health workers with salary grade 20 and above;

6. Entitlement to hazard allowance for


science and technological personnel of the
government under R.A. No. 8439; and
the construction of a dam. The Senate, by a 7. A crime committed during the state of
resolution, asked that the agreement be submittedcalamity
No I - will be considered
What are the aggravated under Art.
limitations/restrictions
to it for ratification. The Secretary of Foreign 14, par. 7 of the Revised Penal Code.
provided by the Constitution on the power of
Affairs advised the Secretary of Public Works andCongress to authorize the President to fix tariff
Highways not to comply with the request of the rates, import and export quotas, tonnage and
Senate. 2) Is the President bound to submit the wharfage
Declaration;dues.State of National
Explain. (2%) Emergency (Q1-
agreement to the Senate for ratification? 2006)SUGGESTED ANSWER:
2.
According OntoFebruary
Section 24, 2006,Article
28(2), President
VI ofGloria
the
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Macapagal-Arroyo issued Proclamation
Constitution, Congress may, by law, authorize No. 1017
the
No, the President is not bound to submit the declaringtoa fix
President state of specified
within national emergency. Is this
limits, and subject
agreement to the Senate for ratification. Under Proclamation constitutional? Explain.
to such limitations and restrictions it may impose, (2.5%)
Section 20, Article VII of the Constitution, only the
tariff rates, import and export quotas, tonnage and
prior concurrence of the Monetary Board wharfage is SUGGESTED
dues and other ANSWER: duties or imposts within
required for the President to contract foreign the framework of isthe
The proclamation constitutional insofar as it
national development
loans on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines. constitutes a call
program of the Government. by the President for the AFP to
prevent or suppress lawless violence as this is
sustained by Section 18, Article VII of the
Enter into Contract or Guarantee Foreign Constitution. Martial Law & Suspension of Writ of Habeas
Loans (1999) Corpus (1987)
No I - What are the restrictions prescribed by the However,
No. XVII: One PP of1017's
the featuresprovisions giving the
of the government
Constitution on the power of the President to President
established under the 1987 Constitutionto isissue
express or implied power (1) the
contract or guarantee foreign loans on behalf of decrees;
restoration(2) ofto the direct the AFP
principle to enforce
of checks and
the Republic of the Philippines? Explain. (2%) obedience
balances. to all is
This laws even those
especially not related
noteworthy in theto
lawless violence as wellpowers
Commander-in-Chief as decreesof the promulgated
President
SUGGESTED ANSWER: by the President;
which substantially and (3) towhat
affects impose wasstandards
styled under on
Under Section 20, Article VII of the Constitution, media
the or pastany dispensation
form of prior restraint
as theon "calibrated
the press,
the power of the President to contract are or ultra vires
response" and emergencies,
to national unconstitutional. Likewise,
guarantee loans on behalf of the Republic of the under Section 17,
(a) Discuss fully Article XII of the of
the provisions Constitution,
the 1987
Philippines is subject to the prior concurrence the ofConstitution,
President, in the absence
giving the scope, of legislation,
limits and the cannot
role
the Monetary Board and subject to such take over
of the privately-owned
principle of checks and public utilitieson and
balances the
limitations as may be prescribed by law. businesses
President'saffected
exercisewith thepower:
of the public interest (David
v.ToArroyo, G.R.the
suspend No. 171396,ofMay
privilege 3, 2006).
the writ of habeas
Enter into Executive Agreements (2003) corpus
No XX - An Executive Agreement was executedProclamation of martial law.
between the Philippines and a neighboring State. 3. During the effectivity of this Proclamation,
The Senate of the Philippines took it upon itself to Gener, Lito and Bong were arrested by the police
procure a certified true copy of the Executive for acts of terrorism. Is the arrest legal? Explain.
Agreement and, after deliberating on it, declared, (2.5%)
by a unanimous vote, that the agreement was SUGGESTED ANSWER:
both unwise and against the best interest of theThe arrest, apparently done without a valid
country. Is the Executive Agreement binding (a)warrant, is illegal. However, a warrantless arrest
from the standpoint of Philippine law and (b) fromwould be valid if those accused are caught
the standpoint of international law? Explain committing crimes en flagrante delicto. On the
other hand, if the arrest is made pursuant to a
SUGGESTED ANSWER: valid warrant, then it is lawful. The term "acts of
(a) From the standpoint of Philippine law, the terrorism" has not been legally defined and made
Executive Agreement is binding. According to punishable by Congress. No law has been
Commissioner of Customs v. Eastern Sea enacted to guide the law enforcement agents,
Trading. 3 SCRA 351 [1961], the President can and eventually the courts, to determine the limits
enter into an Executive Agreement without the in making arrests for the commission of said acts
necessity of concurrence by the Senate. of terrorism (David v. Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396,
May 3, 2006).
(b) The Executive Agreement is also binding Enter into Contract or Guarantee Foreign
from the standpoint of international law... Loans (1994)
No. 13: The President of the Philippines
authorized the Secretary of Public Works and
Impose Tariff Rates, Import and ExportHighways to negotiate and sign a loan agreement
Quotas (1999) with the German Government for
all its members, voting, jointly. Any extension of movements, and terrorism is to simply call out
the proclamation of martial law or suspension of the armed forces for the following reasons: 1)
the writ can only be granted by Congress which the exigencies to be met are not solely
will determine also the period of such extension. those caused by invasion or rebellion but
terrorism and other crimes.
2) Suspension of the privilege will only be
On the other hand, the Supreme Court exercises afor a limited period and then the period of
check on Executive action in the form of judicialretention is limited to 3 days which may not really
review at the instance of any citizen. Thebe effective. On the other hand, public criticism of
Constitution embodies in this respect the ruling inthe action may only erode the President's
Garcia v. Lansang, 42 SCRA 448 (1971) that theauthority.
Court can determine the sufficiency of the factual3) There is practically little difference, as far
basis of the proclamation of martial law or theas the ability of the President to meet an
suspension of the privilege or the extensionemergency is concerned, between option 1, on
thereof not for the purpose of supplanting thethe other hand, the options 2 and 3.
judgment of the President but to determine
whether the latter did not act arbitrarily. Indeed,The President may well take comfort in the
Art. VIII, Sec. 1 imposes upon the courts the dutyfollowing thought: "Government of limited power
of determining whether or not there has beenneed not be anemic government. Assurance that
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack orrights are secure tends to diminish fear and
excess of jurisdiction on the part of the otherjealousy of strong government, and, by making
branches of the government, in this case, theus feel safe to live under it makes for its better
President. support." (West Vs. State Brd. of Educ. v.
Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943))

The President cannot, by means of the Martial Law; Limitations (2000)


proclamation of martial law, suspend theNo XVII. Declaring a rebellion, hostile groups
Constitution or supplant the courts and thehave opened and maintained armed conflicts on
legislature. Neither can he authorize the trial ofthe Islands of Sulu and Basilan. a) To quell this,
civilians by military tribunals so long as courts arecan the President place under
open and functioning, thus overruling the case of martial law the islands of Sulu and Basilan?
Aquino v. Military Commission No. 2, 63 SCRA Give your reasons? (3%)
546 (1975). His proclamation of martial law doesb) What are the constitutional safeguards
not carry with it the suspension of the writ ofon the exercise of the President's power to
habeas corpus, so that the decision on Aquino(b) v.proclaim martial law?
Considering the (2%)pressing problems of
Ponce Enrile, 59 SCRA 183 (1973) is now insurgency,SUGGESTED ANSWER:
rebel activities, liberation movements
overruled. Nor does the suspension of the writ anda) terrorist
If public safety
violence, requires
which it, the President
in your can
considered
toplace Sulu
deprive courts of their power to admit personsopinion among and Basilan
the options under martial law since
available to the
bail, where proper. The Constitution thus there is an
President as actual rebellion. Under Section
Commander-in-Chief would be 18, the
overrules the cases of Garcia-Padilla v. Ponce most Article VII of in
effective themeeting
Constitution, the Presidentby
the emergencies canthe
Enrile, 121 SCRA 472 (1983) and Moralesnation? v.placeExplain.
any part of the Philippines under martial
Ponce Enrile. 121 SCRA 538 (1983). law in case of rebellion,
SUGGESTED when public safety
ANSWER:
requires
(a) it.
The President's power to suspend the privilege
(b) The President has three options: (1) TO CALL of the writ of habeas corpus and to proclaim
OUT the armed forces to prevent or suppress b) The following
martial are the
law is subject to constitutional
several checks safeguards
by
lawless violence, invasion or rebellion; (2) TO on the exercise
Congress and by of the
the Supreme
power of Court.
the President
The to
SUSPEND the privilege of the writ of habeas proclaim
Presidentmartial law: a)
is required to There
report must be actual
to Congress within
corpus or (3) TO PROCLAIM martial law. The last invasion
48 hoursor hisrebellion;
action inb)declaring
The duration of law
martial the or
two options can be resorted to only in cases proclamation
of
suspending shall
the not of the writ, and Congress
privilege
invasion or rebellion when public safety requires exceed sixty
is in turn required days: if it is not in
to convene,
either the supension of the privilege or the c)
session, Within 24
within forty-eight hours, the
hours following thePresident
proclamation of martial law. shall report his
proclamation action to
of martial lawCongress. If Congress
or the suspension of
is not
the in session,
privilege without it must
need convene
of any call,within
in twenty-
four hours; with its rules. The proclamation of
accordance
It is submitted that the most effective means of d) martial Congress may by majority
law or suspension of the writvote
is of all its for
effective
meeting the current emergency which is broughtmembers voting Jointly revoke
60 days only, but Congress can cut short itsthe proclamation,
about by rebellion, liberation and the President
effectivity by revoking cannot theset aside the revocation;
proclamation by the
vote of at least a majority of
e) By the same vote and in the same
manner, upon Initiative of the President,
Congress may extend the proclamation If the
invasion or rebellion continues and public safety
requires the extension;
f) The Supreme Court may review the
factual sufficiency of the proclamation, and the
Supreme Court must decide the case within thirty
days from the time it was filed;
g) Martial law does not automatically
suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus or the operation of the Constitution.
h) It does not supplant the functioning of the
civil courts and of Congress. Military courts have
no Jurisdiction over civilians where civil courts
are able to function. (Cruz, Philippine Political
Law, 1995 ed., pp. 213214.)

