Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Consti Bar 2006 2010 Essay

Consti Bar 2006 2010 Essay

Ratings: (0)|Views: 112 |Likes:
Published by Aizza Jopson

More info:

Published by: Aizza Jopson on Sep 11, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

01/07/2013

pdf

text

original

 
 
Constitutional Law I (Compiled Bar Exam Essay Questions & Answers For Finals)
Page 1True or False.1. A proclamation of a state of emergency is sufficient to allow thePresident to take over any public utility.
FALSE. Sec. 17, Art. XII of the Constitution states that the “the
State may, during the emergency and under reasonable termsprescribed by it, temporarily take over or direct the operation of any privately owned public utility or business affected with
public interest,” it refers to Congress, not the President. Whether
or not the President may exercise such power is dependent onwhether Congress may delegate it to her pursuant to a lawprescribing the reasonable terms thereof.
2. A treaty which provides tax exemption needs no concurrence bya majority of all the Members of the Congress.
FALSE. Philippine Constitution, Article 6, Sec. 28, paragraph (4),
which provides: “No law granting any tax exemption shall be
passed without the concurrence of a majority of all the Members
of Congress.” Congress should first pass a law granting the tax
exemption, before the Senate concurs with this treaty. TheConstitution provides for a vote of the majority of all Congressmembers, meaning that there should be a majority vote of boththe Senate and the House of Representatives.
During his campaign sortie in Barangay Salamanca, Mayor Galiciawas arrested at a PNP checkpoint for carrying high- poweredfirearms in his car. He was charged and convicted for violation of the COMELEC gun ban. He did not appeal his conviction andinstead applied for executive clemency. Acting on the favorablerecommendation of the Board of Pardons and Parole, thePresident granted him pardon. Is he eligible to run again for anelective position? Explain briefly.
Answer 1: No, he cannot run immediately in the next election,for the pardon will not qualify him to run again for the same wasinvalid as it was granted without the recommendation of theCOMELEC, which is necessary in order that pardon may be validlygranted by the President for violations of election laws.Secondly, in the case of Datu Eduardo Ampo vs. CA et al (GR No.169091, February 16, 2006), the accused was convicted of thecrime of violation of the Gun Ban and was sentenced for oneyear imprisonment and was disqualified by the Court to holdpublic office.Answer 2: Yes, he may run again, for the disqualificationprovided under the Local Government Code with respect toprevious conviction is specific only to crimes involving moralturpitude. The election gun ban or illegal possession of firearmsin general has been consistently held by the Supreme Court asmala prohibita, which means to say that its violation does notinvolve moral turpitude. Secondly, while it is true that pardonwill not qualify him to run again for the same was invalid,however, the question merely asks if Mayor Galicia could runagain; he can run -- though not immediately -- but definitelyagain. Thirdly, while it is true that in the case of Datu EduardoAmpo he was disqualified by the Court to hold public office;nevertheless, the question in the case at bar again merely asks if Mayor Galicia could run again. I respectfully submit that he may,provided his disqualification ceases.
The League of Filipino Political Scientists (LFPS) organized aninternational conference on the human rights situation inMyanmar at the Central Luzon State University (CLSU). An exiledMyanmar professor Sung Kui, critical of the military government inMyanmar, was invited as keynote speaker. The Secretary of Foreign Affairs informed the President of the regional and nationalsecurity implications of having Prof. Kui address the conference.The President thereupon instructed the immigration authorities toprevent the entry of Prof. Kui into Philippine territory. Thechancellor of CLSU argued that the instruction violates theConstitution. Decide with reasons. (4%)
No, the instruction is well within the power of the President todeport or prevent the entry of undesirable alien whose presenceis inimical to public good. This power can be exercised topreserve the peace and domestic tranquility of the nation. Validunder the residual powers of the president. (Marcos vs.Manglapus)
True or False.1. A person who occupies an office that is defectively created is ade facto officer.
FALSE
2. The rule on nepotism does not apply to designations made infavor of a relative of the authority making a designation.
FALSE
3. A discretionary duty of a public officer is never delegable.
FALSE
4. Acquisition of civil service eligibility during tenure of atemporary appointee does not automatically translate to apermanent appointment.
TRUE
 A was a career Ambassador when he accepted an ad interimappointment as Cabinet Member. The Commission onAppointments bypassed his ad interim appointment, however, andhe was not re-appointed. Can he re-assume his position as careerAmbassador?
No, he cannot re-assume his post. An Ad-interim appointment ispermanent such that acceptance will lead to the forfeiture of another position in government. This being the case here, theAmbassador had lost his post in the foreign service when heaccepted the Cabinet appointment. The Supreme Court hassettled this issue by drawing a clear distinction betweendesignation and ad-interim appointment. The former does notlead to forfeiture of primary office, but the latter does.
 
