You are on page 1of 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 Icao andwho
just Bar Reviewees Atty. 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 7. The Supreme Court is empowered to
adopt rules for the protection and enforcement of
PHILIPPINES Phil Con 87; New constitutional rights.
Features (1991)
8. Art. II. Sec. 11 commits the State to a
No 1: How is the Bill of Rights strengthened in policy which places value on the dignity of every
the 1987 Constitution? human person and guarantees full respect for
SUGGESTED ANSWER: human rights.
There are several ways in which the Bill of Rights 9. A Commission on Human Rights is
is strengthened in the 1987 Constitution. created.
10. Under Article XVI. Sec. 5(2) the State is
1New rights are given explicit recognition such as, the mandated to promote respect for the people's
prohibition against detention by reason of political rights among the members of the military in the
beliefs and aspirations. The waiver of Miranda rights isperformance of their duty.
now required to be made in writing with the assistance
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.
2There 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.
3Some rights have been expanded. For instance, free
access to courts now includes access to quasi-judicial
bodies and to adequate legal assistance.
4The 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.
5The 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.
6The 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 recognized facilitate 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 the propose 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 87;(2004)
Supremacy 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 district and 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 ANSWER:
temporary or not, the 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 the possible, 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 least propose 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 votersForm
therein,
Government Presidential vs.amendments
Parlia-
"People power" is recognized in the Constitution. to 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 ANSWER:
the role of independent people's organization to
assemble and petition the government for redress
The principal identifying
enable them to pursue and feature of awithin
protect, presidential
the
of grievances.
form of government is embodied in
democratic framework, their legitimate and the separation
Article VI, Section 32 of the 1987 Constitution of powers interests
collective doctrine.and
Each department
aspirations of
through
requires Congress to pass a law allowing the government exercises powers granted
peaceful lawful means. For this purpose, to the
it by the
people to directly propose and enact laws Constitution and may nottocontrol,
guarantees interfere withthe
such organizations or
through initiative and to approve or reject any act encroach upon theatacts
right to participate done within
all levels the political
of social,
or law or part of it passed by Congress or a local constitutional
and economiccompetence of theand
decision-making 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 improvident prevent 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 a extending 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 the entered into a memorandum of agreement to
archipelagic doctrine? Is this reflected in the 1987 allow 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 emphasizes equipment and vessels, and to learn modern
the unity of land and waters by defining an technology 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 Philippines Section 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 the its archipelagic waters, territorial sea, and
waters around, between, and connecting the exclusive economic zone, and reserve its use and
islands of the archipelago, regardless of their enjoyment 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 Economic preferential use of the communal marine and
Zone (2004) fishing resources, both inland and offshore. It shall
(2-a-2) Distinguish: The contiguous zone and the provide 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 such1;asWhat
No. low ordonon-existent
you understand taxation
by theor low
"Doctrine
Convention on the Law of the Sea.) operating
of costs although
Incorporation" the ship has
in Constitutional Law? no genuine
link with that state.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(Harris, Cases and
Under Section 1, Article I of the 1987 Constitution, Materials on International
The DOCTRINE OF Law, 5th ed., 1998, p. 425.)
INCORPORATION means
the INTERNAL WATERS of the Philippines that the rules of International law form part of the
consist of the waters around, between and Territory
law of the & Government
land and no (1996)
legislative action is
connecting the islands of the Philippine No. 8: A law was passed
required to make them applicable dividing the
to aPhilippines
country.
Archipelago, regardless of their breadth and into three
The regions follows
Philippines (Luzon, this
Visayas, and Mindanao),
doctrine, because
dimensions, including the waters in bays, rivers each constituting
Section 2. Article IIanofindependent
the Constitutionstatestates
except on
that
and lakes. No right of innocent passage for matters
the of foreign
Philippines relations,
adopts the national
generallydefense
acceptedand
foreign vessels exists in the case of internal national taxation,
principles which are
of international law vested
as part in
of the Central
the 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 SUGGESTED
Doctrine of ANSWER:
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 regions,
No X. The each constituting
Philippines has an becomeindependenta member stateof
International Law, 4th ed., 1990, p. 120.) and vesting
the World inTrade a central government(WTO)
Organization matters and of
foreign relations,
resultantly agreed national
that defense,
it "shall and national
ensure 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
Agreements."guarantees Thisthe is
Principles and State Policies integrity of as
assailed the national territory of the
unconstitutional Philippines
because this
because it divided
undertaking the Philippines
unduly limits, restricts and intoimpairs
three
Armed Forces; Servant of the People (2003) states.
Philippine 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 good itforviolates Sectioninterest
our national 1, Article and IIgeneral
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 of
WTO democratic
Agreements. and Refute
republic thisStates
argument. by replacing
(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 Constitution Third, it the
(1997), violates Section of22,theArticle
sovereignty II of the
Philippines is
means that the Armed Forces of the Philippines Constitution,
subject which, bywhile
to restriction recognizing in and
its membership the
should not serve the interest of the President but promoting
family the rights
of nations and theoflimitations
indigenous cultural
imposed of
of the people and should not commit abuses communities, provides for national
treaty limitations. Section 2. Article II of the unity and
against the people. (Record of the Constitutional development.
Constitution adopts the generally accepted
Commission, Vol. V, p. 133.) This provision is principles of international law as part of the law of
specifically addressed to the Armed Forces of the Fourth,
the land.it Oneviolates Section
of such 15, Article
principles X ofsunt
is pacta the
Philippines and not to the Philippine National Constitution, which, provides
servanda. The Constitution did not envision a for autonomous
Police, because the latter is separate and distinct regions
hermit-likein Muslim
isolation Mindanao and infrom
of the country the Cordilleras
the rest of
from the former. (Record of the Constitutional within
the world.the framework of national sovereignty as
Commission, Vol. V, p. 296; Manalo v. Sistoza. 312 well 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 Fifth,
No. 22: it violates the sovereignty
The Secretary of Justiceofhad therecently
Republic ruled
be interpreted to mean that the Armed Forces of of the Philippines.
that the President 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 States Sea vs. Internal Waters
regardless of the (2004)
"no nukes"
ceased to be the servant of the people.
(2-a-3) Distinguish: The flag state and the flag (Bernas, (2-a-1)
provisions in the 1987 Constitution. and
Distinguish: The territorial sea The the
President
The 1987 Constitution
of convenience. SUGGESTED of the Philippines:
ANSWER: FLAGA internal
forthwithwaters
announcedof the that
Philippines.
she findsSUGGESTED
the same opinion
Commentary, 2003 ed., p. 66.) This provision
STATE means a ship has the nationality of the does ANSWER:
"acceptable"TERRITORIAL
and will adoptSEA is anSenators
it. The adjacenton the
not apply to the Philippine National
flag of the state it flies, but there must be a Police, belt of sea with a breadth of
other hand, led by the Senate President, 12 nautical miles are
because
genuine link it between
is separate and and
the state distinct from the
the ship. measured from the baselines of
skeptical, and had even warned that no treaty a state and over or
Armed Forces of the Philippines. (Record of the which the state
international has sovereignty.
agreement may go(Articles into effect2 and 3
without
Constitutional Commission, Vol. V, p. 296, Manalo v.
(Article 91 of the Convention on the Law of the Sea.) of the Convention on the Law of the
the concurrence of two-thirds of all members of the Sea.) Ship of
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 in civilian authority, as the Commander-in-Chief of
1991, it must be "under a treaty duly concurred in the military. [Article VII, Section 18]
by the Senate and, when the Congress so The requirement that members of the AFP swear
requires, ratified by a majority of the votes cast by to uphold and defend the Constitution, which is the
the people in a national referendum." (Art. XVIII, fundamental law of the civil government. [Article
sec. 25) A mere agreement, therefore, not a XVI, Section 5(1)]
treaty, without the concurrence of at least 2/3 of The requirement that members of the AFP shall
all the members of the Senate will not be valid have respect for people's rights in the performance
(Art. VII, sec. 21, Art. XVIII, sec. 4). With respect of their duty. [Article XVI, Section 5(2)]
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 a Prohibition 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 paid Islands) 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, Marikina such 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 dismiss of sovereign immunity is submitted directly to the
the counterclaim. The counterclaim in this case is local 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 ofofBalau
The establishment products
a police forceis that
a contract
is not
suit. It is not right that it can sue in the courts but involving a commercial
only civilian in characteractivity.
but also In under
UnitedtheStates
localvs.
it cannot be sued. The defendant therefore Ruiz, 136SCRA487
executives. and Section
[Article XVI, United States
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. cannot invoke Immunity
State Immunity from
from Suit suit if it enters into a
(1991)
commercial contract.1990,
No. 13; In February The Philippines
the Ministryadheres
of the to
RESTRICTIVE
Army. Republic SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY.
of Indonesia, 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 State Immunity
Corporation, from Suit
a Philippine (1989)
corporation, which has
Indonesia which were deposited in the Philippine No. 13: A property
no branch office and owner filed an
no assets in action directly
Indonesia,
National Bank and Far East Bank. in court against
submitted a bid the Republic
to 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
2essential 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 may economic
SUGGESTED conditions
ANSWER: of those engaged in the
not invoke the immunity of the State from suit, tobacco
1) Yes, the industry.
Municipality of Calumpit is liable for
because, as held in Fontanilla vs. Maliaman, 179 the negligence of its driver Johnny. Under
SCRA 685 and 194 SCRA 486, irrigation is a State
Section Immunity
24 of thefrom Local Suit (1987)
Government Code, local
proprietary function. Besides, the Northern Luzon (a) "X" filed aunits
government caseare against the Republic
not exempt of the for
from liability
Irrigation Authority has a juridical personality Philippines
death or injury for damages
to personscaused or damagehis yacht, which
to property.
separate and distinct from the government, a suit was rammed by a navy vessel.
against it is not a suit against the State. Since the (b) "X" also sued
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: in another case the
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 of therule
prevailing compensation
in the law of of
Instance of Bulacan, 110 SCRA 456, the waiver the value of
municipal his land, which
corporations is thatwas used as partisofnot
a municipality
includes an action based on a quasi-delict. the tarmac
liable for of thethetorts
Cebucommitted
InternationalbyAirport,its regular
without
employees prior in expropriation
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 The Solicitor General moved to dismiss the two
from suit? Explain. (2%) cases invoking state immunity from suit Decide.
2.) How may consent of the state to be sued be SUGGESTED
In the case ANSWER: at bar, Johnny was a regular
given? Explain. (2%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: (a) The government
employee cannot be sued
of the Municipality of for damages
Calumpit as
1.) STATE IMMUNITY FROM SUIT means that considering
driver of its that dump thetruck;
agency he which
committedcaused the
a tortious
the State cannot be sued without its consent. A damages was the Philippine
act while discharging Navy. Under
a governmental Art. for
function
corollary of such principle is that properties used 2180 of the Civil Code,
the municipality, the state
ie., driving consentsthe
recklessly to be said
by the State in the performance of its sued
truck for
loadeda quasi-delict
with sandonly for thewhen the damage
repair of municipal is
governmental functions cannot be subject to caused
streets. by its special agents.
Undoubtedly Hence, the
then, Johnny Solicitor
as driver of
judicial execution. General's
the dump motion truck was should be granted
performing a and
dutytheor suit
task
brought
pertaining by "X" to behisdismissed.
office. The construction or
maintenance of 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 (b) But theJohnny
accident, government CANNOTinINVOKE
was engaged the
the discharge
provision of law as waiver of State immunity from state's immunity from
of governmental functions. suit. As held in Ministerio
suit is not inferred lightly (e.g. C.A. 327 as amended v. Court of First Instance. 40 SCRA 464 (1971),
by PD 1445} or impliedly as when the State which
Hence,also theinvolved
death ofthe thetaking of private property
two passengers of the
engages in proprietary functions (U.S. without
jeepneythe benefit
-tragic andofdeplorable
expropriation though proceeding,
it may be
v. Ruiz, U.S. v. Guinto) or when it files a suit in which "The doctrine
- imposed onofthe
governmental
municipalityimmunity
no dutyfrom to paysuit
case the adverse party may file a counterclaim cannot serve as an instrument for
monetary compensation, as held in Municipality perpetrating an
(Froilan v. Pan Oriental Shipping) or when the doctrine injustice on a citizen.
of San. Fernando . . . When
v. Firme, 195 the
SCRA government
692.
would in effect be used to perpetuate an injustice takes any property for public use, which is
(Amigable v. Cuenca, 43 State Immunity
conditional upon fromthe payment
Suit (1992)
of just
SCRA 360). No. 9: The Northern
compensation, to be judicially
Luzon ascertained,
Irrigation Authority
it
(NLIA) was
makes manifest established
that it submits
by a legislative
to the jurisdiction
charter to
State Immunity from Suit (1999) of the court."the
strengthen Theirrigation
Solicitor General's
systems motion to
that supply
No VI - B. The employees of the Philippine dismiss
water toshould,
farms therefore,
and commercial be denied. growers in the
Tobacco Administration (PTA) sued to recover area. While the NLIA is able to generate
overtime pay. In resisting such claim, the PTA revenues through its operations, it receives an
theorized
State Immunitythat itfromis Suit
performing
(1994) governmental annual appropriation from Congress. The NLIA is
functions.