Martial Law; Sufficiency of the Factual Basis


(Q3-2006)
The President issued a Proclamation No. 1018
placing the Philippines under Martial Law on the
ground that a rebellion staged by lawless
elements is endangering the public safety.
Pursuant to the Proclamation, suspected rebels
were arrested and detained and military tribunals
were set up to try them. Robert dela Cruz, a
citizen, filed with the Supreme Court a petition
questioning the validity of Proclamation No. 1018.

1. Does Robert have a standing to


Proclamation No. 1018? Explain. (2.5%)
challenge
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, Robert has
standing. Under Article VIII, Section 17 of the
1987 Constitution, the Supreme Court may
review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any
citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the
proclamation of martial law. As citizen therefore,
Robert may file the petition questioning
Proclamation No. 1018.

2. In the same suit, the Solicitor General


contends that under the Constitution, the President
as Commander-in-Chief, determines whether the
exigency has arisen requiring the exercise of his
power to declare Martial Law and that his
determination is conclusive upon the courts. How
should the Supreme Court rule? (2.5%)
Supreme Court. Under said provision, the suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
duration of martial law shall not exceed sixty daysand the power to impose martial law involve the
but Congress has the power to revoke the curtailment and suppression of certain basic civil
proclamation or extend the period. On the other rights and individual freedoms, and thus
hand, the Supreme Court has the power to review necessitate safeguards by Congress and review
the said proclamation and promulgate its decisionby the Supreme Court (IBP v. Zamora, G.R. No.
thereon within thirty days from its filing (Article 141284, August 15, 2000).
VIII, Section 18).

Pardoning Power; Amnesty (1993) 3. The Solicitor General argues that, in any
No 20: - The National Unification Commissionevent, the determination of whether the rebellion
has recommended the grant of absolute andposes danger to public safety involves a question
unconditional amnesty to all rebels. There is theof fact and the Supreme Court is not a trier of
view that it is not necessary for the rebels tofacts. What should be the ruling of the Court?
admit the commission of the crime charged, it(2.5%)
being enough that the offense falls within the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
scope of the amnesty proclamation following the Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of
doctrine laid down in Barrioquinto vs. Fernandez,justice to settle actual controversies involving
82 Phil. 642. In other words, admission of guilt rights
is which are legally demandable and
not a condition sine qua non for the availment ofenforceable, and to determine whether or not there
amnesty. Is this correct? Explain. has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any
SUGGESTED ANSWER: branch or instrumentality of the Government (Art.
The view that it is not necessary for rebels to Vin, Sec. 1, par. 2,1987 Constitution). When the
admit the commission of the crime charged in grant of power is qualified, conditional or subject to
order to avail themselves of the benefits of limitations, the issue of whether the prescribed
amnesty is not correct. As stated in Vera v. qualifications or conditions have been met or the
People, 7 SCRA 156, the doctrine laid down in limitations respected, is justiciable — the problem
Borrioquinto vs. Fernandez, 82 Phil. 642 has being one of legality or validity, not its wisdom.
been overturned. Amnesty presupposes the
commission of a crime. It is inconsistent for
someone to seek for forgiveness for a crime
which he denies having committed. (People vs.Article VII, Section 18 of the 1987 Constitution
Pasilan, 14 SCRA 694). specifically grants the Supreme Court the power
to review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by
Pardoning Power; Amnesty (1995) any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of
No. 5: Lucas, a ranking member of the NDF, wasthe proclamation of martial law. Thus, in the
captured by policemen while about to board amatter of such declaration, two conditions must
passenger bus bound for Sorsogon. Chargedconcur: (1) there must be an actual invasion or
with rebellion he pleaded not guilty whenrebellion; and (2) public safety must require it.
arraigned. Before trial he was granted absoluteThe Supreme Court cannot renege on its
pardon by the President to allow him toconstitutional duty to determine whether or not
participate in the peace talks between thethe said factual conditions exist (IBP v. Zamora,
government and the communist rebels. G.R. No. 141284, August 15, 2000).

3. Instead of a pardon, may the President grant 4. Finally, the Solicitor General maintains
the accused amnesty if favorably recommended that the President reported to Congress such
by the National Amnesty Commission? Explain. proclamation of Martial Law, but Congress did not
revoke the proclamation. What is the effect of the
4. May the accused avail of the benefits of inaction of Congress on the suit brought by
amnesty despite the fact the he continued to Robert to the Supreme Court? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED
profess innocence?
ANSWER:
Explain.
The Supreme Court should rule that his deter- SUGGESTED ANSWER:
mination is not conclusive upon the courts. The The inaction of Congress has no effect on the
1987 Constitution allows a citizen, in an suit brought by Robert to the Supreme Court as
appropriate proceeding, to file a petition Article VIII, Section 18 provides for checks on
questioning the sufficiency of the factual basis of the President's power to declare martial law to
said proclamation. Moreover, the power to be exercised separately by Congress and the
when arraigned. Before trial he was granted
absolute pardon by the President to allow him to 4. No, the accused cannot avail of the benefits of
participate in the peace talks between the inamnesty
criminalifcases,
he continues
it wouldtohave
profess
beenhis innocence.
unnecessary
government and the communist rebels. In Vera vs. People, 7 SCRA 152. since
to exclude impeachment cases from this scope. amnesty If
(1) Is the pardon of the President valid? presupposes the commission of a crime.
the President can grant pardons in criminal cases, It is
Explain. inconsistent
with for an
more reason he accused
can granttoexecutive
seek forgiveness
(2) Assuming that the pardon is valid, can Lucas clemency
for something which he claims
in administrative cases, which he are
haslessnot
reject it? Explain. committed.
serious.

SUGGESTED ANSWER: PardoningPower;


Pardoning Power; BreachClemency
Executive of Condition;
(1999)
1. The pardon is not valid. Under Section 19, Revocation (Q5-2005)
Article VII of the 1987 Constitution, pardon may (1)A.Bruno Whatstill are had several yearslimitations
the constitutional to serve on on thehis
be granted only after conviction by final sentence when he was conditionally
pardoning power of the President? (2%) pardoned by
Judgment. the President. Among the conditions imposed was
2. Yes, Lucas can reject the pardon As held in that B. he would "notbetween
Distinguish again violate pardonanyand of the penal
amnesty.
United States vs. Wilson, 7 Pet. 150 and Burdick (2%) laws of the Philippines." Bruno accepted all of the
vs. United States, 274 U.S. 480. acceptance is conditions and
SUGGESTED ANSWER: was released. Shortly thereafter,
essential to complete the pardon and the pardon Bruno A. Thewas charged
following are with 2 counts on
the limitations of the
estafa. He
may be rejected by the person to whom it is was then incarcerated to
pardoning power of the President. 1) It cannot serve the i expired
be
tendered, for it may inflict consequences of portion of
granted in his
cases sentence
of following the revocation by
greater disgrace than those from which it purports the President of2)the
impeachment; pardon. commutations,
Reprieves,
to relieve. pardon, and
remission of fines and forfeitures can be
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: granted only after conviction by final
No, Lucas cannot reject the pardon. According to Bruno's family filed a petition for habeas
judgment.
Biddle vs. Perovich, 274 U.S. 480, acceptance is 3) corpus, alleging
The favorable thatrecommendation
it was error to have of himthe
recommitted as the
not necessary, for the grant of pardon involves a COMELEC is required for violation of election charges were false, in
fact, half
determination by the President that public welfarelaws, rules and regulations. of them were already dismissed.
will be better served by inflicting less than what Resolve the petition with reasons. (4%)
the judgment fixed. SUGGESTED
B. According ANSWER: v. Fernandez, 82
to Barrioquinto
The petition should
Phil. 642, the following not be given are due
the course. The
distinctions
grant of pardon
between pardon and amnesty. and the determination of the
terms and conditions of
Pardoning Power; Executive Clemency (1997)1Pardon is a private act and must be pleaded and a conditional pardon are
PURELY
proved by the EXECUTIVE
person pardoned; ACTS while which are not
amnesty is
subject to judicial scrutiny.
No. 15; Governor A was charged administrativelya public act of which courts take judicial notice; The acceptance
with oppression and was placed under preventivePardon thereof does
by the notconvict
requireor theprisoner
concurrencecarriedof with it
the authority or
suspension from office during the pendency of hisCongress, while amnesty requires thepower of the Executive to
determine
case. Found guilty of the charge, the President concurrence of Congress;whether a condition or conditions of the
suspended him from office for ninety days. Later,Pardonpardon ishas or have
granted been violated.
to individuals, Where the
while amnesty is
President opts to revoke
the President granted him clemency by reducing granted to classes of persons or communities; the conditional pardon
the period of his suspension to the period he hasPardongiven, no mayjudicial
be grantedpronouncement
for any offense, of guilt
while of a
already served. The Vice Governor questioned the subsequent crime is necessary,
amnesty is granted for political offenses; much less
conviction therefor by final
validity of the exercise of executive clemency on Pardon is granted after final conviction, while judgment of a court, in
the ground that it could be granted only in criminal, order that a convict may
amnesty may be granted at any time; and be recommended for the
not administrative, cases. How should the question violationlooks
Pardon of forward
his and conditional
relieves the pardon.
offenderThe
be resolved? from the consequences of his offense, breach
determination of the occurrence of a while of a
condition of a pardon,
amnesty looks backward and the person granted and the proper it
SUGGESTED ANSWER: consequences of such
stands before the law as though he had breach, is a purely
The argument of the Vice Governor should be committed executive no act,offense.
not subject to judicial scrutiny.
rejected. As held in Llamas vs. Orbos, 202 SCRA (Torres v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 76872, July 23,
844. the power of executive clemency extends to 1987)
administrative cases. In granting the power of
SUGGESTED upon the President, Section Pardoning Power; Exec Clemency; Pardon
ANSWER:
executive clemency
3. The President may grant the accused
19, Article VII of the Constitution does not amnesty.(1995)
According to Barrioquinto vs. Fernandez,
distinguish between criminal and administrative 82 Phil.No. 5: Lucas, a ranking member of the NDF, was
cases. Section 19, Article VII of the Constitution captured by policemen while about to board a
642, Amnesty may be granted before or after the
institution of the criminalcases,
excludes impeachment prosecution.
which are not passenger bus bound for Sorsogon. Charged
criminal cases, from the scope of the power of with rebellion he pleaded not guilty
executive clemency. If this power may be
exercised only
define the three of them, and differentiate one
from the others.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The terms were defined and distinguished from
one another in People v. Vera, 65 Phil. 56, 111-
112 (1930), as follows:
(1) REPRIEVE is a postponement of the
execution of a sentence to a day certain,
(2) COMMUTATION is a remission of a part of
the punishment, a substitution of less penalty for
the one originally imposed.
(3) A PARDON, on the other hand, is an act of
grace, proceeding from the power entrusted with
the execution of the laws which exempts the
individual on whom it is bestowed from the
punishment the law inflicts for a crime he has
committed.