 
Constitutional Law I (Compiled Bar Exam Essay Questions & Answers For Finals)
Page 2What is the rotational scheme of appointments in the COMELEC?
The Constitution instituted a rotational plan in the appointmentto the Commission to ensure continuity in the expertise andwork of the said Commission. It is required then that for the firstCommissioners first appointed, three shall hold office for sevenyears, three for five years, and the last three for three years.
What are the two conditions for its workability?
The operation of the rotational plan requires two conditions,both indispensable to its workability: (1) that the terms of thefirst Commissioners (including the Chairman) should start on acommon date, and (2) that any vacancy due to death, resignationor disability before the expiration of the term should only befilled for the unexpired balance of the term (Republic v. Imperial,96 Phil. 770, 1955).
To what other constitutional offices does the rotational scheme of appointments apply?
The Civil Service Commission and Commission on Audit AREsubject to rotational scheme of Appointments.
Warlito, a natural-born Filipino, took up permanent residence inthe United States, and eventually acquired American citizenship.He then married Shirley, an American, and sired three children. InAugust 2009, Warlito decided to visit the Philippines with his wifeand children: Johnny, 23 years of age; Warlito, Jr., 20; and Luisa,17.While in the Philippines, a friend informed him that he couldreacquire Philippine citizenship without necessarily losing U.S.nationality. Thus, he took the oath of allegiance required underR.A. 9225.
 
Having reacquired Philippine citizenship, is Warlito anatural-born or a naturalized Filipino citizen today?Explain your answer.
Warlito is a natural-born Filipino citizen. In a case(Parreño v. Commission on Audit), the Supreme Courtstated that one who reacquires his Filipino citizenshiprecovers his natural-born citizenship.
 
With Warlito having regained Philippine citizenship, willShirley also become a Filipino citizen? If so, why? If not,what would be the most speedy procedure for Shirley toacquire Philippine citizenship? Explain.
NO, Shirley did not automatically become a Filipino
citizen upon Warlito’s reacquisition of his Filipino
citizenship. Since Warlito is deemed not to have lost hisPhilippine citizenship, under Commonwealth Act 473,Shirley may resort to administrative proceedings beforethe immigration authorities only instead of filing a judicial action for naturalization. In such administrativeproceedings, she will only have to show that she is notlaboring under any of the disqualifications prescribedby the law.
 
Do the children --- Johnny, Warlito Jr., and Luisa ---become Filipino citizens with their father's reacquisitionof Philippine citizenship? Explain your answer.
Only Luisa will ipso facto acquire Philippine citizenshipof his father upon the latter's taking of oath of allegiance.
With Warlito’s re
acquisition of Philippinecitizenship, his children became Filipino citizen ipso jureprovided that they are unmarried and below 18 yearsof age. RA 9225 provides for derivative citizenshipwhere the unmarried child (whether legitimate,illegitimate or adopted) below 18 years of age of onewho re-acquires Philippine citizenship shall be deemedcitizen of the Philippines.
 Governor Diy was serving his third term when he lost hisgovernorship in a recall election.A. Who shall succeed Governor Diy in his office as Governor?
The candidate who received the highest number of votes castduring the election on recall.
B. Can Governor Diy run again as governor in the next election?
Yes, he can because he did not fully serve his third term asgovernor owing to his loss in the recall election. Such loss in therecall election amounts to involuntary severance from officewhich is an exception to the 3-term limit rule.
C. Can Governor Diy refuse to run in the recall election and insteadresign from his position as governor?
No. Under the law, in a recall election, the incumbent is anautomatic candidate for the position which he holds. If GovernorDiy will be allowed to resign, there is no recall to hold butinstead an ordinary succession of office should take place.
Maximino, an employee of the Department of Education, isadministratively charged with dishonesty and gross misconduct.During the formal investigation of the charges, the Secretary of Education preventively suspended him for a period of sixty (60)days. On the 60th day of the preventive suspension, the Secretaryrendered a verdict, finding Maximino guilty, and ordered hisimmediate dismissal from the service.Maximino appealed to the Civil Service Commission (CSC), whichaffirmed the Secretary's decision. Maximino then elevated thematter to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA reversed the CSCdecision, exonerating Maximino. The Secretary of Education thenpetitions the Supreme Court (SC) for the review of the CA decision.
 
Is the Secretary of Education a proper party to seek thereview of the CA decision exonerating Maximino?Reasons.
 