No. 6; Johnny was employed (2%)
Decide and explain. as a driver by the authorized to "exercise all the powers of a
SUGGESTED
Municipality of ANSWER:
Calumpit, Bulacan. While driving corporation 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
Johnny Due to a miscalculation by some of its
SCRA 416, the Philippine Tobacco
hit a jeepney. Two passengers of the jeepney Administration employees, there was a massive irrigation
is not killed.
were liable for overtime pay, since it is performing overflow causing a flash flood in Barrio Zanjera. A
governmental functions. Among its purposes are child drowned in the incident and his parents now
to
Thepromote the effective
Sangguniang Bayanmerchandising of tobacco
passed an ordinance file suit against The NLIA for damages.
so that those engaged in the tobacco
appropriating P300,000 as compensation for the industry will
have economic security, to stabilize the price
heirs of the victims. 1) Is the municipality liable of 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, the people and recognized by law."
national government used a portion thereof for the
widening of the national highway. Devi filed a Section 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 or and national development policies and programs,
negotiated sale, the landowner may maintain a shall 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 Constitution State Immunity vs. Waiver of Immunity (1997)
provides: "The State shall protect WORKING
WOMEN by providing safe and healthful working No, 6: It is said that "waiver of immunity by the
conditions, taking into account their maternal StateState
The doesmaynot resettle
mean a landless
concessionfarmers
of itsand
liability".
farm
functions, and such facilities and opportunities What areinthe
workers its implications
own agricultural
of this
estates
phrase?which shall
that will enhance their welfare and enable them to be distributed to them in the manner provided by
realize their full potential in the service of the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
law."
nation." The phrase that waiver of immunity by the State
does not17.
Section mean a concession
Article XIV of the of liability means
Constitution states:
b) Section 16, Article II of the Constitution that by
"The consenting
State to be sued,
shall recognize, the State
respect does not
and protect
provides: The State shall protect and advance necessarily
the rights of admit it is liable.
indigenous As communities
cultural stated in to
the right of the people and their posterity to a Philippineand
preserve Rock Industries,
develop their Inc. vs. Board
cultures, of
traditions,
balanced and healthful ECOLOGY in accord with Liquidators,
and 180 ItSCRA
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 in quoted/discussed by the examinee should be sufficient for him
part: "The sustained development of a reservoir of to 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 promoted No. 3: Does the 1987 Constitution provide for a
by the State, The State shall encourage policy of transparency in matters of public
appropriate technology and regulate Its transfer interest? Explain.
for the national benefit. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the 1987 Constitution provides for a policy
Sub-section 2, Section 3. Article XIV of the of transparency in matters of public interest.
Constitution states: "They (EDUCATIONAL Section 28, Article II of the 1987 Constitution
INSTITUTIONS) shall inculcate patriotism and provides:
nationalism, foster love of humanity, respect for 1"Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by
human rights, appreciation of the role of national law, the State adopts and implements a policy of full
heroes in the historical development of the disclosure of all its transactions involving public
country, teach the rights and duties of citizenship, interest,"
strengthen ethical and spiritual values, develop 2Section 7, Article III of the 1987 Constitution
moral character and personal discipline, states: "The right of the people to information on
encourage critical and creative thinking, broaden matters of public concern shall be recognized,
scientific and technological knowledge, and Access to official records, and to documents, and
promote vocational efficiency." papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or
decisions, as well as to government research data
Section 10. Article XIV of the Constitution declares: used as basis for policy development, shall be
"SCIENCE and TECHNOLOGY are essential for afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as
national development and progress. The State shall may be provided by law."
give priority to research and development, 3Section 20, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution
invention, innovation, and their utilization; and to reads: "The records and books of account of the
science and technology education, training, Congress shall be preserved and be open to the
services. It shall support indigenous, appropriate, public in accordance with law, and such books shall
and self-reliant scientific and cultural capabilities, be audited by the Commission on Audit which shall
and their application to the country's productive publish annually an itemized list of amounts paid to
systems and national life." and expenses incurred for each member."
4Under Section 17, Article XI of the 1987
Constitution, the sworn statement of assets,
Section 11, Article XIV of the Constitution provides: liabilities and net worth of the President, the Vice-
"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 and Commission and other constitutional offices, and
applied scientific research. Scholarships, grants-in- officers of the
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 5. "A public officer or employee shall, upon
by law. assumption of office, and as often as thereafter
may be required by law, submit a declaration under
1Section 21, Article XII of the Constitution declares: oath of his assets, liabilities, and net worth. In the
"Information on foreign loans obtained or guaranteed case of the President, the Vice President, the
by the government shall be made available to the Members of the Cabinet, the Congress, the
public." Supreme Court, the Constitutional Commissions
2As held in Valmonte vs. Belmonte, G.R. No. 74930, and other constitutional offices, and officers of the
Feb. 13, 1989, these provisions on public disclosures armed forces with general or flag rank, the
are intended to enhance the role of the citizenry in declaration shall be disclosed to the public in the
governmental decision-making as well as in checking manner provided by law." (Section 17, Article XI)
abuse in government.
6. "Information on foreign loans obtained or
guaranteed by the Government shall be made
available to the public." (Section 21 Article XII)
Transparency; Matters of Public Interest As explained In Valmonte v. Belmonte,
(2000) 170 SCRA 256 (1989), the purpose of the
No V. State at least three constitutional provisions policy is to protect the people from abuse
reflecting the State policy on transparency in of governmental power. If access to
matters of public interest. What is the purpose of information of public concern is denied,
said policy? (5%) the postulate "public office is a public
SUGGESTED ANSWER: trust" would be mere empty words. {Note:
The following are the constitutional provisions The examinee should be given full credit if
reflecting the State policy on transparency in he gives any three of the above-
matters of public interest: mentioned provisions.}
1. "Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed
by law, the State adopts and Implements a policy
of full public disclosure of all its transactions ARTICLE III Bill of Rights
involving public interest." (Section 28, Article II)
Bill of Attainder (1987)
No. XI: Congress passed a law relating to
2. The right of the people to information on
officials and employees who had served in the
matters of public concern shall be recognized.
Government for the period from September 21,
Access to official records, and to documents, and
1972 up to February 25, 1986.
papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or
decisions, as well as to government research data
(a) One provision of the law declared all
used as basis for policy development, shall be
officials from the rank of assistant head of a
afforded to citizen, subject to such limitations as
department, bureau, office or agency "Unfit" for
may be provided by law." (Section 7, Article III)
continued service in the government and declared
their respective positions vacant.
(b) Another provision required all the other
3. The records and books of accounts of the
officials and employees to take an oath of loyalty
Congress shall be preserved and be open to the
to the flag and government as a condition for
public in accordance with law, and such books
their continued employment. Are the two
shall be audited by the Commission on Audit
provisions valid? Why?
which shall publish annually an itemized list of
amounts paid to and expenses incurred for each
Member." (Section 20. Article VI)

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


bills of attainder. A bill of attainder is a legislative
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
act which inflicts punishment without judicial trial.
(a) The law is a bill of attainder by which
Accordingly, it was held in Bataan Shipyards and
Congress, by assuming judicial magistracy, in
Engineering company. Inc. v. Presidential
effect declares all officials and employees during
Commission on Good Government, that
martial law (September 21, 1972February 25,
Executive Orders Nos. 1, 2 and 14 are not bills of
1986) as disloyal and, on this basis, removes
attainder, because they do not inflict any
some while subjecting others to a loyalty test.
punishment. On the contrary, they expressly
provide that any judgment that the property
sequestered is ill-gotten wealth is to be made by
With respect to the provision declaring positions
a court (the Sandiganbayan) only after trial.
vacant, even the power to reorganize can not
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. Extrajudicial
According to PeopleConfession
vs.
cannot be excluded in evidence. In accordance (2001) 248 SCRA 471, the right to counsel
Lamsing,
with the ruling in People vs. Hatton, 210 SCRA 1, No IXnot
does - Rafael,
extendCarlos andline-ups,
to police Joseph because
were accusedthey of
the accused is not entitled to be assisted by murder
are before
not part the Regional
of custodial Trial Court However,
investigations. of Manila.
counsel during a police line-up, because it is not Accused Joseph
according to Peopleturned state witness
vs. Macan 238 SCRAagainst306,his
part of custodial investigation. co-accused
after the startRafael
of custodial
and Carlos,
investigation,
and wasif the
accordingly
accused wasdischarged
not assistedfromby the
counsel,
information.
any
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER; identification of the accused
Among the evidence presentedin abypolice 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 Investigation;
Rafael and Carlos who, he said,Right to Counsel
together with him
rather than the Fifth Amendment (equivalent to (1988)
(Joseph), committed the crime. The extrajudicial
Art. III, Sec. 14 (2) rather than Sec. 12(1)), the No. 15: Armando
confession Salamanca,
was executed withouta notorious policeof
the assistance
police line-up is such a critical stage that it carries character,
counsel. came under custodial investigation for
"potential substantial prejudice" for which reason a robbery in Caloocan City. From the outset, the
the accused is entitled to the assistance of police officers informed him of his right to remain
Counsel. Accused
silent, andRafael andright
also his Carlos vehemently
to have a counsel objected
of his
on the ground
choice, if he that
couldsaidafford
extrajudicial
one orconfession
if not, the
2) No. Danny cannot ask that his confession to a was inadmissible
government wouldin evidence
provideagainst
him 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 made Rulethanked
He on whether the said
the police extrajudicialand
investigators, confession
declared
during a custodial interrogation but a voluntary is admissible
that in evidence the
he fully understands or not. (5%)
rights enumerated to
statement made to the media. him, but that, he is voluntarily waiving them.
FIRST ALTERNATIVE
Claiming that he sincerely ANSWER:
desires to atone for his
Custodial Investigation; Police Line-Up (1997) According tohePeople
misdeeds, gave vs. Balisteros,
a written 237 SCRA
statement on his
499 (1994), the
participation confession
in the crime under is admissible.
investigation. Under
No. 10: A, while on board a passenger jeep one Section 12, Article III of the Constitution, the
night, was held up by a group of three teenagers confession is inadmissible only against the one
who forcibly divested her of her watch, necklace In
who the course ofOnly
confessed. the trial
the oneof thewhosecriminal
rightscase
werefor
and wallet containing P100.00. That done, the trio the
violatedsamecan robbery, the written
raise the objection as his admission
right is of
jumped off the passenger jeep and fled. B, the Salamanca
personal. which he gave during the custodial
jeep driver, and A complained to the police to SECOND
investigation, ALTERNATIVE
was presented ANSWER;
as the only evidence
whom they gave description of the culprits. According to People us.
of his guilt. If you were his counsel, Jara, 144 SCRA 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 against ANSWER: the one who confessed, with
morning A and B were summoned to the police Imore
would objectit should
reason to it onbe theinadmissible
ground thatagainstthe 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 identified having been made without the presence of
C and D as the culprits. After preliminary Custodial(Art.
counsel. Investigation;
III, sec. 12(1); Extrajudicial
People v. Galit, 135
investigation. C and D and one John Doe were Confession;
SCRA 465 (1980).Police The Line-Upwaiver (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, againstbeen
have Danny.complied
After 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. Danny
the written was
confession. It
confinement based on the identification made of placed in
should a police
also be noted line-up
thatwhere
under he Rulewas134,identified
sec. 3,
them by A and B at a police line-up at which they as theifone
even thewho shot the victim.
extrajudicial After the
confession line-up,
is valid, it is
were not assisted by counsel. How would you Danny
not made a confession
a sufficient ground fortoconviction
a newspaper if it is not
resolve the issues raised by C and D? reporter who interviewed
corroborated by evidencehim. 1) Candelicti.
of corpus Danny claim
that his identification by
the eyewitness be excluded on the ground
SUGGESTED ANSWER: that theInvestigation;
Custodial line-up was made without
Right to benefit
Counsel
The arguments of the accused are untenable. As of his counsel? 2) Can Danny claim that his
(1993)
held in People vs. Acot, 232 SCRA 406, the confession
No. 17; In be his extrajudicial confession executed
warrantless arrest of accused robbers Immediately before excluded
the police on the ground that
authorities, Josehe Walangtakot
was not
after their commission of the crime by police afforded his
admitted "Miranda"
killing rights? in a fit of jealousy.
his girlfriend
officers sent to look for them on the basis of the SUGGESTED
This admissionANSWER: was 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 hindi no 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 is Receipt of Property Seized (2002)
inadmissible in evidence. The warning given to No VIII. One day a passenger bus conductor found
him is insufficient in accordance with the ruling in a man'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 in hydrochloride or shabu, a prohibited drug. Dante
People v. Viduya, 189 SCRA 403, his function is Galang 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 of course 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 of with 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 Counsel illegal 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. The B. The receipt which Galang signed without the
proceedings of his investigation were put in assistance of counsel is not admissible in
writing and dated October 1, 1985, and the only evidence. As held in People v. Castro, 274 SCRA
participation of counsel assigned to him was his 115 {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 was have been assisted by counsel as required by
placed in issue but the prosecution claims that Article 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 Boulevard, which is also owned by X. May
station a week later and presented himself to the they lawfully seize the said unlicensed
desk sergeant. Coincidentally, the rape victim firearms? Explain your answer.
was in the premises executing an extrajudicial
statement. Johann, along with six SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(6) other suspects, were placed in a police lineup (1) Yes, the police operatives may lawfully seize
and the girl pointed to him as the rapist. Johann the cocaine, ....
was arrested and locked up in a cell. Johann was
charged with rape in court but prior to (2) No, X cannot successfully challenge the
arraignment invoked his right to preliminary legality of the search simply because the peace
investigation. This was denied by the judge, and officers did not inform him about his right to
thus, trial proceeded. After the prosecution remain silent and his right to counsel. Section
presented several witnesses, Johann through 12(1), Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides:
counsel, invoked the right to bail and filed a
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
He declared
under investigation
orally that hefor didthe
not
inadmissible in evidence. [People v. Duhan, 142 need any commission
lawyer as he of an
wasoffense
innocent,
shallsince
havehe the
SCRA 100 (1986)]. was onlyright
bringing
to be the marijuana
informed of hisleaves toremain
right to his
employer in Quezon
silent City and
and to have was notand
competent a drug
Custodial Investigation; Rights (1996) user. Heindependent
was chargedcounselwith illegal possession
preferably of his of
No. 3: 1) A, who was arrested as a suspect in a prohibitedown drugs. Is his waiver of the right to
choice."