Pardoning Power; Kinds (1988)


No. 24: The first paragraph of Section 19 of
Article VII of the Constitution providing for the
pardoning power of the President, mentions
reprieve, commutation, and pardon. Please
a) the issue regarding the holding of multiple No. 7: Can the President take active part in the
positions? (3%) b) the issue on the payment of legislative process? Explain.
additional or double compensation?(2%) Explain SUGGESTED
as Secretary of Trade ANSWER:
and Industry. The provision
your answers fully. Yes, The President
of Art, VII, Sec, 13, prohibiting can take active Cabinet part in the
members
legislative process to the extent
from holding any other office or employment, allowed by the is
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Constitution. He can address
subject to the exceptions in Art. IX, B, Sec. 7. Congress at any
(a) If I were the judge, I would uphold the validity time to propose the enactment of certain laws.
of the designation of Secretary M as ex officio He recommends the general appropriations bill.
member of the Monetary Board, As stated in Civilb.He Dean can callSinco
a special session that
believes of Congress
members at any of
Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary, 194 SCRACongress time. He can certify to the necessity
cannot be members of the Board of of the
317 (1991), the prohibition against the holding of Regents immediate enactment
of the University of aofbillthetoPhilippines
meet a public under
multiple positions by Cabinet Members in Article the calamity
Incompatibility Clause of athe
or emergency. He can veto bill. 1935
VII, Section 13 of the Constitution does not apply Constitution which is similar to the provision of
to positions occupied in an ex officio capacity as Presidential Art. VI, Sec. 13 Immunity
of the presentfrom Suit (1997) Under
Constitution.
provided by law and as required by the primary this No. view,
13: Upon complaint of the incumbent
the membership of the Chairman of the
functions of their office. President
Senate of the Republic,
Committee on Trade "A" and
was Industry
charged with in the
Export Control Board cannot be"A"sustained.
libel before the Regional Trial Court. moved
to dismiss
(Sinco, the information
Philippine Political on the
Lawground136 that(llth theEd.
(b) If I were Power;
Pardoning the Judge, I would
Pardon, rule that Secretary
Conditional (1997) 1962).
Court had no jurisdiction over the offense
M cannot receive any additional compensation. charged because the President, being immune
As
No.stated
16; A in Civilserving
while Liberties Union v. Executive
imprisonment for estafa. from suit, should
Moreover, since also be disqualified
the apparent from filing
justification a
for the
Secretary, 194 SCRA 317
upon recommendation (1991),
of the Boarda of Cabinet
Pardons case against "A"
membership of inthe court. Resolve of
Chairman the the
motion.Senate
Member
and Parole, holding an ex-officio
was granted pardonposition
by thehas no
President Committee is to aid him in his legislative
right
on condition that he should not again violate his
to receive additional compensation, for any functions,SUGGESTED
this purpose ANSWER: can easily be achieved
services in that position are already paid
penal law of the land. Later, the Board of Pardonsthrough for by The motion should be
legislative denied according
investigations undertoArt. VI,
the
andcompensation
Parole recommended attachedtotothe hisPresident
principal office. Soliven us. Makasiar, 167 SCRA 393, the
the Sec.21.
cancellation of the pardon granted him because Aimmunity of the President from suit is personal to
had been charged with estafa on 20 counts and On the President.
the other Ithand, may beDean invoked by theappears
Cortes President to
was convicted of the offense charged although hesuggest only and anotcontrary
by any other view,person.
noting that after the
Prohibition
took an appealagainst therefromMultiple
which was Positions
still pending.bydecision in Government of the Philippine Islands
Gov’t Officials (1987)
As recommended, the President canceled the Prohibition
v. Springer 50 Against
Phil. 259 Multiple
(1927), Positions &
in validating the
No.
pardon I: he
Assume that ato law
had granted A. A has
was been passedlaw
thus arrested Additional Compensation
designating the Senate (2002)President and
creating the Export
and imprisoned Control
to serve theBoard
balance composed
of his of: No VI. M isasthe
Speaker Secretary
members ofofthe theBoard
Department
of Control of of
The Secretary
sentence of Trade
in the first case. and Industry
A claimed in as
hisChairman
petitionFinance.
government He iscorporations,
also an ex-officio member
no other of thehas
decision
forand as Members:
habeas corpus filed in court that his detentionMonetary Board of
been rendered. Onthe theBangko
contrary,Sentral
lawsng Pilipinas
have been
Theillegal
was Chairman
because of thehe Senate
had notCommittee on Trade
yet been convicted from whichmaking
enacted, he receivesmembers an additional
of Congress members
byand
finalIndustry
judgment and was not given a chance to compensation of various boards. for every Board meeting attended.
beAn Associate
heard beforeJustice
he wasofrecommitted
the Supreme to Court
prison. Is
designated
A's argument by the Chief Justice
valid?
The Commissioner of Customs, and N,Indeed,
a taxpayer, filed a suit in of
the membership court
thetoChairman
declare of the
The President of the Philippine Chamber of Secretary M's membership
Senate Committee on Trade in the
andMonetary
Industry Boardmay be
SUGGESTED
Commerce and ANSWER:
Industry, and his receipt
upheld as being of additional
in aid of his compensation illegal
legislative functions
The argument of A is not valid. As held in Torresand sincein violation of the Constitution.
what is prohibited by Art. VI, N Sec.
invoked13 is the
vs. Gonzales. 152 SCRA 272 a judicial Article VII, Section
acceptance of 13 anof the Constitution which
incompatible office or
pronouncement
The that a convict who
National Constitutional was granted
Association of theaemployment
provides that theinPresident, Vice-President,(Cortes,
the government. the
pardon subject
Philippines hasto the condition
filed suit to thatchallenge
he should not Members
the of the Cabinet, and
Philippine Presidency, pp. 111112(1966)) their deputies or
again violate anyofpenal
constitutionality law is not necessary
the law. assistants shall not, unless otherwise provided in
before he can be declared to have violated the the Constitution, hold any other office or
condition ofwhether
Determine his pardon. the Moreover,
membership a hearing
of each is of
employment during their
(c) The designation tenure.
of an N alsoJustice
Associate cited Article
of
not necessary
the above in beforethe Board A cancan be recommitted
be upheld. toCite IX-B,
the Section
Supreme 8 Court
of the cannot
Constitution, which provides
be sustained being
prison.
relevantBy accepting the
constitutional conditional pardon, A, that
provisions. thenoimposition
elective or onappointive
the members publicof officer
the Court,or of
agreed that theANSWER:
SUGGESTED determination by the President employee shall receive additional,
non-judicial duties, contrary to the principle of double, or
that
a. Thehe chairmanship
violated the condition of his pardon
of the Secretary shall indirect
of Trade compensation,
separation of powers.unless specifically
It is judicial power and
be conclusive upon him and an order for his
and Industry in the Board can be upheld on the judicial power only which thethe
authorized by law. If you were judge, how
Supreme Court and
arrest
basis of should
Art. IX,at B,
onceSec.issue.
7, which allows would you decide
its members maythe following:
exercise. (Art VIII. Sec. 1;
appointive officials to hold other offices if allowed Manila Electric Co. v. Pasay Trans. Co., 57 Phil.
President;
by law (suchParticipation;
as the law in this Legislative
case creatingProcessthe 600 (1932))
(1996)
Export Control Board) or justified by the primary
functions of their offices. The functions of the (d) The Commissioner of Customs may be made
Board is related to his functions member of the Board for the same
reason in the case of the Secretary of Trade and
Industry, under Art. IX, B, Sec. 7.