 
Constitutional Law I (Compiled Bar Exam Essay Questions & Answers For Finals)
Page 3
 
If the SC affirms the CA decision, is Maximino entitled torecover back salaries corresponding to the entire periodhe was out of the service? Explain your answer.
 
READ PEDRO DACOYCOY CASE
True or False[a] Aliens are absolutely prohibited from owning private lands inthe Philippines.
FALSE. Aliens may own private lands in the Philippines if theyacquired the property through hereditary succession. Also,natural-born Filipino citizens who lost their Philippine citizenshipmay be transferees of private lands, subject to limitationsprovided by law.
[b] A de facto public officer is, by right, entitled to receive thesalaries and emoluments attached to the public office he holds.
FALSE. The rule is that a de facto officer who possessed publicoffice in good faith and discharged the duties pertaining theretois legally entitled to the emoluments of the office and may inappropriate action recover the salary, fees and othercompensations attached to the office only in cases where there isno de jure officer.
[c] The President exercises the power of control over all executivedepartments and agencies, including government-owned orcontrolled corporations.
TRUE. In a case (NAMARCO v. ARCA), the Supreme Court ruledthat corporations owned or controlled by the governmentpartake of the nature of government bureaus or offices and arecovered by the President's power of control. Moreover, sincegovernment-owned and controlled corporations are part neitherof the legislative branch nor of the judicial branch, and since theyare neither one of the constitutional bodies nor are they localgovernment units, then they are part of the executive branchand subject to the control of the President.
[d] Decisions of the Ombudsman imposing penalties inadministrative disciplinary cases are merely recommendatory.
FALSE. The Ombudsman has the authority to imposeadministrative penalties. The scope of the authority of theOmbudsman in administrative cases as defined under theConstitution and the Ombudsman Act is broad enough to includethe direct imposition of the penalty of removal, suspension,demotion, fine or censure on an erring public official oremployee.
[e] Dual citizenship is not the same as dual allegiance.
TRUE. Dual citizenship arises when a person is simultaneouslyconsidered a national by two states as a result of the concurrentapplication of the different laws of the said two states, whiledual allegiance refers to the situation in which a personsimultaneously owes, by some positive act, loyalty to two ormore states. While dual citizenship is involuntary, dual allegianceis the result of an individual's volition.
The President alone without the concurrence of the Senateabrogated a treaty. Assume that the other country-party to thetreaty is agreeable to the abrogation provided it complies with thePhilippine Constitution. If a case involving the validity of the treatyabrogation is brought to the Supreme Court, how should it beresolved?
The Constitution is silent on the abrogation of a treaty. However,treaties become part of the law of the land throughtransformation pursuant to Art. VII, Sec. 21 of the Constitutionwhich provides for Senate concurrence by at least 2/3 votes of allits members (Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association of thePhilippines vs. Health Secretary, G.R. No. 173034, Oct. 9, 2007).Assuming in the present case that the treaty in question hasbeen concurred in by Congress when it was entered into, such atreaty now becomes part of our laws. Thus, it can only beamended or repealed by a subsequent law (Ichong vs.Hernandez, G.R. No. L-7995, May 31, 1957) and the Presidentcannot unilaterally abrogate it without concurrence from thesame Senate that upheld its validity.
ST, a Regional Trial Court judge who falsified his Certificate of Service, was found liable by the Supreme Court for seriousmisconduct and inefficiency, and meted the penalty of suspensionform office for 6 months. Subsequently, ST filed a petition forexecutive clemency with the Office of the President. The ExecutiveSecretary, acting on said petition issued a resolution granting STexecutive clemency. Is the grant of executive clemency valid? Whyor why not?
The grant of executive clemency is not valid. While the grant of executive clemency to any person is discretionary upon thePresident, this power being an executive prerogative, suchpower cannot be deemed to include even administrative casesinvolving members of the judiciary, in view of the Doctrine of Separation of Powers.
Abdul ran and won in the May 2001, 2004 and 2007 elections forVice-Governor of Tawi-Tawi. After being proclaimed Vice-Governor in the 2004 elections, his opponent, Khalil, filed anelection protest before the Commission on Election. Ruling withfinalty on the protest, the COMELEC declared Khalil as the dulyelected Vice-Governor though the decision was promulgated onlyin 2007, when Abdul had fully served his 2004-2007 term and wasin fact already on his 2007-2010 term as Vice Governor.
 
Abdul now consults you if the can still run for Vice-Governor of Tawi-Tawi in the forthcoming May 2010election on the premise that he could not be consideredas having served as Vice-Governor from 2004-2007because he was not duly elected to the post, as heassumed office merely as a presumptive winner and thatpresumption was later overturned when COMELECdecided with finality that had lost in the May 2004elections. What will be your advice?

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->