murder case was not represented by counsel counsel valid?
during the "question and answer" stage. However, SUGGESTED
As held in People ANSWER:
v. Dy, 158 SCRA 111. for this
before he was asked to sign his statements to the (1) No, thetosearch
provision apply, was not valid,
a suspect mustbecause
be under there
police investigator, the latter provided A with a was no probable
investigation. cause
There was....
no investigation involved
counsel, who happened to be at the police in this case.
station. After conferring with A, the counsel told (2) No, the waiver of the right to counsel is not
the police investigator that A was ready to sign (3) The
valid, since
unlicensed
it was notfirearms
reduced stored
in writing
at 12 and
Shaw
the statements. made in themay
Boulevard presence
lawfullyofbecounsel.
seized Under
... Section
12(1), Article III of the 1987 Constitution to be
Can the statements of A be presented in court Custodial
valid, Investigation;
the waiver must be madeRights in (1993)
writing and in
as his confession? Explain. No. presence
the 4: Larry was an overnight guest in a motel.
of counsel.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: After he checked out the following day, the
1) No, the statements of A cannot be presented in chambermaid found an attache case which she
court as his confession. He was not assisted by surmised was left behind by Larry. She turned it
counsel during the actual questioning. There is no over 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 vs. upon 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 the and 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 nor a 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 a years 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 Jeopardy
with violation (1988)Act No. 500 for operating
of Republic
Joe was arraigned, tried and convicted for No.
the taxicab unit subjectseamen
21: The Filipino detained atinKota
of the information the
abandonment of one's victim in the MTC. He Kinabalu,
first case.allegedly
The accused fishing moved
in Malaysian
to dismissterritorial
the
appealed to the RTC. It was only a year later that waters, had
second casebeen acquitted,
against him after trial, by
invoking doublethe
he was arraigned in the reckless imprudence sessions court in the same city. They could not be
Jeopardy.
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 of How would you rule on A's motion if you were
the MTC relative to the abandonment of one's the Judge?
victim charge. Joe filed a petition for review before SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Assume the situations had been reversed and a
the Court of Appeals, invoking his right to double If I were the
Malaysian hadjudge,
beenI apprehended
would grant the motion.
in Shasi, The
Sulu,
Jeopardy, contending that the prosecution for dismissal
for an allegedof the offense,
first case for failure
charged beforeof the the
abandonment under Art. 275 of the Revised Penal witnesses to appear
Regional Trial Court and terminated
after trialthe first jeopardy.
acquitted.
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. May SCRA
179 the Provincial Fiscal of ofSulu
54, the dismissal a caseappeal such
for failure
judgment
of of acquittal
the witnesses for tothetheprosecution
Supreme Court, like
to appear
SUGGESTED ANSWER: what the Malaysians
constitutes an acquittal. didThe in the case ofof Athe
acquittal for
Joe cannot claim that his conviction for Filipino fishermen
violation of Ordinanceat Kota Kinabalu?
No. 1000 Explain
barsyourhis
abandoning his victim in violation of Article 275 of answer.
prosecution for violation of Republic Act No. 500.
the Revised Penal Code is a bar to his SUGGESTED
Under Section ANSWER:
21, Article in of the Constitution, if
prosecution for negligence under Article 365 of No, act
an because it wouldby
is punished place
a lawthe and
accused in
an ordinance,
the Revised Penal Code. As held in Lamera v. double jeopardy,
conviction contrary
or acquittal to Art.
under III, sec.
either bars21another
of
Court of Appeals, 198 SCRA 186, there is no our Constitution.
prosecution for the PDsameNo. 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 of ANSWER:
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 prosecution Geralde cannot invoke double jeopardy. According
due process of law. The trial was set five days to Perez v. Court of Appeals, 168 SCRA 236,
after the arraignment. There was no sufficient there is no identity between consented abduction
time to subpoena the witnesses and this was the and qualified seduction.
first time the witnesses failed to appear. As held
in People vs. Declaro 170 SCRA 142, the CONSENTED ABDUCTION requires that the
dismissal of a case for failure of the witnesses to taking away of the offended party must be with
appear at the initial hearing is arbitrary and void her 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 against confidence 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 reversed complainant 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 by prosecute. 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, Virginia accused 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 could an 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 to involved 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 it charges 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), A first jeopardy attaches:
upon being arraigned, he filed a motion to quash 1upon a valid complaint or information;
the information invoking his right against double 2before a competent court;
jeopardy. He contended that, under Art. III, 3after arraignment;
Section 21 of the Constitution, if an act is 4a valid entry of plea; and
punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or 5the dismissal or termination of the case without
acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to the express consent of the accused.
another prosecution for the same act He argued
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 Fiscal because 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 due officer concerned as the actual decision remains
process is not well-grounded, since the hearings with 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 is which 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 of the
Denial (1999) to accept
discretion
three Intelligence agents who filed the complaint. Noreject
or 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
to Mayor
presentwith
his Grave
own case
recommendation of the Board of Special Inquiry, Misconduct
and submitand Violation in
evidence of Law beforethereof,
support the the
the BID Commissioners unanimously voted for MunicipalisBoard.
decision The Board
supported investigated
by substantial Gatdula
evidence, and
Stevie's deportation. Stevie's lawyer questioned the but before
the the case acted
commissioners could on be their
decided,
own the City
independent
deportation order 1) On the ground that Stevie was charter was approved.
consideration of the lawThe andCity Fiscal,
facts of theciting
case, and
denied due process because the BID Section
did not30 simply
of the city charter,the
accept asserted
viewsthatofhe was
their
Commissioners who rendered the decision were authorized thereunder
subordinates 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 captain chosen the compassionate option of "waiting" for
and the shipping agent as evidence did not Torre's resignation. Torre was asked, without
violate due process even if they were not being 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, It bank but Torre refused to resign and requested for
was held that the assistance of counsel is not a "full hearing". Days later, he reiterated his
indispensable to due process in forfeiture request for a "full hearing", claiming that he had
proceedings since such proceedings are not been "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 on "constructively 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 television nature 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;
2For 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 have No, 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 state General 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 Outside The pre-evaluation cancellation of the licenses of
Residence (PTCFOR) constitute a property right the 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 defenseafter
issued presented
appropriate in hisnotice
behalfand will hearing
be inadequate
to
process. affected parties.
considering the legalThe ruling
requisitein Philippine
and skill needed in
Communications
court proceedings.SatelliteThere would
Corporation
certainlyvs.beAlcuaz,
a
Due Process; Radio Station (1987) 180 SCRA
denial of due 218,process.
to the effect
(Delgado that an order
No. XIV: In the morning of August 28, 1987, v. Court of Appeals,
provisionally reducing 145
theSCRA
rates 357which (1986)).
a public
during the height of the fighting at Channel 4 and utility could charge, could be issued without
Camelot Hotel, the military closed Radio Station Due Process;
previous noticeSubstantive
and hearing, (2003)cannot apply.
XX, which was excitedly reporting the successes 2003 No XII - The municipal council of the
of the rebels and movements towards Manila and municipality of Guagua, Pampanga, passed an
troops friendly to the rebels. The reports were Due Process;
ordinance Public School
penalizing any Teachers
person or(2002) entity
correct and factual. On October 6, 1987, after No X - Ten
engaged in public school teachers
the business of selling of Caloocan
tickets to
normalcy had returned and the Government had City left or
movies theirother
classrooms to join a strike,
public exhibitions, games which or
full control of the situation, the National lasted for onewhich
performances month,would to ask for teachers'
charge children
Telecommunications Commission, without notice benefits. 7 and 12 years of age the full price of
between
and hearing, but merely on the basis of the report admission tickets instead of only one-half of the
of the military, cancelled the franchise of station The Department
amount thereof. Wouldof Education,
you hold Culture and Sports
the ordinance a
XX. Discuss the legality of: charged
valid them administratively,
exercise of legislative for which by
power reasonthe
they were required
municipality? Why? to answer and formally
(b) The cancellation
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
of the franchise of the SUGGESTED
investigated byANSWER: a committee composed of the
1.) A law
station violates 6,
on October substantive
1987. due process when The ordinance
Division is void. Asofheld
Superintendent Schoolsin Balacuit v. Court
as Chairman,
SUGGESTED
it is unreasonable ANSWER:or unduly oppressive. For of
theFirst Instance
Division of Agusanas
Supervisor del member
Norte. 163 andSCRA a
The cancellation
example, of the franchise
Presidential Decree No. of the station
1717, on
which 182
teacher,[1988], the ordinance
as another member. On is unreasonable.
the basis of the It
October
cancelled6,all 1987, without priorand
the mortgages notice
liensandof ahearing,
debtor, deprives
evidence the sellers of
adduced at thethetickets
formalof investigation
their property
is
wasvoid.considered
As held in Eastern Broadcastingfor
unconstitutional Corp.being without
which amplydue process.
establishedA ticket
theiris aguilt,
property right and
the Director
(DYRE)
oppressive. v. Dans, 137 SCRA
Likewise, 647 (1985),
as stated the
in Ermita-Malate may be sold
rendered for such price
a decision meting as theout owner
to them of it the
can
cardinal
Hotel and primary
Motelrequirements in administrative
Operators Association, Inc. v. obtain. There is nothing pernicious
penalty of removal from office. The decision was in charging
proceedings
City Mayor of(one of which
Manila, is that849,
20 SCRA the parties must
a law which children
affirmed the by same
the DECS price as adults. and the Civil
Secretary
first be heard)
is vague asmen
so that laid of
down in Angintelligence
common Tibay v. CIR,must Service Commission.
69 Phil. 635 (1940) must be observed
guess at its meaning and differ as to its in closing a
radio stationviolates
application because radio broadcasts
substantive are a form
due process. As Due Process;
On appeal, theySuspension
reiterated the of arguments
Driver's Licensethey
of
heldconstitutionally-protected
in Tanada v. Tuvera, expression.
146 SCRA 446, due raised before the administrative bodies, namely:
(1992)
process requires that the law be published. (b) They
No, 3; Congress
were deprived is considering
of due process a law of against
law as
the Investigating
drunken driving. UnderCommittee the legislation,
was improperly police
Due Process; Represented by a Non-Lawyer constituted because
authorities may ask it didany
not include
driver atoteacher take ina
2.) In State Prosecutors v. Muro, 236 SCRA 505,
(1988) representation test",
"breathalyzer of thewherein
teachers' theorganization
driver exhales as
it was
No. 5: held
Norberto
that the
Malasmas
dismissal was of accused
a case without
of estafa the requiredtimes
several by the intoMagna
a device Cartawhichfor Public
can determine
School
before
benefit the of aRegional
hearing Trial Court ofany
and without Manila. After
notice to the Teachershe
whether (R.A.
hasNo.been 4670, driving
Sec.under
9). the influence
prosecution
the trial, he wasviolated
found dueguilty.process.
On appeal,Likewise,
his as SUGGESTED
of alcohol. TheANSWER:results of the test can be used, in
conviction
held in People was affirmed
v. CourtbyoftheAppeals,
Court of 262
Appeals.
SCRA The teachers
any were deprived
legal proceeding againstof due
him.process of
Furthermore,
452, the records
After lack of impartiality
of his case had of the
beenjudge
remanded
who will law. Underthat
declaring Section 9 of the Magna
the issuance Carta forlicense
of a driver's
to the Regional
decide Trial Court
a case violates for execution,
procedural and
due process. Public School
gives rise only Teachers, one of thetomembers
to a privilege drive motor of
after the latter Court had set the date for the the committee
vehicles on publicmustroads,
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 takeor intheits absence,
test shall anybe
Due Process;
motion with theProvisional
Court of Appeals Orderto(1991)
set aside the existing provincial
automatically or national
subject organization
to a 90-day suspensionof of
No 7 of
entry - On 29 Julyand
judgment, 1991. the Energy
to remand Regulatory
the case to the teachers.
his driver'sAccording
license, to Fabella v. Court of
Board (ERB),
Regional in response
Trial Court for new trial toonpublic clamor,
the ground Appeals, 283 SCRA 256 (1997), to be considered
issued
that a resolution
he had approving
just discovered and Leonilo
that "Atty. adopting a Cite two [2] possible
the authorized constitutional
representative of suchobjections to
schedule whom
Maporma" for bringing down and
he had chosen thewho prices
had of this law. Resolve
organization, the objections
the teacher must be chosen and by explain
the
petroleum
acted as his products
counselover a period
before the trialofcourt
one and
(1) year
the organization
whether any itself
such andinfirmities
not bycanthe be Secretary
cured. of
starting
Court of 15 Augustis1991,
Appeals, not a over
lawyer.the Resolved
objection the of the SUGGESTED
Education, Culture ANSWER:
and Sports. Since in
oil companies
motion which claim
of the accused withthat the period covered
reasons. Possible objections
administrative to the law
proceedings, due areprocess
that requiring
requires a
is too long to prejudge and foresee. Is the driver
that thetotribunal
take thebe breathalyzer
vested withtest will violate
jurisdiction andhisbe
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 of
administratively his driver's license
a reasonable guarantee without
of any
No, the resolution
judgment should be is set
invalid,
aside. since
An accused
the Energy is hearing violates
impartiality, if thedue process,
teacher who andis a that
memberthe of the
Regulatory
entitled to beBoard
heardissued
by himself
the resolution
or counsel. without
(Art. a proposed
committeelaw waswillnotviolate 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 searches and
the law, any proceeding 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 does on 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 by The 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 is Commission 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 refuses to unpaid 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 hearing it 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 due Court 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 in this Municipality 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 Regulatory petition for mandamus to compel the Municipality
Board can be validly conferred the powers exercised of 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 bank question 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 are taking 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, through Court indicated in a dictum in Manotok. v. National
the Department of Public Works and Highways Housing Authority, 150 SCRA 89, that the
(DPWH), constructed a new highway linking expropriation of a commercial center so that the
Metro Manila and Quezon province, and which profits derived from its operation can be used for
major thoroughfare traversed the land owned by housing 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 paid 1987 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 on 1. What legal remedy, if any, does Carlos
Presidential Decree No, 1533, which he claims is Topico 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 the contention
of Paoay vs Manaois, that86 thePhil
ordinance,
629.