(e) The membership of the President of the (4) Cases heard by a division when the
Philippine Chamber of Commerce may also be required majority is not obtained;
upheld on the ground that Congress has the
power to prescribe qualifications for the office. (5) Cases where a doctrine or principle of law
previously laid down will be modified or reversed;
Suspension of Writ of Habeas Corpus (1997)
(a) When may the privilege of the writ of habeas (6) Administrative cases against judges when
corpus be suspended? the penalty is dismissal; and
(b) If validly declared, what would be the full
consequences of such suspension? (7) Election contests for President or Vice-
President.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) Under Section 16, Article VII of the
Constitution, the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus may be suspended when there is an
invasion or rebellion and public safety requires it.

(b) According to Section 18, Article VII of the


Constitution, the suspension of the privilege of
the writ of habeas corpus shall apply only to
persons judicially charged with rebellion or
offenses Inherent to or directly connected with
invasion. Any person arrested or detained should
be judicially charged within three days.
Otherwise, he should be released. Moreover,
under Section 13. Article III of the Constitution,
the right to bail shall not be impaired even when
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is
suspended.

ARTICLE VIII Judicial


Department
Cases to be Heard En Banc; Supreme Court
(1999)
No XI - Enumerate the cases required by the
Constitution to be heard en banc by the Supreme
Court? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The following are the cases required by the
Constitution to be heard en banc by the Supreme
Court:
(1) Cases involving the constitutionality of a
treaty, international or executive agreement, or law;

(2) Cases which under the Rules of Court


are required to be heard en banc.
(3) Cases involving the constitutionality,
application, or operation of presidential decrees,
proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances, and
other regulations;
No. 8; The ABC Realty, Inc, filed a complaint plans of the government and allocate and
against Rico for the collection of unpaid disburse such sums as may be provided by law
installments on a subdivision lot purchased by theor prescribed by it in the course of the discharge
latter, Rico failed to file an answer, was declared of its functions.
in default; and after reception of plaintiffs
evidence ex parte, judgment was rendered Function; Continuing Constitutional Convention
against him. The decision became final, and upon (2000)
motion by ABC Realty, the judge issued a writ of No I. --One Senator remarked that the Supreme
execution. Court is a continuing Constitutional Convention.
Do you agree? Explain. (2%)
Rico now files a motion to quash the writ and to SUGGESTED ANSWER:
vacate the Judgment contending that it is the I do not agree that the Supreme Court is a
Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board Contempt
continuing Powers Convention.
Constitutional (1996) The criticism
(HLURB) which is vested with original and No.based
is 3: 2) On on thethe first day of thethat
assumption trialinofexercising
a rape- its
murderofcase
exclusive Jurisdiction over cases involving the power where
judicial the victim
review was a popular
the Supreme Court TV Is not
star, over
real estate business. Rico prays for the dismissalmerely a hundredthe
interpreting of her fans rallied
Constitution butatisthe trying to
entrance the
of the complaint and for the nullity of the decision.remake of theGovernment
courthouse, on eachthe carrying
basisa of the
The realty firm opposes the motion arguing that placard demanding the
personal predilections of the Membersconviction of the accused
of the
and the imposition of the
under BP 129, RTCs have exclusive and originalSupreme Court, this is a power that properly death penalty on him.
jurisdiction over cases in which the amount of The belongsrally was to peaceful
the people and didand not disturb
their the elected
proceedings of the case. a) Can the trial court
controversy exceeds P20,000.00. Answer the representatives.
following queries: 1) Who has jurisdiction over the order the dispersal of the rallyists under pain of
collection suit? 2) The RTC decision, having The Supreme
being punished Court cannot of
for contempt decide
court,casesif theymerely
fail to
become final and executory, can it still be doonso?
the Explain.
basis of b) the Ifletter
instead of theof aConstitution.
rally, the fans It has
of
vacated? to interpret
the victim wrote the letters
Constitution to give effect
to the newspaper to the
editors
SUGGESTED ANSWER: intent of itsthe
demanding framers and ofofthe
conviction thepeople
accused, adopting
can theit.
1} The HLURB 2) Yes, the decision of the In court
trial Interpreting
punish them the Constitution,
for contempt?the Supreme
Explain.
Regional Trial Court can still be vacated, even if Court has to adopt it to the ever-changing
it has become final and executory. Since the circumstances of society. When the Supreme
Regional Trial Court had no jurisdiction over the CourtSUGGESTED
strikes down an ANSWER:
act of the Legislative or the
case, the decision is void. 2. a) Yes, the
Executive trial court itcan
Department, order the
is merely dispersal of
discharging its
the rallyunder
duty under painthe ofConstitution
being cited fortocontempt. determine
The purpose
conflicting of the
claims ofrally is to attempt to influence
authority.
Fiscal Autonomy (1999) the administration of Justice. As stated in People
No XI - What do you understand by the mandate vs. Flores, ALTERNATIVE
239 SCRAANSWER: 83, any conduct by any
of the Constitution that the judiciary shall enjoy To a which
party certaintends extent, the Supreme
to directly or indirectly Court
Impede, is a
fiscal autonomy? Cite the constitutional provisions continuing Constitutional
obstruct or degrade Convention.of When
the administration justice isa
calculated to bring about the realization of the said
case
subjectis brought in court powers
to the contempt involving a constitutional
of the court.
constitutional mandate. (2%) issue. It becomes necessary to interpret the
Constitution, Since the Supreme Court is supreme
SUGGESTED ANSWER: b) No, its
within the own
trial court
sphere,cannot its punish for contempt
interpretation of the
the fans of the
Under Section 3, Article VIII of the Constitution, Constitution willvictim
form part whoofwrotethe lawletters
of theto the
land.
the fiscal autonomy of the Judiciary means that newspaper editors asking for the conviction of the
appropriations for the Judiciary may not be accused. Since the letters were not addressed to
reduced by the legislature below the amount Issuance
the Judgeofand Restraining
the publication Orders andletters
of the Injunctions
appropriated for the previous year and, after (1992)
occurred outside the court, the fans cannot be
approval, shall be automatically and regularly No. 7: Congress
punished is considering
in the absence of a clear new and measures
present to
released. encourage
danger to the foreign corporations
administration to bring
of Justice. In their
investments
Cabansag vs.toFernandez, the Philippines.102 Phil Congress
152, it was has
In Bengzon v. Drilon, 208 SCRA 133, the found that aforeign
held that party who investments
wrote to the are Presidential
deterred by the
Supreme Court explained that fiscal autonomy uncertainComplaints investment
and Actionclimate Committee in the Philippines.
to complain
contemplates a guarantee of full flexibility to Oneaboutsource
the delayof such
in the uncertainty
dispositionisofthe hisheightened
case
allocate and utilize resources with the wisdom and judicial
could notintervention
be punished in investment
for contempt matters.
in the
dispatch that the needs require. It recognizes the absence of a clear and present danger to the fair
power and authority to deny, assess and collect administration of Justice.
fees, fix rates of compensation not exceeding the One such measure provides that "no court or
highest rates authorized by law for compensation administrative
Finality agency
of Void shallJudgments
issue any (1993)
restraining
and pay order or injunction against the
Central Bank" in the Bank's exercise of its
regulatory power over specific foreign exchange
transactions. 1The Secretary of Justice as ex officio member;
A representative of Congress as ex officio
Would this be a valid measure? Explain. member;
SUGGESTED ANSWER: A representative of the Integrated Bar;
Yes, the measure is valid. In Mantruste Systems, A professor of law;
Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 179 SCRA 136, the A retired Justice of the Supreme Court; and
Supreme Court held that a law prohibiting the A representative of the private sector. (Section 8
issuance of an injunction is valid, because under (1), Article VIII of the Constitution)
Section 2, Article VIII of the Constitution, the
jurisdiction of the courts may be defined by law.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: The term of office of the regular members is four


Since under Sections 1 and 5(2), Article VIII of (4) years. (Section 8(2), Article VIII of the
the Constitution, the courts are given the power Constitution)
of Judicial review, the measure is void, Such
power must be preserved. The issuance of
Judicial Department; Writ of Amparo (1991)
restraining orders and Injunctions is in aid of the No 1: What is a Constitutional writ of Amparo
power of judicial review. and what is the basis for such a remedy under
the Constitution?
Judicial & Bar Council (1988) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. 11: A novel feature of the present Constitution The writ of Amparo in Mexican law is an
is the Judicial and Bar Council. Please state: extraordinary remedy whereby an interested party
may seek the invalidation of any executive,
1. Its principal function; legislative or judicial act deemed in violation of a
2. Its composition; and fundamental right. The adoption of such a remedy
3. Who supervises it, and takes care of its in the Philippines may be based on Article VIII,
appropriations? Sec. 5(5) of the Constitution, which empowers the
Supreme Court to promulgate rules concerning
SUGGESTED ANSWER: the protection and enforcement of constitutional
1. The Judicial and Bar Council has the principal rights.
function of recommending appointees to the
Judiciary. It may exercise such other functions Judicial Independence; Safeguard (2000)
and duties as the Supreme Court may assign to No I. Name at least three constitutional
it. (Art. VIII, sec. 8(5)). safeguards to maintain judicial independence.
(3%)
2. The JBC is composed of the Chief Justice as SUGGESTED ANSWER:
ex officio Chairman, the Secretary of Justice and The following are the constitutional safeguards
a representative of the Congress as ex officio to maintain judicial independence:
Members, a representative of the Integrated Bar,
a professor of law, a retired Member of the (1) The Supreme Court is a constitutional
Supreme Court, and a representative of the body and cannot be abolished by mere
private sector. (Art. VIII, sec. 8(1)). legislation.
(2) The members of the Supreme Court
cannot be removed except by impeachment.

3, The Supreme Court supervises the JBC and


(3) The Supreme Court cannot be deprived
provides in the annual budget of the Court the
of its minimum jurisdiction prescribed in Section
appropriations of the JBC. (Art. VIII, sec. 8(4)).
5, Article X of the Constitution.
Judicial & Bar Council (1999) (4) The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme
No XI - What is the composition of the JudicialCourt cannot be increased by law without its
and Bar Council and the term of office of itsadvice and concurrence.
regular members? (2%)
(5) Appointees to the Judiciary are nominated
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
by the Judicial and Bar Council and are not subject
The Judicial and Bar Council is composed of the
to confirmation by the Commission on
following:
Appointments.
1. The Chief Justice as ex officio chairman;
(6) The Supreme Court has administrative
supervision over all lower courts and their Senator de Leon took the floor of the Senate to
personnel. speak on a "matter of personal privilege" to
(7) The Supreme Court has exclusive power vindicate his honor against those "baseless and
to discipline Judges of lower courts. malicious" allegations. The matter was referred to
the Committee on Accountability of Public
Officers, which proceeded to conduct a legislative
(8) The Members of the Judiciary have inquiry. The Committee asked Mr. Vince
security of tenure, which cannot be undermined Ledesma, a businessman linked to the transaction
by a law reorganizing the Judiciary. and now a respondent before the Sandiganbayan,
to appear and to testify before the Committee.
(9) Members of the Judiciary cannot be
designated to any agency performing quasi-
Judicial or administrative functions. Mr Ledesma refuses to appear and file suit before
the Supreme Court to challenge the legality of the
proceedings before the Committee. He also asks
(10) The salaries of Members of the Judiciarywhether the Committee had the power to require
cannot be decreased during their continuance in him to testify. Identify the issues Involved and
office. resolve them.
(11) The Judiciary has fiscal
autonomy. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(12) The Supreme Court has exclusive power The issues involved in this case are the following:
to promulgate rules of pleading, practice and
procedure. 1Whether or not the Supreme Court has
(13) Only the Supreme Court can temporarily jurisdiction to entertain the case;
assign judges to other stations. Whether or not the Committee on Accountability of
Public Officers has the power to investigate a
matter which is involved in a case pending in
(14) It is the Supreme Court who appoints all court; and
officials and employees of the Judiciary. (Cruz, Whether or not the petitioner can invoke his right
Philippine Political Law, 1995 ed. (pp. 229-31.) against self-incrimination.

Judicial Power (1989)


No. 10: Where is judicial power vested? What
are included in such power?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
According to Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987
Constitution, judicial power is vested in one
Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may
be established by law. It includes the duty of the
courts of justice to settle actual controversies
involving rights which are legally demandable and
enforceable, and to determine whether or not
there has been a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the
part of any branch or instrumentality of the
Government.

Judicial Power (1992)


No. 8: A case was filed before the Sandiganbayan
regarding a questionable government transaction.
In the course of the proceedings, newspapers
linked the name of Senator J. de Leon to the
scandal.
Judicial Power (1998)
IV. Andres Ang was born of a Chinese father and a
Filipino mother in Sorsogon, Sorsogon. on January
20, 1973. In 1988. his father was naturalizedas a
Filipino citizen. On May 11,1998. Andres Ang was
elected Representative of the First District of
Sorsogon. Juan Bonto who received the second
highest number of votes, filed a petition for Quo
Warranto against Ang. The petition was filed with
the House of Representative Electoral Tribunal
(HRET). Bonto contends that Ang is not a natural
born citizen of the Philippines and therefore is
disqualified to be a member of the House.

The HRET ruled in favor of Ang. Bonto filed a


petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court. The
following issues are raised:
1Whether the case is justiciable considering that Article
VI. Section 17 of the Constitution declares the HRET to be
the "sole Judge" of all contests relating to the election
returns and disqualifications of members of the House of
Representatives. [5%]
Whether Ang is a natural bom citizen of

the Philippines. |5%] How should this case be


decided? SUGGESTED ANSWER:
All these Issues were resolved in the case of
1. The case is justiciable. As stated In Lazatin Bengzon vs. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee,
vs. House Electoral Tribunal 168 SCRA 391, 404, 203 SCRA 767.
since judicial power includes the duty to
determine whether or not there has been a grave The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess case, because it involves the question of whether
of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or or not the Committee on Accountability of Public
instrumentality of the Government, the Supreme Officers has the power to conduct the
Court has the power to review the decisions of investigation. Under Section 1, Article VIII of the
the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal Constitution, judicial power includes the duty of
in case of grave Abuse of discretion on its part. the courts to determine whether or not any branch
of the government is acting with grave of abuse of
2. Andres Ang should be considered a natural discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. The
born citizen of the Philippines. .... Committee on Accountability of Public Officers
has no power to investigate the scandal. Since
the scandal is involved in a case pending in court,
the investigation will encroach upon the exclusive
domain of the court. To allow the investigation will
create the possibility of conflicting judgments
between the committee and the court. If the
decision of the committee were reached before
that of the court, it might influence the judgment
of the court.

The petitioner can invoke his right against self-


incrimination, ...
Judicial Review; Locus Standi (1992) amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the
No. 6: The Philippine Environmentalists' part
the of power
any branch
plant, because
or instrumentality
no public fundsof the will be
Organization for Nature, a duly recognized non- Government.
spent for its operation.
As held in As Marcos
held in us.Gonzales
Manglapus, vs.
governmental organization, intends to file suit 177 to
Marcos,
SCRA65668. SCRAthis624,
provision
a taxpayer
limits resort
has noto the
enjoin the Philippine Government from allocating political
standing question
to file adoctrine
case if noand expenditure
broadens the of public
scope
funds to operate a power plant at Mount Tuba Inoffunds a juridical
is involved.
inquiry into areas which the courts
southern island. They claim that there was no under the 1935 and the 1973 Constitutions would
consultation with the Indigenous Since nohave
normally
cultural member or political
left to the officer of the Philippine
departments to
community which will be displaced from ancestral decide.
Environmentalists' Organization belongs to the
lands essential to their livelihood andaffected ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:none of the rights
indigenous community,
indispensable to their religious practices. Under
of the 1935 Environmentalists'
the Philippine and 1973 Constitutions, Organizationthere
was ofnoitsprovision
and defining
officers and the scope
members of judicial
are affected. In
The organization is based in Makati. All its officers live as vested
power
accordance with thein ruling
the judiciary.
in National While these
Economic
and work in Makati. Not one of its officers or members Constitutions, Association
Protectionism both provided vs.for vesture171
Ongpin, of judicial
SCRA
belong to the affected indigenous cultural community. power
657, the"inorganization
one Supreme Court
has and in such
no standing inferior
to file the
Do they have the standing in this dispute? Explain. courts as may be established by law," they were
case.
Would your answer be different if the Philippine Power silent as to the scope of such power.
Corporation, a private company, were to operate the Judicial Review; Requisites (1994)
plant? Explain. No. 2: 2) Assume that the constitutional question
The 1987
raised Constitution,
in a petition beforeonthe theSupreme
other hand,Courtre- is
wrote
the the provisions
Iis mota of the case, on give
the vesture
at least of
twojudicial
other
power originally
requirements appearing
before in thewill
the Court 1935 and 1973
exercise its
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Constitutions,
power of judicial asreview?
follows:
a) Under Section 5, Article XII of the Constitution, "The judicial SUGGESTED
power shall be ANSWER:
vested in one
the State should protect the rights of cultural Supreme
2) According
Court andtoinMacasiano
such lowervs. courtsNational
as Housing
Indigenous communities to their ancestral lands to Authority, may224 be established
SCRA 236,by in law.addition to the
ensure their well-being. Under Section 17, Article requirement that the constitutional question raised
XIV of the Constitution, the State should protect be "Judicial
the lis power mota includes
of the the case,dutythe
of the courts
following
the rights of indigenous cultural communities to of justice
requisites must beto present
settle for actual controversies
the exercise of the
preserve and develop this cultures, traditions, and powerInvolving rights
of judicial which are legally demandable
review:
institutions and should consider these rights in the and enforceable, and to determine whether or
1There must be an actual case or controversy
formulation of national plans and policies. The not there has been a grave abuse of discretion
involving a conflict of legal rights susceptible of
government violated these provisions, because it amounting to lack or excess of Jurisdiction on
Judicial determination;
decided to operate the power plant without the part of any branch or instrumentality of the
The constitutional question must be raised by the
consulting the indigenous cultural community and Government." (Sec. 1. Art. VIII)
proper party; and
the operation of the power plant will result in its
The constitutional question must be raised at the
displacement.
earliest opportunity.
The second paragraph of the cited provision was
not found in the 1935 and 1973 Constitution, it
contains a new definition of judicial power
If the projected lawsuit will be based on violation particularly the scope thereof. The first portion
of the rights of the indigenous cultural thereof represents the traditional concept of
communities, the Philippine Environmentalists Judicial power, involving the settlement of
Organization will have no standing to file the conflicting rights as by law, which presumably was
case. None of its officers and members belong to implicit in the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions. The
Judicial
the Power;cultural
indigenous Scopecommunity.
(1994) None of theirsecond (latter) portion of the definition represents a
No. 2:are
rights 1} What is the difference, if any. between
affected. broadening of the scope of judicial power or, in the
the scope of Judicial power under the 1987 language of the Supreme Court, conferment of
If the lawsuit on
Constitution will one
seekhand,
to enjoin
andthetheuse of public
1935 and
"expanded Jurisdiction" on the Judiciary (Daza v.
funds to operate the
1973 Constitutions on power
the other?plant, the PhilippineSingson, 180 SCRA 496) to enable the courts to
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Environmentalists' Organization can file review a the exercise of discretion by the political
The scope suit.
taxpayer's of judicial
As heldpower under theus.
in Maceda 1987
Macaraig,
departments of government. This new prerogative
Constitution
197 SCRA is771, broader than its scope
a taxpayer has under the of
standing to the judiciary as now recognized under the 1987
1935 andthe
question 1973 Constitution
illegal expenditure because of the
of public funds. Constitution was not constitutionally permissible
second paragraph of Section 1, Article VIII of theunder the 1935 and 1973 Charters.
1987 Constitution, which states that it includes
b)
theThe
dutyPhilippine
to determineEnvironmentalists
whether or notOrganization
there has
will
been have no standing
a grave abuse oftodiscretion
file the case if it is a
private company that will operate
motion arguing that under BP 129, RTCs have
exclusive and original jurisdiction over cases in within three months (Art. X, Sec. 11). In Marcelino
which the amount of controversy exceeds vs. Cruz, 121 SCRA 51 (1983) it was held that
P20,000.00. Answer the following queries: the periods prescribed are only directory, not
(1) Who has jurisdiction over the collection suit? mandatory.