The decision of the lower court should be reversed. even the
632, though
Supremeit fixes the held:
Court compensation for the land
In EPZA v, Dulay, 149 SCRA 305 (1987) the on the "Property,
basis of the prevailing
however, whichlandis value cannot
patrimonial
Supreme Court declared PD No. 1533 to be an and which
really displace is held
judicial by a municipality
determination in itsfor
of the price
unconstitutional encroachment on the prerogatives the simpleproprietary
reason thatcapacity
many asfactors,
treated some
by theofgreat
them
of the judiciary. It was explained that although a weightcannot
supervening, of authority as be
possibly the considered
private asset by of
the
court would technically have the power to the at
legislature town theand
time mayof be levied upon
enacting and sold
the ordinance.
determine the just compensation for property under There isunder
greater an reason
ordinaryfor execution."
nullifying the use of the
the Decree, the court's task would be relegated to cost of construction in the ordinance as basis for
simply stating the lower value of the property as If the City of Cebu
compensation for the does 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 Topicomay is tonot
file abe
Just compensation means the value of the property petition for mandamus to compel it to
equal to the cost of construction. The original cost appropriate
at the time of the taking. It means a fair and full money to satisfy
of construction maythebeJudgment.
lower thanInthe Municipality
fair market
equivalent for the loss sustained. To determine it Makati vs. Court of Appeals, 190
value, since the cost of construction at the SCRA 206,time
213.of
requires consideration of the condition of the the Supreme Court said:
expropriation 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 ANSWER:
ALTERNATIVE money judgment rendered against
it, the claimant
The taking of the commercial may avail of theis remedy
center 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
intendedofforthe thenecessary
development appropriation
of the
No, 6: A law provides that in the event of ordinance, and the
vacant portion for socialized housing, which is corresponding
expropriation, the amount to be paid to a clearly adisbursement
public purpose. of municipal funds therefor."
landowner as compensation shall be either the
sworn valuation made by the owner or the official Eminent
ALTERNATIVE Domain; Just Compensation (1988)
ANSWER:
assessment thereof, whichever is lower. Can the No. 8: Mr. Roland Rivera
1. He can file the money is the owner
claim ofwith
four lots
the
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 LegalatInterest
Baguio City.
(1993) The same
Yes, the landowner can successfully challenge parcels of land had been valued by
No, 5: In expropriation proceedings: 1) Whatthe Assessor
the law in court. According to the decision in at P120.00 per square meter, while Mr.
legal interest should be used in the computation Rivera had
Export Processing Zone Authority vs. Dulay, 149 previously fixed the market
of interest on just compensation? value of the same at
SCRA 305, such a law is unconstitutional. First of P100 per square
SUGGESTED ANSWER: meter. The Regional Trial Court
all, it violates due process, because it denies to decided for expropriation and ordered the
As held in National Power Corporation vs. Angas. payment
the landowner the opportunity to prove that the to
208Mr. Rivera
SCRA at the
542, rate of P100with
in accordance a square
Article meter
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 the Christina opposed this on the following grounds:
Usury Law.
1the Municipality of Santa has no power to
Eminent Domain; Non-observance of the expropriate;
policy of "all or none" (2000) 2Resolution 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 3the 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
Marina is to aggrieved
feels very use the land as the
over a relocation
denial and
166429, Dec. 19, 2005, the SC held that RA 8974 site for
has come200tofamilies
you for squatting
advice. She along the to
wants Pasig
know:
now requires full payment before the State may river. a) Whether
(1) Can the owner
the Board
of the
of Examiners
property oppose
had any
exercise proprietary rights in an expropriation the
plausible or legal basis for rejecting her
proceeding and making the previous ruling obiter application
expropriation
in 1986. onExplain
the ground
briefly.
that only 200
dictum. (2) out Whether
of the morethe than
198710,000 squatter
Constitution
familiesher
guarantees in Pasig Citytowill
the right benefit from
admission thethe
to take
Equal Protection; Alien Employment (1989) expropriation?
coming JanuaryExplain. b) Canofficers
1988 marine the Department of
No 18: An ordinance of the City of Manila requires Agrarian Reform
examinations. Explain and cite relevant
every alien desiring to obtain employment of require 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 work agricultural 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
Hiu families in Pasig City will benefit from the
propertyTsai
Chiong for Paothe Ho, purpose
86 SCRA of 270,constructing
it was held an expropriation. As held in Philippine Columbian
aqueduct
that such an for ordinance
flood control violates
is notequal for public
protection.
use" is It Association vs. Pants, 228 SCRA 668, the
untenable-
failed to consider
The idea the thatvalid "PUBLIC
substantial USE" differences
means acquisition of private property for socialized
exclusively
among the usealiens
by the required
public to haspay been thediscarded.
fee. The housing is for public use and the fact that only a
As longamong
same as the purposeit beingof the collected
taking isfrom public,every
the few and not everyone will benefit from the
exercise of power
employed alien, ofwhether eminent domain he is iscasual justifiable.or expropriation does not detract from the nature of
Whatever may
permanent, part-time
be beneficially
or full-time. employed
The ordinance
for the the public use.
general
also violates
welfare due satisfies
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 Decreesis agricultural to residential. According to Province
providing
lawful per se. that in determining just compensation the of Camarines Sur vs. Court of Appeals, 222
value stated by the owner in his tax declaration or SCRA 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.
Discrimination subjects the expropriation of agricultural lands by
(1987) local government units to the control of the
G.R.VI:
No. No. 59603,
Marina April 29,
Neptunia, 1987, itofwas
daughter a sea held that
captain Department of Agrarian Reform and to require
this sister
and method to fourprescribed
marine officers for ascertaining
decided as a child just approval from the Department of Agrarian Reform
compensation constitutes an
to follow in her father's footsteps. In her growing up impermissible 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 but the Department of Agrarian Reform who will
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. For although
Marine Transportation, major in Navigation and under the decrees the
courts
Seamanship.still haveShe served the power to determine for
her apprenticeship justa Eminent Domain; Writ of Possession (1993)
compensation, their task
year in a merchant marine vessel registered foris reduced to simply No, 5: In expropriation proceedings: Can the
determining
foreign tradethe andlower valueyear
another of the on property
a merchant as judge validly withhold issuance of the writ of
declared either by the owner
marine vessel registered for coastwise trade. But or by the assessor. possession until full payment of the final value of
"JUST
to become COMPENSATION"
a full-fledged marine meansofficer the value of the
she had to the expropriated property?
property at the time of the taking.
pass the appropriate board examinations before Its determination 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 applied its 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 for thethis reason
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 Domain;
that "No person Socialized
shall be qualified Housing (1996)
for examination provisional value of the expropriated property with
No. 4 - The City of Pasig
as marine officer unless he is: initiated 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 Discrimination professions, 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 in Equal Protection; 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 SUGGESTED
deprive ANSWER:
her of her
academically deficient. (a) The disqualification of females from the practice
(a) Prepare a short argument citing rules, laws, constitutional
of marine profession right to education?
constitutes 2) Didastheinvidious
or constitutional provisions in support of "X's" circular violate condemned
discrimination the equal protection
by the Equal Protection
motion for reconsideration of the denial of his clause
Clause ofofthe thatConstitution?
ConstitutionSUGGESTED
(Art. IV, Sec. 1) In the
application. ANSWER:
United States, 1) No,under
because it is a permissive
a similar provision, while
SUGGESTED ANSWER: limitation to right to
earlier decisions of education,
the Supreme as itCourt
is intended
upheldtothe
The refusal of the seminary to admit "X" ensure
validity that of only those who
a statute are qualified
prohibiting womento be from
constitutes invidious discrimination, violative of the dentists
bartending areunless
admitted sheforwas
enrollment....
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 applicant is and denying to women the right to practice law
the son of a poor farmer does not make the 2) No, thev.circular
(Bradwell State, 83 didU.S.
not(16
violate
Wall)the
130equal
(1873), recent
discrimination any less invidious since the other protection
decisions have clauseinvalidated
of the Constitution.
statutes There is a
or regulations
applicant is also academically deficient. The substantial distinction between dentistry
providing for differential treatment of females based students
reverse discrimination practiced by the seminary and
on other students.
nothing The dental profession
stereotypical and directly
inaccurate
cannot be justified because unlike the race affects the lives and health of people.
generalizations. The Court held that "classification Other
problem in America, poverty is not a condition of professions
based on sex, do like
not involve the same
classifications delicate
based upon race,
inferiority needing redress. responsibility and need not be
alienage, or national origin, are inherently similarly treated.
suspect,
This
and is in accordance
must therefore be withsubjected
the rulingto in strict
Departmentjudicial
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 the 180
statuteSCRA 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
allowance,Protection; Subsidiary
regardless of whetherImprisonmentthe wife is
because of an order of the Department of (1989)
actually dependent on him, while denying the same
Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) disallowing No.
right4:to"X" was sentencedunless
a servicewoman to a penalty of 1 year
her husband was in
flunkers from taking the test a fourth time. Cruz and
fact 5dependent
months of prision
on hercorrectional
for over one and halfto pay of ahis
filed suit assailing this rule raising the fine of P8,000.00,
support. (Frontierro with subsidiary
v Richardson, 411imprisonment
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 this, (1973);
alreadyAccord Craig, v. Boren,
be released. "X" was 429 U.S. 190
asked (1976)
to pay the fine
upholding the constitutionality of the rule on the (providing for sale of beer to
of P5,000.00 and he said he could not afford males under 21 it,
and
ground of exercise of police power. Decide the to females under 18); Reed v.
being an indigent. The Director informed him heReed. 404
case discussing the grounds raised. (5%) U.S.
has to71 serve(1971) (preference
an additional prison given
term toatmen the rateoverof
SUGGESTED ANSWER: women for appointment as administrators
one day per eight pesos in accordance with Article of
As held in Department of Education, Culture and estates invalid).
39 of the Revised Penal Code, The lawyer of "X"
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 ensure (b)
the In addition
further to the Equal
incarceration of his Protection
client for Clause,
unpaid the
that those admitted to the medical profession are 1987 Constitution now requires
fines violates the equal protection clause of the State
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
SUGGESTEDwith "suchANSWER:
facilities and opportunities that will
Section 5(3), Article XIV of the Constitution, the enhance
(1) The petition shouldand
their welfare enable them
be granted, because to realize
right to choose a profession is subject to fair, their full potential in the service
Article 39 of the Revised Penal Code is of the nation." (Art.
reasonable and equitable admission and XIII, Sec. 14). These provisions
unconstitutional. In Tate vs. Short, 401 U.S. 395, put in serious
academic requirements. The rule does not violate doubt
the the validity
United of PD 97 Court
States Supreme limiting thethat
held practice of
equal protection. There is a substantial distinction marine profession
imposition 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 protection transports 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. It the 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 a expression 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. It and 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 station Freedom of Religion; Convicted Prisoners
operators against selling blocked time, on the (1989)
claim that the time covered thereby are often used No. 5: "X" is serving his prison sentence in
by those buying them to attack the present Muntinlupa. He belongs to a religious sect that
administration. Assume that the department prohibits the eating of meat. He asked the
implements this warning and orders owners and Director of Prisons that he be served with
operators of radio stations not to sell blocked time meatless diet. The Director refused and "X" sued
to interested parties without prior clearance from the Director for damages for violating his
the Department of Transportation and religious 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 to No. 12: Section 28. Title VI, Chapter 9, of the
court on the ground that the action of the MTRCB Administrative Code of 1987 requires all
suppresses its freedom of speech and interferes educational 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 freedom Secretary 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 their a 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 be fund to the Governor for the stated purpose. How
exempted from the flag ceremony. As held in would 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 religious resolution of a local legislative body and not by
sect have been expelled from their respective Congress does not make it any less offensive to
public schools for refusing, on account of their the Constitution. Above all, the resolution
religious beliefs, to take part in the flag ceremony constitutes a clear violation of the Non-
which includes playing by a band or singing the establishment Clause (art. III, sec. 5) of the
national anthem, saluting the Philippine flag and Constitution.
reciting the patriotic pledge. The students and
their parents assail the expulsion on the ground
that the school authorities have acted in violation Freedom of Religion; Non-Establishment
of their right to free public education, freedom of Clause (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], to subsidy 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 and would 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 Moslem in 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 the any 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 of television stations from airing any commercial
laboratory equipment in chemistry and physics, it advertisement which promotes tobacco or in any
will be valid. The purpose of the assistance is way glamorizes the consumption of tobacco
secular, i.e., the improvement of the quality of products.