(2) The RTC decision, having become final and Political Question (1995)
executory, can it still be vacated? No. 13: Judicial power as defined in Sec. 1, 2nd
par., Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution, now "includes the
SUGGESTED ANSWER: duty of the Courts of Justice to settle actual
1} As held in Estate Developers and Investorscontroversies involving rights which are legally
Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 213 SCRA 353,demandable and enforceable, and to determine
pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1344, it iswhether or not there has been a grave abuse of
the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Boarddiscretion amounting to lack of excess of
which has jurisdiction over the claim of ajurisdiction on the part of any branch or
developer against a buyer for the payment of theinstrumentality of the Government. "This definition
balance of the purchase price of a lot. Theis said to have expanded the power of the
jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court over casesjudiciary to include political questions formerly
in which the amount of controversy exceedsbeyond its jurisdiction.
P20,000.00 exists only in all cases where the
case does not otherwise fall within the exclusive (1) Do you agree with such as interpretation of the
jurisdiction of any other court, tribunal, person constitutional
or definition of judicial power that would
body exercising Judicial or quasi-judicial authorize the courts to review and, if warranted,
functions, reverse the exercise of discretion by the political
departments (executive and legislative) of the
2) Yes, because it is void.... government, including the Constitutional
Commissions? Discuss fully,
Mandatory Period For Deciding Cases (1989) (2) In your opinion, how should such definition be
No. 10: (2) Despite the lapse of 4 months from construed so as not to erode considerably or
the time that the trial was terminated and the disregard entirely the existing "political question"
case submitted for decision, the trial court failed doctrine? Discuss fully.
to decide the case. The defense counsel moved
to dismiss the case on the ground that after the
lapse of 90 days, the court had lost jurisdiction to SUGGESTED ANSWER:
decide the case. Should the motion be granted? 1. Yes, the second paragraph of Section 1,
Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution has
SUGGESTED ANSWER: expanded the power of the Judiciary to
No, the motion should not be granted. Section 15 include political questions. This was not found
(4), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution provides: in the 1935 and the 1973 Constitution,
Jurisdiction
Precisely, of HLURB
the framers (1993)
of the 1987 constitution
"Despite the expiration of the applicable No. intended
8; The to ABC Realty,
widen Inc, filed
the scope a complaint
of judicial review.
mandatory period, the court, without prejudice against
As pointed Rico
out inforMarcos
the vs. collection
Manglapus, of 177unpaid
to such responsibility as may have been installments
SCRA 668, so onasa subdivision
not to disregardlot purchased
entirely the by the
incurred in consequence thereof, shall decide political
latter, Rico failed doctrine,
question to file anthe answer,
extentwas declared
of judicial
or resolve the case or matter submitted in default;
review and after
when political reception
questions of plaintiffs
are involved
thereto for determination, without further evidence
should ex parte,
be limited judgment was
to a determination rendered
of whether or
delay." not
against
therehim.
hasThebeen decision
a gravebecame
abuse offinal,
discretion
and upon
amounting
motion by ABC to lackRealty,
or excessthe judge
of jurisdiction
issued aonwrit theof
Thus, the failure of the trial court to decide thepart of the official whose act is being questioned.
execution.
case within ninety days did not oust it ofIf grave abuse of discretion is not shown, the
jurisdiction to decide the case. Rico now
courts files not
should a motion
substituteto quash the writ and
their judgment fortothat
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: vacate
of the Judgment
the official concerned contending
and decide thata itmatter
is the
The 1973 Constitution provided for certain Housing
which by and Land Use
its nature or byRegulatory Board
law is for the latter alone
consequences on the decisions of courts in case to (HLURB)
decide.which is vested with original and
of the failure of the Supreme Court and other exclusive Jurisdiction over cases involving the
inferior collegiate courts to decide cases within real estate business. Rico prays for the dismissal
prescribed periods. But it did not provide for of the complaint and for the nullity of the decision.
consequences on the decisions of trial courts as The realty firm opposes the
a result of their failure to decide cases
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The assault of a fellow Senator constitutes
Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution hasdisorderly behavior.
expanded the scope of judicial power by including
the duty of the courts of Justice to settle actual Political Question; To Settle Actual
controversies involving rights which are legally Controversies (2004)
demandable and enforceable, and to determine(a) The 1935, 1973 and 1987 Constitutions
whether or not there has been a grave abuse ofcommonly provide that "Judicial power shall be
discretion amounting to lack or excess ofvested in one Supreme Court and in such lower
jurisdiction on the part of any branch orcourts as may be established by law."
instrumentality of the Government. In Marcos vs.
Manglapus, 177 SCRA 668, the Supreme CourtWhat is the effect of the addition in the 1987
stated that because of this courts of justice mayConstitution of the following provision: "Judicial
decide political questions if there was grave abusepower includes the duty of the courts of justice to
of discretion amounting to lack or excess ofsettle actual controversies involving rights which
jurisdiction on the part of the official whose actionare legally demandable and enforceable, and to
is being questioned. determine whether or not there has been grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
Political Question: Separation of Powersinstrumentality of the government"? Discuss
(2004) briefly, citing at least one illustrative case. (5%)
(b) SDO was elected Congressman. Before the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
end of his first year in office, he inflicted physical
The effect of the second paragraph of Section 1,
injuries on a colleague, ET, in the course of Articlea VIII of the 1987 Constitution is to limit
heated debate. Charges were filed in court against resort to the political question doctrine and to
him as well as in the House Ethics Committee. broaden the scope of judicial inquiry into areas
Later, the House of Representatives, dividing which the Judiciary, under the previous
along party lines, voted to expel him. Claiming thatConstitutions, would have left to the political
his expulsion was railroaded and tainted by departments to decide. If a political question is
bribery, he filed a petition seeking a declaration by
involved, the Judiciary can determine whether or
the Supreme Court that the House gravely abused not the official whose action is being questioned
its discretion and violated the Constitution. He acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
prayed that his expulsion be annulled and that he lack or excess of jurisdiction (Marcos v.
should be restored by the Speaker to his position Manglapus, 177 SCRA 668 [1989]); (Daza v.
as Congressman. Is SDO's petition before the Singson, 180 SCRA 496 [1989]). Thus, although
Supreme Court justiciable? Cite pertinent issues the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal
for consideration. (5%) has exclusive jurisdiction to decide election
contests involving members of the House of
Representatives, the Supreme Court nullified the
SUGGESTED ANSWER: removal of one of its members for voting in favor
While under Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 of the protestant, who belonged to a different
Constitution the Supreme Court may inquire party. (Bondoc v. Pineda, 201 SCRA 792 [1991]).
whether or not the decision to expel SDO is
tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction, the petition should Political Questions (1988)
be dismissed. In Alejandrino v. Quezon (46 Phil.No. 23: In accordance with the opinion of the
83 [1924]), the Supreme Court held that it couldSecretary of Justice, and believing that it would
not compel the Senate to reinstate a Senator whobe good for the country, the President enters into
assaulted another Senator and was suspended foran agreement with the Americans for an
disorderly behavior, because it could not compel aextension for another five (5) years of their stay
separate and co-equal department to take anyat their military bases in the Philippines, in
particular action. In Osmeña v. Pendatun (109consideration of:
Phil. 863 [1960]), it was held that the Supreme
Court could not interfere with the suspension of a(1) A yearly rental of one billion U.S. dollars,
Congressman for disorderly behavior, because thepayable to the Philippine government in advance;
House of Representatives is the judge of what(2) An undertaking
Political on the
Question part of the
Doctrine American
(1997)
constitutes disorderly behavior. government
No. 5; To whatto implement
extent, ifimmediately
at all, has the
themini-
1987
Marshall plan affected
Constitution for the country
the involving
"political question
doctrine"?
ten billion U.S. dollars in aids andNo. 11: How may the following be removed from
concessional loans; and office: 1) Senators & Congressmen 2) Judges of
(3) An undertaking to help persuade Americanlower courts 3) Officers and employees in the
banks to condone interests and other charges onCivil Service
the country's out-standing loans.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1) As to Sen & Cong, Art. III, section 16(3), of
In return, the President agreed to allow Americanthe Constitution, ... 2) Under Art. VIII, sec. 11 of
nuclear vessels to stay for short visits at Subic,the Constitution, Judges of lower courts may be
and in case of vital military need, to store nuclearremoved by dismissal by the Supreme by a vote
weapons at Subic and at Clark Field. A vitalof a majority of the Members who actually took
military need comes, under the agreement, whenpart in the deliberation on the issues in the case
the sealanes from the Persian Gulf to the Pacific,and voted thereon. 3) As to Civ Service Empl,
are threatened by hostile military forces. Art. IX-B. Sec. 2(3) of the Constitution, ...

The Nuclear Free Philippine Coalition comes to


you for advice on how they could legally prevent Review Executive Acts (1996)
the same agreement entered into by the No. 10: 1) X, a clerk of court of the Regional Trial
President with the US government from going Court of Manila, was found guilty of being absent
into effect. What would you advise them to do? without official leave for 90 days and considered
Give your reasons. dismissed from service by the Supreme Court. He
SUGGESTED ANSWER: appealed to the President for executive clemency.
If the Agreement is not in the form of a treaty, it is
Acting on the appeal, the Executive Secretary, by
not likely to be submitted to the Senate for order of the President commuted the penalty to a
ratification as required in Art. VII, sec. 21. It may
suspension of six months. a) Can the Supreme
not, therefore, be opposed in that branch of the Court review the
government. Nor is judicial review feasible at this
stage because there is no justiciable controversy. correctness of the action of the President in
While Art. VIII, sec. 1, par. 2 states that judicial commuting the penalty imposed on X?
power includes the duty of court of justice to Explain.
"determine whether or not there has been a grave b) Was the action of the President
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess constitutional and valid? Explain.
of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or SUGGESTED ANSWER:
instrumentality of the government," it is clear that1. a) Yes, the Supreme Court can review the
this provision does not do away with the politicalcorrectness of the action of the President In
question doctrine. It was inserted in thecommuting the penalty imposed on X. By doing
Constitution to prevent courts from making use ofso, the Supreme Court is not deciding a political
the doctrine to avoid what otherwise arequestion. The Supreme Court is not reviewing the
justiciable controversies, albeit involving thewisdom of the commutation of the penalty. What
Executive Branch of the government during theit is deciding is whether or not the President has
martial law period. On the other hand, at thisthe power to commute the penalty of X, As stated
stage, no justiciable controversy can be framed toin Daza vs. Singson. 180 SCRA 496, it is within
justify judicial review, I would, therefore, advicethe scope of Judicial power to pass upon the
the Nuclear Free Philippine Coalition to resort tovalidity of the actions of the other departments of
the media to launch a campaign against thethe Government.
Agreement.
b) The commutation by the President of the
Pro Hac Vice Cases (1999) penalty imposed by the Supreme Court upon X is
No XI What does if mean when a Supreme Court unconstitutional. Section 6. Article VIII of the
Justice concurs in a decision pro hac vice? (2%) Constitution vests the Supreme Court with the
power of administrative supervision over all
SUGGESTED ANSWER: courts and their personnel. In Garcia vs. De la
When a decision is pro hac vice, it means the Pena, 229 SCRA 766, it was held that no other
ruling will apply to this particular case only. branch of the Government may intrude into this
exclusive power of the Supreme Court.
Removal of Lower Court Judges (1993)
Supervision; Courts & its Personnel (Q5-
2005)
(2) Pedro Masipag filed with the Ombudsman a 1. No, the court cannot take cognizance of the
complaint against RTC Judge Jose Palacpac withcase. As held in Joya vs. Presidential Commission
violation of Article 204 of the Revised Penal Codeon Good Government, 225 SCRA 569, since the
for knowingly rendering an unjust judgment in petitioners were not the legal owners of paintings
Criminal Case No. 617. Judge Palacpac filed a and antique silverware, they had no standing to
motion with the Ombudsman to refer the complaint question their disposition. Besides, the paintings
to the Supreme Court to determine whether an and the antique silverware did not constitute
administrative aspect was involved in the said case. important cultural properties or national cultural
The Ombudsman denied the motion on the ground treasures, as they had no exceptional historical
that no administrative case against Judge Palacpac and cultural significance to the Philippines.
relative to the decision in Criminal Case No. 617
was filed and pending in his office. State with 2. According to Joya us. Presidential Commission
reasons whether the Ombudsman's ruling is on Good Government, 225 SCRA
correct. (4%)
568. for a taxpayer's suit to prosper, four
requisites must be considered:
(1) the question must be raised by the proper
party;
SUGGESTED ANSWER: (2) there must be an actual controversy;
The Ombudsman's ruling is not correct. Under (3) the question must be raised at the earliest
Section 6, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is the possible opportunity; and
Supreme Court which is vested with exclusive (4) the decision on the constitutional or legal
administrative supervision over all courts and its question must be necessary to the determination
personnel. Prescinding from this premise, the of the case.
Ombudsman cannot determine for itself and by
itself whether a criminal complaint against a
judge, or court employee, involves an
administrative matter. The Ombudsman is duty
bound to have all cases against judges and court
personnel filed before it, referred to the Supreme
Court for determination as to whether an
administrative aspect is involved therein. (Judge
Jose Caoibes v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 132177,
July 19, 2001)
Taxpayer's Suit; Locus Standi (1995)
No. 12: When the Marcos administration was
toppled by the revolutionary government, the
Marcoses left behind several Old Masters'
paintings and antique silverware said to have
been acquired by them as personal gifts.
Negotiations were then made with Ellen Layne of
London for their disposition and sale at public
auction. Later, the government entered into a
"Consignment Agreement" allowing Ellen Layne
of London to auction off the subject art pieces.
Upon learning of the intended sale, well-known
artists, patrons and guardians of the arts of the
Philippines filed a petition in court to enjoin the
sale and disposition of the valued items asserting
that their cultural significance must be preserved
for the benefit of the Filipino people.
(1) Can the court take cognizance of the
case? Explain.
(2) What are the requisites for a taxpayer's suit
to prosper?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Votes required for declaring a law
unconstitutional (1996)
No. 7: Can five members of the Supreme Court
declare a municipal ordinance unconstitutional?
ARTICLE IX Civil Service
Explain. Commission
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. five Members of the Supreme Court sitting en- Career Service; Characteristics (1999)
banc can declare a municipal ordinance No IX - What characterizes the career service
unconstitutional. Under Section 4(2). Article VIII of
and what are included in the career service?
the Constitution, a municipal ordinance can be (2%)
declared unconstitutional with the concurrence of a SUGGESTED ANSWER:
majority of the Members of the Supreme Court who According to Section 7, Chapter 2, Title I, Book V
actually took part in the deliberation on the issuesof the Administrative Code of 1987, the career
in the case and voted thereon. If only eight service is characterized by
Members of the Supreme Court actually took part (1) Entrance based on merit and fitness to be
in deciding the case, there will still be a quorum.determined as far as practicable by competitive
Five Members will constitute a majority of those examination or based on highly technical
who actually took part in deciding the case. qualifications;
(2) opportunity for advancement to higher career
positions; and
(3) security of tenure.
ARTICLE IX Constitutional
The career service includes:
Commissions Rotational (1) OPEN CAREER POSITIONS for
Scheme (1999) appointment to which prior qualifications in an
No XIII - What are the requisites for the effective In order examination
appropriate that a taxpayer may have standing to
is required;
operation of the so-called "Rotational Scheme" forchallenge
(2) CLOSED theCAREER
legality POSITIONS
of an officialwhich act of
arethe
Constitutional Commissions? (2%) government, the technical
scientific or highly act being questioned must
in nature;
involve
(3) a disbursement
Positions in the CAREER of public funds upon the
EXECUTIVE
SUGGESTED ANSWER: theory that the expenditure of public funds for an
SERVICE;
As held in Republic v. Imperial, 96 Phil. 770, for
(4)unconstitutional
Career officers actotheris than
a misapplication of such
those in the career
the effective operation of the rotational scheme of funds, which
executive maywho
service, be enjoined at the by
are appointed instance
the of a
the Constitutional Commission, the first taxpayer.
President;
Commissioner should start on a common date (5) Commissioned officers and enlisted men of
and any vacancy before the expiration of the term the Armed
Term ofForces;
Office; Justices (1996)
should be filled only for the unexpired balance of(6)
No.Personnel
9: A, an of associate
government justice of the
-owned or Supreme
the term. Court reached
controlled the agewhether
corporations, of seventy on July 1,
performing
1996. Thereor was
governmental a case
proprietary calendared
functions, for
who do not
Constitutional Commissions & Council (Q7- fall deliberation
under theon that day service;
non-career where the andvote of A was
2006) crucial. Can A hold over the position and
2. The legislature may abolish this body: (5%)
(7)participate
Permanent in the deliberation
laborers, whether of skilled,
the case on July
Commission on Appointments 1, 1996? Explain.
semiskilled, or unskilled.
Ombudsman SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Judicial and Bar Council No. A cannot hold over his position as Associate
Court of Tax Appeals Justice of the Supreme Court and participate in
Commission on Audit the deliberations of the case on July 1, 1996.
Under Section 11, Article VIII of the Constitution,
Members of the Supreme Court hold office until
SUGGESTED ANSWER: they reach the age of seventy years or become
The legislature may abolish the d) COURT OFincapacitated to discharge their duties.
TAX APPEALS since it is merely a creation ofConstitutional officers whose terms are fixed by
law unlike the Commission on Appointments,the Constitution have no right to hold over their