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 of Cowboy Levy's, a Jeans company, recently
the Constitution requires the State to establish a released an advertisement featuring model
system of subsidies to deserving students in both Richard Burgos wearing Levy's jackets and jeans
public and private schools. However, the law is and 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 will The 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 to invoke 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 of Hudgens 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 considered there is no proof that the report was published
an agent of the government by complying with the with knowledge that it is false or with reckless
law and refusing to air the advertisement, it disregard of whether it was false or not, the
aligned itself with the government. Thus it defendants 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, the Freedom of the Press; Wartime Censorship
Supreme Court held that even if the production of (1987)
a film is a commercial activity that is expected to No. XIV: In the morning of August 28, 1987,
yield profits, it is covered by the guarantee of during 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 exercise troops 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 no August
(b) The 28,
cancellation
1987; of the franchise of the
YY Street in Makati, and the tax cut was only station 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 times to marry and not to have a baby. It is limited to a
of emergency be justified in the case of broadcast refund 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 someANSWER: 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 respectWill
of abode. news
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 thatANSWER:
SUGGESTED "when a nation is at war many
rights. The waiver of these basic human rights is things
No, thethat
suitmight
will not
beprosper.
said in time
Section
of peace
6, Article
are III
void. What Solidaridad Films is seeking to recover such
of theaConstitution
hindrance toprovides:
its efforts that their utterance
are promotion expenses. These involve property will not be"The liberty so
endured of abode
long asandmenof fight
changing
and that
rights. As held in Philippine Blooming Mills no Courtthe same
could withinthem
regard the limits prescribed
as protected by
by any
Employees Organization vs. Philippine Blooming law shall
constitutional not The
right." be impaired except
security of upon
community
Mills, Inc., 51 SCRA 189, civil rights are superior to life maylawful order ofagainst
be protected the court."
incitements to acts
property rights. of violence and the overthrow by force of orderly
The liberty of (Near
government. abodev.isMinnesota,
subject to the
283police
U.S. 697
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER; power
(1931),ofquoting
the State. Requiring
Justice Holme's theopinion
segregation
in of
The waiver of the right to marry and the right to lepers
Schenck is av.valid
Unitedexercise
States,of249 police
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 an Police 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 the the destroyed billboards at their current market
operation against rebel groups directed the value since the City has appropriated them for the
inhabitants of the island which would be the target public purpose of city beautification. The Mayor
of attack by government forces to evacuate the refuses to pay, so AM is suing the City and the
area and offered the residents temporary military Mayor 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 is nuisance in the exercise of police power does not
required before the liberty of abode and of constitute 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 of structures may be built or constructed on the lots.
police power, because smoking is harmful to However, 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, it by changing the zone classification in that place
was ruled that a law prohibiting certain types of from 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 of building on the lot to house a bank inside the
electronic communication was upheld. The subdivision. The subdivision owner and 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
basis of the legislative finding that there is a need developer to the lot owners, as well as the
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 used to 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
to court to stop the construction as violative of the end of the extension line listening to "A's"
building restrictions imposed by it. The corporation telephone conversation with "B" in order to
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 Ortigas tape-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 admissible The objection of the lawyer must be sustained,
in evidence. As held in Salcedo-Ortanez vs. Court Section 3(1), Article IV of the 1987 Constitution
of Appeals, 235 SCRA 111 (1994). Republic Act provides:
No. 4200 makes the tape-recording of a telephone "The privacy of communication and
conversation done without the authorization of all correspondence shall be inviolable except
the parties to the conversation, inadmissible in upon lawful order of the court, or when public
evidence. In addition, the taping of the safety or 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 Juan 3(1), Article III of the 1987 Constitution, to
Samson, member of the subversive New interfere with any correspondence when there is
Proletarian Army, was using the mail for no court order, there must be a law authorizing it
propaganda purposes in gaining new adherents in 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 and The ruling of the United States Supreme Court in
coming from Juan Samson in the interest of the the 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 to 1987 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 Constitution searches 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 to Right 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 (The peaceful assembly."
Public Assembly Act of 1985), in the event of
denial of the application for a permit, the applicant Thus, only the leader or organizer of the rally
may contest the decision in an appropriate court without a permit may be arrested without a
of law. The court must decide within twenty-four warrant while the members may not be arrested,
(24) hours from the date of filing of the case. Said as they can not be punished or held criminally
decision may be appealed to the appropriate liable for attending the rally. However, under
court within forty-eight (48) hours after receipt of Section 12 thereof, when the public assembly is
the same. In all cases, any decision may be held 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 a assembly 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 is The regulation is valid. As held In Rarnento us.
not a prior restraint on freedom of speech and Mal-abanan, 129 SCRA 359, if an assembly will
assembly. The Supreme Court has held that the be held by students in school premises, permit
permit requirement is valid, referring to it as must be sought from the school authorities, who
regulation of the time, place, and manner of are devoid of the power to deny such request
holding public assemblies, but not the content of arbitrarily 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 to and 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 SM's Right 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 teachers 305 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 in petition 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 his promise of reward or leniency which are not
stead? Is Mariano's statement, made with the present in this case. Accordingly, the statement is
assistance of Atty. Barroso, admissible in admissible.
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
III, Section 12(1) of the 1987 Constitution requires to the police as stolen from his barn. He requested
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 preferably of the police found two head in RR's farm. RR could
his own choice " This is meant to stress the not explain to the police how they got hidden in a
primacy accorded to the voluntariness of the remote area of his farm. Insisting on his
choice under the uniquely stressful conditions of a innocence, RR consulted a lawyer who told him he
custodial investigation' Thus, the lawyer called to has 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. The cattle— 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 is contrary 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 as possession 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 the proceedings. 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 is to bail may not be invoked in deportation
entitled to bail as a matter of right, thus the Judge proceedings, 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 the a) State with reason(s) whether bail is a matter
Constitution, Johann may be denied bail if the of right or a matter of discretion in the
evidence of his guilt is strong considering that the following cases: (4%) a) The imposable penalty
crime with which he is charged is punishable by for the crime
reclusion perpetua. It is thus not a matter of right charged is reclusion perpetua and the
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 of he 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 constitutional If the accused is a minor and the imposable
right to bail even if charged with a capital offense penalty 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 to in 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 on complaint, 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 2In a CRIMINAL CASE, the prosecution called the
since the date of the initial hearing was set upon accused 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 held right against self-incrimination, that providing for
in People v. Paynor, 261 SCRA 615 (1996), the the suspension of his driver's license without any
rights guaranteed by Section 12, Article in of the hearing violates due process, and that the
Constitution applies only against testimonial proposed law will violate the right against
evidence. An accused may be compelled to be unreasonable searches and seizures, because it
photographed or measured, his garments may allows 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 is incrimination, 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 bankbooks to beself-incrimination. Thus, in South Dakota vs.
used as evidence against his father charged with Neville, 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 of the 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, police Rights of the Accused; Self-Incrimination
authorities may ask any driver to take a (2000)
"breathalyzer test", wherein the driver exhales No XI. b) A man was shot and killed and his killer
several times into a device which can determine fled. Moments after the shooting, an eyewitness
whether he has been driving under the influence described to the police that the slayer wore white
of alcohol. The results of the test can be used, in pants, 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 license 1.65 meters. Borja, who fit the description given,
gives rise only to a privilege to drive motor was seen nearby. He was taken into custody and
vehicles on public roads, the law provides that a brought to the police precinct where his pants,
driver who refuses to take the test shall be shirt and boots were forcibly taken and he was
automatically subject to a 90-day suspension of weighed, 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 illegal to save
proof. theOne proposed
day, Emiliolaw from broke unconstitutionally
open the desk ofon
arrests. (2%) the ground
Alvin and of discovered
denial of due a letter
process, whereinit should
Randy
SUGGESTED ANSWER: provide
thanked for an Alvin
immediate
for having hearing
passed upon on suspension
to him
Aliens are entitled to the right against illegal of the
vital
driver's
trade license.
secrets of The Emilio.
proposed Enclosed law violates
in the
searches and seizures and illegal arrests. As the right
letteragainst
was a check unreasonable
for P50,000.00 searches drawnand
applied in People v. Chua Ho San, 307 SCRA seizures.
against It will
the authorize
account ofpolice Randy authorities
and payable to stop
to
432 (1999), these rights are available to all any Alvin.
driver Emilio
and ask thenhimdismissed
to take the Alvin
breathalyzer
from his test
persons, including aliens. evenemployment.
in the absence Emilio's
of a probable
proof of Alvin'scause.perfidy
are the said letter and check which are
Searches and Seizures; Breathalyzer Test objected to as inadmissible for having been
(1992) Searches
obtainedand Seizures;
through an illegal Immediate
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 Officer,
and 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 ALTERNATIVE
quarters at CampANSWER: Crame, The search team found
of alcohol. The results of the test can be used, in As held
and seizedin People v. Martiweapon
the murder (G.R. No. in 81561,
a drawer of
any legal proceeding against him. Furthermore, January
"X". Can18, "X"1991),
claimthe thatconstitution,
the searchinand laying down
seizure
declaring that the issuance of a driver's license the principles
were illegal ofand the government
move for and fundamental
exclusion from
gives rise only to a privilege to drive motor liberties ofofthe
evidence thepeople,
weapondoes not govern
seized? Explain.
vehicles on public roads, the law provides that a SUGGESTED
relationships between ANSWER: individuals. Thus, if the
driver who refuses to take the test shall be Yes,
search "X"iscanmade do atso.theThe warrantless
behest search
or initiative cannot
of the
automatically subject to a 90-day suspension of be justified
proprietor of aas an incident
private establishment of a for valid
its ownarrest,
his driver's license, Cite two [2] possible because
and private considerable
purposes and time had elapsed
without after his
the intervention
constitutional objections to this law. Resolve the arrest
of police in authorities,
Baguio before the therightsearch
againstof his quarters
objections and explain whether any such in
unreasonable search and seizure was
Camp Crame, Quezon City cannot made,
be and
infirmities can be cured. because the distance between
invoked for only the act of private individuals, the place of arrest
not
SUGGESTED ANSWER: and
the law enforcers, is involved. In sum, the that the
the place of search negates any claim
Possible objections to the law are that requiring a place searched
protection against is within his "immediate
unreasonable searches control"
and so
driver to take the breathalyzer test will violate his as to justify
seizures cannotthe apprehension
be extended to actsthat he might
committed
right against self-incrimination, that providing for destroy
by PRIVATE or conceal
INDIVIDUALS evidence so as of tocrime
bring before
it withina
the suspension of his driver's license without any warrant
the ambitcan of be 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, the letterv. Cruz
and checkPano, 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 of his handwriting
unreasonable searches and seizures, because to be used it reconsidered
NLRC, G.R. No. its 113271,
previousOctober decision16,holding 1997) that a
as evidence
allows that he istothe
police authorities requireauthor of ato letter
a drive take warrantless search, made after 30 minutes from
wherein
the he agreed
breathalyzer testtoeven
kill the victim.
if there is Under Article
no probable the time of arrest, and, in a place several blocks
HI, Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution, "no
cause ALTERNATIVE
away from the place ANSWER: of arrest, was valid. It held
person shall be compelled to be a witness The aletter
that is inadmissible
warrantless search in is evidence.
limited to the Thesearch of
Requiring a driver to
against himself." take a
Since thebreathalyzer
provision test does
prohibits constitutional
the person of injunction
the arrestee declaring
at the timethe privacy of
and incident
not violate his
compulsory right against
testimonial self-incrimination,
incrimination, it does not communication
to his arrest and correspondence for dangerous toweapons be or
because he is not
matter whether thebeing compelled
testimony to give
is taken by oral or inviolable is
anything no less
which may applicable
be used simply
as proofbecause of itthe
testimonial
written means evidence.
as eitherHe way
is merely being the
it involves askedUSE to is the employer
offense. A contrary who ruleis the partyjustify
would against the whom
police in
submit to a physical test.
OF INTELLECTUAL This is not The
FACULTIES. covered by
purpose the constitutional
procuring a warrant provision
of arrestis and, to beby enforced. The
virtue thereof,
the constitutional
of the privilege isguarantee
to avoid against self- thereby
and prohibit only only
not exception arrestto the the prohibition
person butin also the search his
incrimination.
the repetition Thus, and in South Dakota
recurrence vs. Neville, a
of compelling Constitution
dwelling. is if there
A warrant is a lawful
requires that order
all facts from astheto the
459 U.S.in553,
person, it was held
a criminal or any forother
this reason
case, tothat
furnish court or when
condition of the public
propertysafety andor order requires and
its surroundings
requiring
the missing a driverevidence
to take a blood-alcohol
necessary test for ishis otherwise,
its as prescribed
improvements andbycapabilities
law. Any violation must of be
valid.
conviction (Bermudez v. Castillo, Per Rec. No. this provisionand
considered, renders
this can the only
evidence be done obtained
in a judicial
714-A, July 26, 1937; Beltran v. Samson, G.R. inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
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 the streets,
Seizure; the Private
license ofIndividuals
a driver
(Q8-2005)
who refuses to take the breathalyzer test may be Searches and andSeizures;
Seizures;Aliens
Incidental
(2001) to Valid
(2) Emilio had
suspended immediately
long suspected
pending thata Alvin,
post- his Search
No IV - A(1990)
is an alien. State whether, in the
employee, had
suspension hearing,
been butpassing
theretrademustsecrets
be a to his No. 9; Somehe:
Philippines, police operatives,
Is entitled to theacting under a
right against
competitor,
provision forRandy,
a post-suspension
but he had no 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
possession of prohibited
ANSWER: drugs and was
packages,
leaves. His curiosity aroused, the manager made In accordance
convicted. On appeal
with theherulings
contends
in Uythat
Keytin
- v,
the
an opening on one of the packages and took Villareal, 42 Phil. 886 and People v. Sy Juco, 64
contents
several grams of the contents thereof. He took the Phil. 667, the unlicensed firearms found in the
packages to the NBI, and in theof presence of (1)
houseTheat 12 Shawplastic bag and
Boulevard its contents
may are
not be lawfully
agents, opened the which inadmissible
seized, sinceinthey
evidence
were notbeing the product
included in the of an
upon (2) Thesearch
illegal receipt
description hearticles
of and
the signed to
seizure; is(3%)
also inadmissible
and
be seized by virtueasof
laboratory his
the rights
searchunder custodial
warrant. investigation
The search warrantwere not
described
examination, observed.
the articles(2%)
to be seized as firearms in the house
subsequently found,turned broughtouttotothe NBI of X located at 10 Shaw Boulevard.
be
Office where he admitted ownership of the
attache case and the marijuana
packages. He was
made to sign a receiptflowering
for the packages. Searches and Seizures; Place of Search
Larry was charged intops, court for possession (2001)
of prohibited drugs. He was Larryconvicted. On No XI - Armed with a search and seizure warrant,
appeal, he now poses the following issues: a team of policemen led by Inspector Trias
1) The packages are inadmissible was in entered a compound and searched the house
being the product of an illegal search
evidence described therein as No. 17 Speaker Perez St.,
and seizure; . Sta. Mesa Heights, Quezon City, owned by Mr.