Ombudsman, Judicial and Bar Council andpositions until their successors shall have been
Commission on Audit which are all constitutionalappointed and qualified unless otherwise
creations. Thus, the latter agencies may only beprovided in the Constitution. (Mechem, A Treaties
abolished by way of an amendment or revision ofon the Law of Public Offices and Officers, p. 258.)
the Constitution.
which ruled that the amounts due are the 1The rule prohibiting the appointment to certain
personal liabilities of the former Governor who government positions, of the spouse and relatives
dismissed the employees in bad faith. Thus, ADSof the President within the fourth degree of
refused to pay. The final CSC decision, however,consanguinity or affinity. [2%]
did not find the former Governor in bad faith. TheThe rule making it incompatible for members of
former Governor was likewise not heard on the Congress to hold offices or employment in the
question of his liability. government. [2%]
The rule prohibiting members of the Constitutional
Is ADS' refusal justified? Can COA disallow the Commissions, during their tenure, to be financially
payment of backwages by ADS to the dismissed interested in any contract with or any franchise or
employees due under a final CSC decision? privilege granted by the government, [2%]
Decide and reason briefly. (5%) The rule providing for post audit by the COA of
certain government agencies. [2%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The rule requiring Congress to provide for the
A. The refusal of ADS is not justified, and standardization
the of compensation of government
Commission on Audit cannot disallow the payment officials and employees. [2%]
of backwages by ADS to the dismissed employee.
The Commission on Audit cannot make a ruling that
it is the former governor who should be personally
liable, since the former governor was not given the
opportunity to be heard. In addition, the Commission
on Audit cannot set aside a final decision of the Civil
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Service Commission. The payment of backwages to
illegally dismissed government employee is1Section
not an 13. Article VII of the Constitution, which
irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant or the President from appointing his spouse and
prohibits
unconscionable expenditure. (Uy v. Commission relativeson within the fourth degree of consanguinity or
Audit, 328 SCRA 607 [2000]). affinity does not distinguish between government
corporations with original charters and their
subsidiaries, because the prohibition applies to both.
2Section 13, Article VII of the Constitution, which
Function of CSC (1994) prohibits Members of Congress from holding any other
No. 15 - 2) Can the Civil Service Commission office during their term without forfeiting their seat,
revoke an appointment by the appointing power does not distinguish between government
and direct the appointment of an individual of its
corporations with original charters and their
choice? subsidiaries, because the prohibition applies to both.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Section 2, Article IX-A of the Constitution, which
According to the ruling in Medalla vs. Sto. Tomas,
prohibits Members of the Constitutional Commissions
208 SCRA 351, the Civil Service Commission from being financially interested in any contract with or
cannot dictate to the appointing power whom anytofranchise or privilege granted by the Government,
appoint. Its function is limited to determiningdoes not distinguish between government
whether or not the appointee meets the minimum corporations with original charters and their
qualification requirements prescribed forsubsidiaries,
the because the prohibition applies to both.
position. Otherwise, it would be encroaching Civil Service
Section Commission
2(1), Article vs.Constitution
IX-D of the COA (2004)which
(9-a) forFormer
upon the discretion of the appointing power. provides Governor
post audit by the PP of ADS Province
Commission on audit had
of
dismissed
government several employees
corporations, does not to scale down the
distinguish
operations
between of corporations
government his Office. withThe employees
original
GOCCs Without Original Charter vs. GOCCs complained
charters to subsidiaries,
and their the Merit Systems
becauseProtection Board,
the provision
With Original Charter (1998) which
applies ruled that the Civil Service rules were
to both.
No II.-- The Constitution distinguishes between violated
two
3Section when the
5, Article IX-Bemployees were dismissed.
of the Constitution, which The
types of owned and/or controlled corporations: Civil Service Commission
provides for the standardization of the (CSC) affirmed the
those with original charters and those which are MSPB decision, and ordered ADS to reinstate the
subsidiaries of such corporations. In which of the employees with full backwages. ADS did not
following rule/rules is such a distinction made? appeal and the order became final.
Consider each of the following items and explain
briefly your answer, citing pertinent provisions of
the Constitution. Instead of complying immediately, BOP, the
incumbent Governor of ADS, referred the matter
to the Commission on Audit (COA),
compensation of government officials memorandum-order,
and directs the corporation to
employees, distinguishes between government comply with Civil Service Rules in the
corporations and their subsidiaries, for appointment
the of all of its officers and employees.
provision applies only to government corporations
The memorandum-order of the CSC is assailed by
with original charters. the corporation, as well as by its officers and
employees, before the court. How should the case
be resolved?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Jurisdiction over the GOCCs (1999)
The memorandum-order of the Civil Service
No IX - Luzviminda Marfel, joined by eleven other
Commission should be declared void. As held in
retrenched employees, filed a complaint with the
Gamogamo v. PNOC Shipping and Transit
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) for
Corporation. 381 SCRA 742 (2002). under Article
unpaid retrenchment or separation pay,
IX-B, Section 2(1) of the 1987 Constitution
underpayment of wages and non-payment of
government-owned or controlled corporations
emergency cost of living allowance. The
organized under the Corporation Code are not
complaint was filed against Food Terminal, Inc.
covered by the Civil Service Law but by the Labor
Food Terminal Inc. moved to dismiss on the
Code, because only government-owned or
ground of lack of jurisdiction, theorizing that it is a
controlled corporations with original charters are
government-owned and controlled corporation and
covered by the Civil Service.
its employees are governed by the Civil Service
Law and not by the Labor Code. Marfel opposed
the motion to dismiss, contending that although
Modes of Removal from Office (1993)
Food Terminal, Inc. is a corporation owned and
No. 11: How may the following be removed from
controlled by the government earlier created and
office: 1) Senators & Congressmen 2) Judges of
organized under the general corporation law as
lower courts 3) Officers and employees in the
"The Greater Manila Food Terminal, Inc.", it has
Civil Service
still the marks of a private corporation: it directly
hires its employees without seeking approval from SUGGESTED ANSWER:
the Civil Service Commission and its personnel1) Senators, Cong., Art. III, section 16(3), of the
are covered by the Social Security System and notConstitution, ...
the Government Service Insurance System, The
question posed in the petition for certiorari 2)
at Judges,
bar is Art. VIII, sec. 11 of the Constitution,
whether or not a labor law claim against a
government-owned or controlled corporation like3) Under Art. IX-B. Sec. 2(3) of the Constitution,
the Food Terminal, Inc. falls within the jurisdictionofficers and employees in the Civil Service may
of the Department of Labor and Employment oronly be removed for cause as provided by law
the Civil Service Commission? Decide andand after observance of due process.
ratiocinate. (4%)
Their removal must be effected by the appropriate
disciplinary authority in accordance with Ch. 7
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
secs. 47-48 of Book V of the Administrative Code
The claim of the retrenched employees falls under
of 1987 and the Civil Service Rules and
the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations
Regulations.
Commission and not under the jurisdiction of the
Civil Service Commission. As held in Lumanta v.
Receiving of Indirect Compensation (1997)
National Labor Relations Commission, 170 SCRA
No. 18; A, while an incumbent Governor of his
79, since Food Terminal, Inc. was organized
province, was invited by the Government of
under the Corporation Law and was not created
Cambodia as its official guest. While there, the
by a special law in accordance with Section 2(1),
sovereign king awarded Governor A with a
Article IX-B of the Constitution, it is not covered by
decoration of honor and gifted him with a gold
the civil service.
ring of insignificant monetary value, both of which
he accepted.
Jurisdiction over the GOCCs (2003)
Was Governor A's acceptance of the decoration
No VII - A corporation, a holder of a certificate of
and gift violative of the Constitution?
registration issued by the Securities and Exchange
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Commission, is owned and controlled by the
Yes, it violated Section 8, Article IX-B of the
Republic of the Philippines. The Civil Service
Constitution. For his acceptance of the
Commission (CSC), in a
decoration of honor and the gold ring from the
Government of Cambodia to be valid, Governor
A should first obtain the consent of Congress.

Security of Tenure (1988)


No. 10: Exercising power he claims had been
granted him by the Executive Order on the
reorganization of the government, the
Commissioner of Customs summarily dismissed
two hundred sixty-five officials and employees of
the Bureau of Customs. Most of the ousted
employees appealed to the Civil Service
Commission claiming their ouster illegal. The Civil
Service Commission, after hearing, later ordered
the Commissioner of Customs to reinstate most of
those dismissed. Instead of following the order of
the Civil Service Commission, Commissioner Mison
intends to bring for review before the Supreme
Court, the same decision of the Commission.

1. If you were the counsel for the Commissi