2) Neither is the receipt he signed admissible,Ernani Pelets, for a reported cache of firearms
his rights under custodial investigation not and ammunition. However, upon thorough search
having been observed. Decide. SUGGESTED of the house, the police found nothing.
ANSWER: On the assumption that the issues
were timely raised the answers are as follows: 1)
The packages are admissible in evidence. The Then, acting on a hunch, the policemen
one who opened the packages was the manager proceeded to a smaller house inside the same
of the motel without any interference of the agents compound with address at No. 17-A Speaker
of the National Bureau of Investigation. As held in Perez St., entered it, and conducted a search
People vs. Marti, 193 SCRA 57, the constitutional therein over the objection of Mr. Pelets who
right against unreasonable searches and seizures happened to be the same owner of the first
refers to unwarranted intrusion by the government house. There, the police found the unlicensed
and does not operate as a restraint upon private firearms and ammunition they were looking for.
individuals. 2) The receipt is not admissible in As a result. Mr. Ernani Pelets was criminally
evidence. ... charged in court with Illegal possession of
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
Searches and Seizures; search made by a evidence against him for being inadmissible. Is Mr.
private citizen (2002) Emani Pelet's contention valid or not? Why? (5%)
No VIII. One day a passenger bus conductor found
a man's handbag left in the bus. When the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
conductor opened the bag, he found inside a The contention of Ernani Pelet is valid. As held in
catling card with the owner's name (Dante Galang) People vs. Court of Appeals, 291SCRA 400
and address, a few hundred peso bills, and a small (1993), if the place searched is different from
plastic bag containing a white powdery substance. that stated in the search warrant, the evidence
He brought the powdery substance to the National seized is inadmissible. The policeman cannot
Bureau of Investigation for laboratory examination modify the place to be searched as set out in the
and it was determined to be methamphetamine search warrant.
hydrochloride or shabu, a prohibited drug. Dante
Galang was subsequently traced and found and Searches and Seizures; search made by a
brought to the NBI Office where he admitted private citizen (1993)
ownership of the handbag and its contents. In the No. 4: Larry was an overnight guest in a motel.
course of the interrogation by NBI agents, and After he checked out the following day, the
without the presence and assistance of counsel, chambermaid found an attache case which she
Galang was made to sign a receipt for the plastic surmised was left behind by Larry. She turned it
bag and its shabu contents. Galang was charged over to the manager who, to determine the name
with illegal and address of the owner, opened the attache
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 the and case Seizures;
with reasons. Waiver of Consent
entry (United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606 SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(1989)
[1977]); and A. The
No. 7: plastic
Pursuing bagreports
and its contents
that great arequantities
admissible of
h) Searches of businesses in the exercise of prohibited
in evidence, drugs
sinceare being
it was notsmuggled
the National at nighttime
Bureau
visitorial powers to enforce police regulations (New of Investigation
through the shores but the of Cavite,
bus conductor
the Southern who Luzon
York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691 (1987]). Command
opened the set bagup andcheckpoints
brought it toatthe the end of the
National
Bureau of
Cavite coastal
Investigation.
road toAssearch held In People
passingv. motor
vehicles.
Marti, 193 ASCRA 19-year old boy,
57 (1991), the who finished fifth
constitutional
Searches and Seizures; Visual Search (1992) right against
grade, whileunreasonable
driving, was search stopped
and seizure by is the
No. 5: During the recent elections, checkpoints authorities
a restraint upon at the thegovernment.
checkpoint.It does Withoutnot any
were set up to enforce the election period ban apply so as
objection from to require
him, hisexclusion
car was inspected,
of evidenceand the
on firearms. search
which came yielded into marijuana
the possession leaves of thehidden in the
Government
trunk compartment throughofathe search
car. Themadeprohibited
by a private drug
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, B.
theItpolice
is inadmissible....
station 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, SUGGESTED
Search (2000) ANSWER:
No, the search
a) Crack officerswas of the notAnti-Narcotics
valid, because Unitthere
were was
was charged for violation of the firearms assigned
no probable on surveillance
cause for conducting
of the environs the search.
of a As
ban. Are the firearms admissible in held
cemetery in Almeda
where the Sanchezsale and vs. use
United States, 413
of dangerous
evidence against him? Explain. drugs266,
U.S. are while
rampant. a moving
A manvehicle
with reddishcan beand searched
If, upon further inspection by the police, prohibited without a warrant, there
glassy eyes was walking unsteadily moving must still be probable
drugs were found inside the various towardsInthem
cause. the casebut veered
in question,
away when there he was sensed
nothing
compartments of Antonio's car, can the drugs be to
theindicate
presence that marijuana leaves
of policemen. were hidden in
They approached
used in evidence against Antonio if he is him,trunk
the introduced
of thethemselves
car. The mere as policefact that
officersthe and
boy
prosecuted for possession of prohibited drugs? did
asked nothim objectwhat to he
thehad inspection
clenched of in
thehiscar does As
hand. not
Explain. he kept mum,
constitute consent
the policemen
to the search.
pried hisAs hand ruled
openin
SUGGESTED ANSWER: People
and found vs.a Burgos,
sachet of144 SCRA
shabu, 1, the failure
a dangerous drug. to
a) Yes, the firearms are admissible in evidence, Accordingly
object to a warrantless
charged in search court, the does accused
not constitute
because they were validly seized. In Valmonte consent,
objected to especially
the admission in the light of the fact.
in evidence 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 ALTERNATIVE
illegal search andANSWER: seizure. Rule on the objection.
set up to maintain peace and order for the benefit Yes.
(3%) b) TheWhatrequirement of probable
are the instances whencause differs
warrantless
of the public and checkpoints are a security from
searches casemay 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 SUGGESTED
smuggling ANSWER:
of prohibited drugs, existence of which
firearms was limited to a visual search of the car, a) The
is 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 a childrediseyes and wasit
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 of drug
neighborhood oraddicts,
village:the Thispolice officersishad
situation also
the decision in Magancia vs. Palacio, 80 Phil. sufficientto
similar reason to stop thesearches
warrantless accused and of to frisk
moving
770, they are admissible in evidence. him. Since
vehicles in shabu
customs wasarea,
actuallywhich found during the
searches have
investigation,
been upheld.it (Papacould 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 were of the Tariff and Customs Code which were
looking for him in connection with the rape of an violated by the importation.
18-year old girl, a neighbor. He went to the police
station a week later and presented himself to the The warrant was served and implemented in the
desk sergeant. Coincidentally. the rape victim afternoon of 2 January 1988 by Customs
was in the premises executing an extrajudicial policemen 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 lineup was signed by the Secretary of the Tikasan
and the girl pointed to him as the rapist. Johann Corporation. The following day, a hearing officer
was arrested and locked up in a cell. Johann was in the Office of the Collector of Customs
charged with rape in court but prior to conducted a hearing on the confiscation of the
arraignment invoked his right to preliminary equipment.
investigation. This was denied by the judge, and
thus, trial proceeded. After the prosecution Two days thereafter, the corporation filed with the
presented several witnesses, Johann through Supreme Court a petition for certiorari, prohibition
counsel, invoked the right to bail and filed a and mandamus to set aside the warrant, enjoin
motion therefor, which was denied outright by the the Collector and his agents from further
Judge. Johann now files a petition for certiorari proceeding with the forfeiture hearing and to
before the Court of Appeals arguing that: His secure 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 the authorized 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 a and 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, it For 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 (2) Whether or not Ferdie's act of filing his
1959. Said decision of the Tax Court was affirmed certificate of candidacy constitutes waiver of his
by the Supreme Court in 1969. Between 1960 status as a permanent resident of the United
and 1970, Enzo had acquired substantial real States.
property In the Philippines, SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(1) Has the action for cancellation of Enzo's 1) According to the ruling in Coast vs. Court of
citizenship prescribed? Appeals, 191 SCRA 229, a green card is proof
(2) Can Enzo ask for the denial of the petition on that the holder is a permanent resident of the
the ground that he had availed of the Tax United States, for it identifies the holder as a
Amnesty for his tax liabilities? resident of the United States and states that the
(3) What is the effect on the petition for holder is entitled to reside permanently and work
cancellation of Enzo's citizenship if Enzo died in the United States.
during the pendency of the hearing on said
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 of Under 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
administrative liabilities of Enzo. It did not obliterate In 1973, upon reaching the age of majority, "A"
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 of the 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 of the Philippines (Art. IV, sec. 1(3)). Under Art.
legislative Yuan after their naturalization as IV, sec, 2 he is also deemed a natural-born
citizens of the Philippines. The prohibition does citizen.
not apply in situations brought about by dual
citizenship, such as the one involved in the 2. The Constitution requires, among other things,
problem. Indeed, a Filipino woman can have dual that a candidate for member of the House of
allegiance resulting from her marriage to a Representatives must be at least 25 years of age
foreigner under Sec. 4, so long as she does not "on the day of the election." (Art. VI, sec. 6). As
do or omit to do an act amounting to renunciation Brown was born on May 15, 1962, he did not
under Commonwealth Act. No. 63, Sec. 1(2). become 25 years old until May 15, 1987. Hence
Under this law, express renunciation is different on May 11, 1987, when the election was held, he
from an act of allegiance to a foreign power as a was 4 days short of the required age.
ground for loss of Philippine citizenship.
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 either to change their citizenship or to acquire the
have to be defined by law pending adoption of status of an immigrant of another country "during
such legislation, objection based on dual their tenure" shall be dealt with by law (Art. XI,
allegiance will be premature. sec. 17). The provision cannot apply to Brown for
the following reasons: First, Brown is in addition
an American citizen and thus has a dual
Dual Allegiance vs. Dual Citizenship (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 district question 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: Dual Citizenship (1994)
No. 8: In 1989, Zeny Reyes married Ben Tulog, a
(1) He is not a natural born Filipino citizen, but is national of the State of Kongo. Under the laws of
in fact, an American, born in Hawaii, an integral Kongo, an alien woman marrying a Kongo national
portion of the U.S.A., who holds an American automatically acquires Kongo citizenship. After her
passport; marriage, Zeny resided in Kongo and acquired a
(2) He did not meet the age requirement; and Kongo passport. In 1991, Zeny returned to the
(3) He has a "green card" from the U.S. Philippines to run for Governor of Sorsogon.
Government.
(1) Was Zeny qualified to run for Governor?
Assume that you are a member of the House (2) Suppose instead of entering politics. Zeny
Electoral Tribunal where the petition for Brown's just got herself elected as vice-president of the
ouster is pending. How would you decide the Philippine Bulletin, a local newspaper. Was she
three issues raised against him? qualified to hold that position?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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 marriage met 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 is a who 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 for mainland China. Lily Teh, however, swore that she
Governor of Sorsogon, Zeny was no longer a was renouncing her Chinese allegiance and while
Philippine citizen and, hence, was disqualified for she 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 of the Explain.
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 Philippine citizen 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 the disqualifications 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 act or ruling 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 result marries a Filipino husband ipso facto becomes a
in loss of citizenship are enumerated in Filipino citizen without having to possess any of
Commonwealth Act No, 63. Zeny is not guilty of any the qualifications prescribed in Section 2 of the
of them. As held in Kawakita vs. United States, 343 Revised 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 both Section 4 of the same law. All of the grounds
countries and the use of a passport pertaining to invoked by the former girlfriend of Peter Go for
one country does not result in loss of citizenship in opposing 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 of SUGGESTED
not a ground for ANSWER:
disqualification under Section 4 of
vice-president of Philippine Bulletin. Under the 1) Under
the RevisedSection 4, Article Law.
Naturalization IV of the Constitution.
Constitution, "the ownership and management of Zeny 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 Effect of Oath ofPursuant
dual citizenship. Allegiance (2004) 40 (d) of the
to Section
associations wholly owned and managed by such LocalTCA,
(4-a) Government
a FilipinaCode,
medical
shetechnologist,
is disqualifiedleft
to in
run
citizens" (Section XI [1], Art. XVI), Being a non- for governor.
1975 to work Inin ZOZ
addition,
State.
if Zeny
In 1988
returned
she married
to the
Philippine citizen, Zeny can Philippines,
ODH, a citizen
lessofthan
ZOZ.a Pursuant
year immediately
to ZOZ'sbefore
law,
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. She citizen. 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 run of 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 of answer. (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 ZOZ The case should be decided in favor of A. As held
merely by virtue of her marriage, she also took In Bengson v. House of Representatives
an oath of allegiance to ZOZ. By this act, she lost Electoral 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 Filipino natural-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 by U.S. Marine Corps and took an oath of allegiance
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 citizenship Cruz was qualified to run as representative of the
by an act of Congress, Julian Hortal will not be a First 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 natural restored to his original status as a natural-born
born citizen by repatriating. He had to perform Filipino 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 2an 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. Commissioner Filipino parents and raised in the province of
of Immigration, 41 SCRA 292, under Section 15 of Nueva Ecija, ran for Governor of his home
the Revised Naturalization Law, a foreign woman province. He won and he was sworn into office. It
who marries a Filipino citizen becomes a Filipino was recently revealed, however, that Nicasio is a
citizen provided she possesses none of the naturalized American citizen. a) Does he still
disqualifications for naturalization. A foreign man possess Philippine citizenship? b) If the second-
who marries a Filipino citizen does not acquire placer in the gubernatorial
Philippine citizenship. However, under Section 3 elections files a quo warranto suit against
of the Revised Naturalization Act, in such a case Nicasio and he is found to be disqualified
the residence requirement for naturalization will be from office, can the second-placer be sworn
reduced from ten (10) to five (5) years. Under into office as governor? c) If, instead, Nicasio
Section 1(2), Article IV of the Constitution, the had been born (of the
children of an alien and a Filipino citizen are same 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 to b) 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 Bachelor would still be a citizen of the Philippines, since his
of Science in Commerce and eventually engaged parents 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 for and would possess dual citizenship, since under
was elected Representative (Congressman). His rival American Law persons born in the United States
candidate, Ramon Deloria, filed a quo warranto or are American citizens. As held in Aznor vs.
disqualification case against him on the ground that COMELEC. 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 from a Electing 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 not 1945. 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 the examinations and engaged in private practice for
Philippines on April 11, 1899, and continued to many years. The Judicial and Bar Council
reside in the Philippines. In accordance with nominated her as a candidate for the position of
Section 4 of the Philippine Bill of 1902, he was a Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. But her
Filipino citizen. Hence, in accordance with SUGGESTED
nomination ANSWER:
is being contested by Atty. Juris
Section 1(3} of the 1935 Constitution, Lacqui 1.) According
Castillo, also anto Section
aspirant4,
toArticle IV of the
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 is The 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 a a 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, Section 2 Constitution, 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 other hand, if the child was born after January 17,
a legitimate son of a Chinese father and a Filipino 1973, 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 he and 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 he is First District of Sorsogon. Juan Bonto who
not a Filipino citizen. He then filed with the Bureau received 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 of Representative 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 citizenship Article 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 Filipino relating to the election returns and
citizen when Atty. Chua was still a minor and disqualifications of members of the House of
thus, he was already a Filipino before the age of Representatives. [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 with Section 2, Article IV of the Constitution,
discretion)... which reads:
2. Andres Ang should be considered a natural Those who elect Philippine citizenship in
born citizen of the Philippines. He was born of a accordance with paragraph (3), Section 1
Filipino mother on January 20, 1973. This was hereof shall be deemed natural born citizens."
after the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution on
January 17, 1973. Under Section (1), Article III of 2) Ernest is not under-aged. (minimum 25
the 1973 Constitution, those whose fathers or yrs old)....
mothers are citizens of the Philippines are citizens
of the Philippines. Andres Ang remained a citizen Naturalization; Cancellation of Citizenship
of the Philippines after the effectivity of the 1987 (1998)
Constitution. Section 1, Article IV of the 1987 No X. - Lim Tong Biao, a Chinese citizen applied
Constitution provides: "The following are citizens for and was granted Philippine citizenship by the
of the Philippines: "(l) Those who are citizens of court. He took his oath as citizen of the Philippines
the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this to July 1963, in 1975, the Office of the Solicitor
Constitution;" 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, SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Ernest ran and won as a congressman. His 1. No, Lim Tong Biao cannot raise the defense of
opponent, noting Ernest's Chinese ancestry, filed a prescription. As held in Republic us. Go Bon Lee,
petition to disqualify the latter on the following 1 SCRA 1166, 1170, a decision granting
grounds; (1) Ernest Cheng is not a natural born citizenship is not res judicata and the right of the
Filipino; and (2) he is under-aged. Decide. government to ask for the cancellation of a
certificate cancellation is not barred by the lapse
SUGGESTED ANSWER: of time.
1) Ernest cannot be disqualified. Section 1, Article
IV of the Constitution provides: "The following are 2. The fact that Lim Tong Biao availed of the tax
citizens of the Philippines; XXX XXX XXX "(3) amnesty is not a valid defense to the cancellation
Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino of his Filipino citizenship. In Republic vs. Li Yao,
mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon 214 SCRA 748, 754, the Supreme Court held:
reaching the age of majority;" Ernest could elect
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


Having elected Philippine citizenship, Ernest is a decided? SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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
(2) Yes, Y is a Filipino citizen. More than that he character and irreproachable conduct which
is a natural born citizen of the Philippines are grounds for denaturalization,"
qualified to become a Senator. Since Y is an
illegitimate child of a Filipino mother, he follows Residency Requirements; Elective Official
the citizenship of his mother. He need not elect (Q9-2005)
Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of (1) In the May 8,1995 elections for local
majority as held In re Mallare. 59 SCRA 45. In officials whose terms were to commence on June
Osias v. Antonino, Electoral Case No. 11, August 30, 1995, Ricky filed on March 20, 1995 his
6, 1971, the Senate Electoral Tribunal held that certificate of candidacy for the Office of Governor
the illegitimate child of an alien father and a of Laguna. He won, but his qualifications as an
Filipino mother is a Filipino citizen and is qualified elected official was questioned. It is admitted that
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 the Filipino father and a Mexican mother. He returned
legitimate child of a Filipino mother. Under Article to the Philippines when he was twenty-six years
IV, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution, his mother of age, carrying an American passport and he
retained her Philippine citizenship despite her was registered as an alien with the Bureau of
marriage to an alien husband, and according to Immigration.
Article IV, Section 1(2) of the 1987 Constitution,
children born of a Filipino mother are Filipino Was 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
2By repatriation pursuant to Republic Act No. 8171; mother. Since the mother of X is a Mexican, he
and will be a Mexican citizen if he is an illegitimate
3By direct act of Congress (Section 2 of child, even if his father is a Filipino.
Commonwealth Act No. 63).
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 onby PAGCOR, notOtherwise,
Appointments, being made the
purpose is thus unconstitutional, and the fact that pursuant to an
Commission onappropriation
Appointmentsmade by law,
will have to be
the disbursement is made by resolution of a local violates the Constitution.
reorganized as 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
Delegation of Powers
how the (2002)
automatic appropriation of
sec. 5) of the Constitution. public
No funds
XVII. for debt that
- Suppose servicing can be
Congress reconciled
passed a law
with Article
creating a VI,Department
Section 29(1)of Human
of the Constitution.
Habitat and
Said provisionthe
authorizing says that "no moneySecretary
Department shall be paidto
Commission on Appointments (2002) out of the Treasury
promulgate implementingexceptrules
in pursuance
and regulations.
of an
No III - Suppose there are 202 members in the appropriation
Suppose further madethatby
thelaw".
law declared that violation
House of Representatives. Of this number, 185 SUGGESTED
of the implementingANSWER: rules and regulations so
belong to the Progressive Party of the Philippines As stated
issued in Guingona
would vs. Carague,
be punishable as a 196 crimeSCRA and
or PPP, while 17 belong to the Citizens Party or 221, the presidential
authorized 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 the Ifpublic
such violation. debtdefines
the law do not
regarding the representation of the House in the violate Section
certain acts as29(1), ArticleofVIthe
violations of the
lawConstitution.
and makes
Commission on Appointments? They provide
them punishable, for afor
continuing
example,appropriation, there
with imprisonment
is no
of constitutional
three (3) years or prohibition
a fine inagainst this. The
the amount of
A. A How many seats would the PPP be entitled presidential decrees
P10,000.00, appropriate
or both such as muchand
imprisonment money
fine,
to have in the Commission on Appointments? as the
in is needed
discretion to of
pay
thethe principal,
court, can it interest, taxes
be provided in
Explain your answer fully. (5%) and
the other normal
implementing banking
rules charges
and on the loan.
regulations
Although
promulgatedno specific
by the amounts
Department are mentioned,
Secretary that the
B. Suppose 15 of the CP representatives, while amounts are certain because
their violation will also be subject to the samethey can be
maintaining their party affiliation, entered into a computed from the books of the National
penalties as those provided in the law itself? Treasury.
political alliance with the PPP in order to form the Explain your answer fully. (5%)
"Rainbow Coalition'' in the House. What effect, if
any, would this VI
ARTICLE have Legislative
on the right of the CP to have SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a seat or seats in the Commission on Appropriation
The of Public
rules and regulations Funds; by
promulgated Public
the
Department
Appointments? Explain your answer fully. (5%) Purposes of
Secretary (1988)
Human Habitat cannot provide that
No. penalties
the 7: - Tawi-Tawi
for their isviolation
a predominantly
will be the Moslem
same
AppropriationANSWER:
SUGGESTED of Public Funds (1988) province. The Governor, the Vice-Governor,
as the penalties for the violation of the law. As and
No.The
A. 6: - 185
Metropolitan
membersnewspapers have reported
of the Progressive that
Party of members
held in United States v. Barrias, 11 Phil. 327all
of its Sangguniang Panlalawigan are
the Philippines
the Philippine Games
represent and Amusement
91.58 per cent of Corporation
the 202 Moslems.the
(1908), Its fixing
budgetofprovides the Governor
the penalty with a
for criminal
(PAGCOR)ofgives
members the hefty
House contributions to Malacanang,
of Representatives. In certain amount
offenses involves as the his discretionary
exercise funds.
of legislative
to fund "socioeconomic and civic
accordance with Article VI, Section 18 of the projects" of the Recently,
power andhowever,
cannot be the delegated.
Sangguniang ThePanlalawigan
law itself
President, The reports add that for
Constitution, it is entitled to have ten of the twelve1988 alone, passed
must a resolution
prescribe appropriating P100,000 as a
the penalty.
some
seats six hundred
in the million (P600M)
Commission pesos have
on Appointments. special discretionary fund of the Governor, to. be
already been earmarked for
Although the 185 members of Progressiveremittance to the
PartyOffice
of Delegation
spent by him of Powers;
in leading(Q6-2005)
a pilgrimage of his
of the President. PAGCOR
the Philippines represent had also been reported (2) Section 32 to
provincemates of Republic
Mecca, Saudi Act No. 4670 Islam's
Arabia, (The
to haveseats
10.98 funded, as Commission
in the coordinated by on aAppointments,
Congressman Magna Carta for Public School Teachers) reads:
holiest city.
from Mindanao, special projects
under the ruling in Guingona v. Gonzales, of quite a number214of
members of the House of Representatives.
SCRA 789 (1992), a fractional membership cannot Sec. 32. Penal Provision. — A person who shall
be rounded off to full membership because it will Philconsa,
willfully interfere
on constitutional
with, restrain
grounds, or hascoerce
filed any
result in over-representation of that political party teacher
suit in the
to nullify the exercise
resolutionofofhistherights guaranteed
Sangguniang
and under-representation of the other political Panlalawigan
by this Act giving
or who theshall
special
in any
discretionary
other manner
Assuming
parties. that money earned by PAGCOR from its commit
fund to theany act to for
Governor defeat any ofpurpose.
the stated the provisions
How
operations are public funds, are such contributions would
of this
youAct
decide
shall,the
upon
case?conviction,
Give yourbe reasons.
punished
to Malacañang
B. The and to formed
political alliance certain byCongressmen
the 15 and by a fine of not less than one hundred pesos nor
their expenditure as reported,
members of the Citizens Party with the legal? Cite SUGGESTED
more than ANSWER: one 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.
held in Cunanan Is the proviso
property, granting
directly the court
or indirectly, authority
for the use, to
benefit
certain
Tan, 5 SCRA 1 (1962), a temporary allianceVI, sec.
congressmen are Illegal. Under art. impose
or support a penalty or imprisonment
of any system of religion, in and,
its discretion
second,
29(1)
between no money can beofpaid
the members oneout of theparty
political Treasury
and constitutional?
it contravenes Explain briefly.
art. VI, sec, (4%)which limits the
25(6)
except
another political party does not authorizemade
in pursuance of an appropriation a by SUGGESTED
appropriation ofANSWER:
discretionary funds only for public
law. The disbursement
change in 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 indeterminable ITS v. Ang Tang Ho, G.R. No. L-17122, February
period of imprisonment, with neither a minimum 27, 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 of standard 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 thereof policy 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 courts a from 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 as G.R. 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 determine Judges of lower courts 3) Officers and
whether or not there is a valid delegation of employees 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 the Electoral 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 any No 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 Representatives For 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 agreement must be concurred in by at least two-
they belong. thirds of all the Members of the Senate.

Electoral Tribunal; Senate; Jurisdiction (1990) Section 4, Article XVIII of the Constitution
provides: "All existing treaties or international
No. 3: Y was elected Senator in the May 1987 agreements which have not been ratified shall not
national elections. He was born out of wedlock in be renewed or extended without the concurrence
1949 of an American father and a naturalized of at least two-thirds of all the Members of the
Filipina mother. Y never elected Philippine Senate.”
citizenship upon reaching the age of majority.
Before what body should T, the losing Investigations in Aid of Legislation (1992)
candidate, question the election of Y? No. 8: A case was filed before the Sandiganbayan
State the reasons for your answer. Is Y a regarding a questionable government transaction.
Filipino citizen? Explain your answer. In the course of the proceedings, newspapers
SUGGESTED ANSWER: linked the name of Senator J. de Leon to the
(1) T, the losing candidate, should question the scandal.
election of Y before the Senate Electoral Tribunal,
because the issue involved is the qualification of Senator de Leon took the floor of the Senate to
Y to be a Senator. Section 17, Article VI of the speak on a "matter of personal privilege" to
1987 Constitution provides that. The Senate and vindicate his honor against those "baseless and
the House of Representatives shall each-have an malicious" allegations. The matter was referred to
Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of the Committee on Accountability of Public
all contests relating to the election, returns, and Officers, which proceeded to conduct a legislative
qualifications of their respective Members." inquiry. The Committee asked Mr. Vince
Ledesma, a businessman linked to the transaction
and now a respondent before the Sandiganbayan,
(2) Yes, Y is a natural born Filipino citizen. .... 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 and Identify 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 in jurisdiction to entertain the case;
treaties, the President alone negotiates treaties 2Whether or not the Committee on Accountability
and Congress is powerless to intrude into this. of 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 of court; and
Representatives may pass a resolution 3Whether or not the petitioner can invoke his right
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 measure if the appropriation of public funds is
Officers has no power to investigate the scandal. not its principal purpose and the appropriation is
(no judicial functions)... only incidental to some other objective.

The petitioner can invoke his right against self- Law-Making; Appropriation Law; Automatic
incrimination, because this right is available in all Renewal & Power of Augmentation (1998)
proceedings. Since the petitioner is a respondent No XI. - Suppose the President submits a budget
in the case pending before the Sandiganbayan, which does not contain provisions for CDF
he may refuse to testify. (Countrywide Development Funds), popularly
known as the pork barrel, and because of this
Law Making; Process & Publication (1993) Congress does not pass the budget.
No. 2; Ernest Cheng, a businessman, has no
knowledge of legislative procedure. Cheng 1. Will that mean paralization of government
retains you as his legal adviser and asks operations in the next fiscal year for lack of an
enlightenment on the following matters: appropriation law? (2%)
(1) When does a bill become a law even without
the signature of the President? 2. Suppose in the same budget, there is a special
(2) When does the law take effect? 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
regulate public service companies and All these Issues were resolved in the case of
appropriating funds needed to establish it may Bengzon vs. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee,
originate from the Senate. It is not an 203 SCRA 767.
appropriation bill, because the appropriation of
public funds is not the principal purpose of the bill. The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the case
In Association of Small Landowners of the (determination of grave abuse of discretion)....
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 of the entered 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 the thirds of the Senate itself is required for the
executive branch, such right must and can be ratification 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 General provision stating that the President may not
Appropriations Law for Year 2002, in the portion increase 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 Course The House of Representatives chooses not to
(ROTC) in all colleges and universities is hereby override this veto. The Senate, however,
abolished, and in lieu thereof all male college proceeds 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 (1) SUGGESTED
viable? If so. ANSWER:
what is the vote
and Natural Resources in coordination with the 1. No, the failure of Congress to pass the
Department of Education, Culture and Sports and required
budget will to override
not paralyzethe veto? the b) Is option (2)
operations of the
the local government unit concerned. It further viable? If not. why not? If
Government.
provides that the same provision shall be Section
viable, 25(7),
how should Article theVI Court
of decide
the Constitution
the
incorporated In future General appropriations Acts. case?
provides:
SUGGESTED"If, by the end of any fiscal year, the
There is no specific item of appropriation of funds ANSWER:
Congress 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%) ofthe
Representatives,
general appropriations from which lawtheforAppropriations
the preceding
Act originated
fiscal year shall andbe to deemed
which thereenacted
Presidentand must shall
SUGGESTED ANSWER: have returned
remain the law,
in force andis effect
unwilling to override
until the
the general
The provision is unconstitutional, because it is a presidential
appropriations veto.billThere is, therefore,
is passed no basis for
by the Congress.
rider. Section 25(2), Article VI of the Constitution the Senate to even consider the possibility of
provides, "No provision or enactment shall be overriding the President's veto. Under the
SUGGESTED
embraced in the general appropriations bill unless it Constitution theANSWER:
vote of two-third of all the
2. Yes, the
relates specifically to some particular appropriation members of theprovision
House of authorizing
Representativesthe Chiefand of
therein." The abolition of the Reserve Officers the Staff, with voting
Senate, the approval
separately, of will
thebeSecretary
needed to of
National the
Training Course involves a policy matter. As held in override Defense, to use
presidential savings to cover the
veto.
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 be (b) It is not feasible to question the constitutionality
embodied in a separate law. Section
of the veto25(5],
before
Article
the VI Supreme
of the Constitution
Court. In Gonzales
provides:
vs. "No 191
Macaraig, law shall
SCRA be152,
passed authorizing
the Supreme any
Court
transferthe
upheld of appropriations;
constitutionalityhowever,of a similar theveto.
President,
Under
Law-Making; Foreign Affairs; Treaties (1996) the President
Article VI, Sec.of27(2)the Senate, the Speakeraofdistinct
of the Constitution, the
No 5: Are the following bills filed in Congress House
and of Representatives,
severable part of the Generalthe Chief Justice of the
Appropriations
constitutional? 2) A bill creating a joint Supreme
act may be Court, and theofheads
the subject of Constitutional
a separate veto.
legislative-executive commission to give, on Commissions
Moreover, the may,
vetoed byprovision
law, be authorized to
does not relate to
behalf of the Senate, its advice, consent and augment
any any item
particular in the
appropriation 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 or a Likewise, 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 the exercise 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 in 371. the Supreme Court ruled that the Provisional
any of the following cases: If it is signed into law Constitution 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 the 27, 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 by optional 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 wealth filed 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 that Yes, 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 issue such 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 to for 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 granted his office after the Cabinet, by a majority of vote of
before 2 February 1987, but was outstanding on its members, declared that he is unable to
that date with a remaining balance on the discharge the powers and duties of his office and
principal in the amount of P50,000.00, can the now within five days insists that the President is
PNB validly give Congressman X an extension of really 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 of President. (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) Non-Legislative Powers; Emergency Powers;


No XIV - Discuss the merits and demerits of the Requisites (1997)
multi-party system. (2%) No. 11: During a period of national emergency.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Congress may grant emergency powers to the
A multi-party system provides voters with a President, State the conditions under which such
greater choice of candidates, ideas, and platforms vesture is allowed.
instead of limiting their choice to two parties, SUGGESTED ANSWER:
whose ideas may be sterile. It also leaves room Under Section 23(2), Article VI of the Constitution.
for deserving candidates who are not acceptable Congress may grant the President emergency
to those who control the two dominant parties to powers subject to the following conditions:
seek public office.
(1) There is a war or other national emergency:
On the other hand, a multi-party system may (2) The grant of emergency powers must be for
make it difficult to obtain a stable and workable a limited period;
majority, since probably no party will get a (3) The grant of emergency powers is subject to
majority. Likewise, the opposition will be such restrictions as Congress may prescribe; and
weakened if there are several minority parties.
(4) The emergency powers must be exercised to
Non-Legislative Powers (1988) carry out a declared national policy.
No. 12: Legislative powers had been vested by
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 his should 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 disclosure Philippines (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 of status 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 district question 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 on December 16, 199C, he is not qualified to run for
May 9, 1965, he was over twenty-five years old on Congress.
the date of the May 11, 1993 election. (Election
was held on May 11, 1992). Section 6, Article VI of If he consulted me on December 16, 1991, I
the Constitution, requires congressmen to be at would inform him that he should elect Philippine
least twenty-five years of age on the day of the citizenship 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 December No. 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 mother Supreme Court? Why or why not?
did not acquire his father's citizenship. Victor SUGGESTED ANSWER:
consults you on December 21, 1993 and informs No. The Supreme Court is the highest arbiter of
you of his intention to run for Congress in the legal questions. (Javier v. Comelec, 144 SCRA
1995 elections. Is he qualified to run? What 194 (1986)) To allow review of its decision by the
advice would you give him? Would your answer other departments of government would upset the
be the same if he had seen and consulted you on classic pattern of separation of powers and
December 16, 1991 and informed you of his destroy 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 for completely 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 the enacted by them upon the argument that these
House of Representatives must be at least laws are violative of the Constitution, or are a
twenty-five (25) years of age on the day of the betrayal of public trust, or are unjust. So too,
election. Since he will be less than twenty-five should it be equally impermissible to make the
(25) years of age in 1995, Victor Ahmad is not individual 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
Philippine citizenship, if he has not yet done so, Qualifications;
before Congressmen;
the Ombudsman (1993)
charging the Justices
and to wait until the 1998 elections. No. 1:knowingly
with In 1964. Ruffa,
and adeliberately
Filipina domestic helperan
rendering
workingdecision
unjust in Hongkong,
in utterwent to Taipei
violation of theforpenal
a laws
My answer will be the same if he consulted me vacation,
of the land.where
Can shethemetOmbudsman
Cheng Sio Pao. whom
validly take
in 1991 and informed me of his desire to run in she married.ofUnder
cognizance Chinese
the case? Law, Ruffa
Explain.
the 1992 elections. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
automatically became a Chinese citizen. The
couple
No, theresided
Ombudsman
in Hongkong,
cannot entertain
where ontheMay 9,
SECOND ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: 1965, RuffaAs
complaint. gave
statedbirth
in to
thea case
boy named
of In re:Ernest.
Laureta.
C. Under Section 2, Article IV of the Constitution, UponSCRA
148 reaching
382 the
[1987],
age pursuant
of majority,
to the
Ernest
principle
elected
of
Victor Ahmad must have elected Philippine citizenship.
separation of powers, the 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 is be 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 shall the 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 Sections in 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 by appointment to a new position, A waived his right
law expand the list of public officials required to be to hold 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: Mayother
2Ambassadors, 3, 1991 and May
public 17, 1992
ministers and areconsuls; Director and Chief Superintendent of the PNP,
3OfficersSundays. However
of the armed the Committee
forces from thefinds
ranknoof colonel respectively. Their appointments were in a
or navalrelevance
captain; in the fact that these are holidays and permanent capacity. Without undergoing
therefore decided to ignore this fact.]
4Other officers whose appointments are vested in him confirmation by the Commission on Appointments,
by the Constitution;
Appointing Power; Ad Interim Appointments Matapang and Mahigpit took their oath of office and
5All
(1994)other officers of the government whose assumed their respective positions. Thereafter, the
appointments are not otherwise provided
No. 16; In December 1988, while Congress was in by law; and Department of Budget and Management authorized
6Those 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,
appointment as Brigadier General of the1998 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 by theinCommission
to be finished not moreonthan
Appointments are the
six months buthead 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 ambassadors,
that no one withother public ministers
appropriate eligibility and
can be
person who has not qualified in an appropriate consuls, officers
appointed of the any
to it. Hence, armed forces
other frommay
eligible thebe
examination but who otherwise meets the rank of
appointed to do such work in the meantime that a
requirements for appointment to a regular position colonel or
suitable naval does
eligible captain, and other
not qualify officials
for the position.
in the competitive service, whenever a vacancy whose appointments are
occurs and the filling thereof is necessary in the vested 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. Appointing
may Power;only
be extended Kindsto of Appointments
a person who has not
(1994) in an appropriate examination but who
qualified
When is anmeets
otherwise appointment in the civil for
the requirements service
appointment
Provisional appointments in general have already permanent?
to a regularDistinguish
position inbetween an
the competitive service,
been abolished by Republic Act 6040. However, it "appointment
meaning one in whoan must any way be a civil service
still applies with regard to teachers under the acting capacity" extended by a Department
eligible.
Magna Carta for Public School Teachers. Secretary from an ad interim appointment
extended
In the case byofthe President.appointment,
a temporary Distinguish between a
all that the
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: provisional
law enjoinsand is a that "preference in filling such
The case of Regis vs. Osmena, 197 SCRA 308, temporary
position beappointment.
given to persons SUGGESTED
on appropriate eligible
laid down the distinction between a provisional ANSWER:
lists." Merely1) Under
giving Section
preference 25(a)presupposes
of the Civil that
and a temporary appointment. Service
even Decree, an appointment
a non-eligible may be appointed. in the civil
Under the
service
law, is PERMANENT
even if the appointee when hasissued to a person
the required civil
A PROVISIONAL APPOINTMENT is extended to who meets
service all the his
eligibility, requirements
appointment foristhe
stillposition to
temporary
a person who has not qualified in an appropriate which he
simply is beingsuch
because appointed,
is the including
nature of the the work to
examination but who otherwise meets the appropriate
be done. eligibility prescribed, in accordance
requirements for appointment to a regular position with theNOTE: Since of
provisions provisional
law, rules appointments
and standards have
in the competitive service whenever a vacancy alreadyinbeen
promulgated abolished
pursuance examinees should be
thereof.
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; in an ACTING CAPACITY
Limitations on Presidential
On the other hand, a TEMPORARY extended by a Department
Appointments (1997) Secretary is not
APPOINTMENT given to a non-civil service permanent
No. 7: A monthbut temporary. Hence, the election,
before a forthcoming Department "A"
eligible is without a definite tenure and is Secretary may terminate the
one of the incumbent Commissioners services of theof the
dependent on the pleasure of the appointing appointee
COMELEC, at died
any time.
whileOn in the other
office andhand,
"B", an AD
another
power. INTERIM APPOINTMENT extended by
Commissioner, suffered a severe stroke. In view the
President is an appointment
of the proximity which isand
of the elections subject to
to avoid
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 and
was was notmade duringfor
running the 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 to fill issued to a person to a position needed only for a
acting Associate Commissioner during the
a position needed only for a limited period not limited 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 appointment
Did the President is one
do the rightissued
thing in to a person
extending
that "a vacancy occurs and the filling thereof is who
such ad interim appointment in favor toof
meets all the requirements for the position
(It isinsuggested
necessary that ifofthe
the interest theexaminee
servicefollowed the is
and there which he is being appointed exceptJustice
the D acting
classification in Sarmiento v. Mison, 156 SCRA 549 Commissioner C and designating
no appropriate
and named register
only of
foureligibles at the
categories, time of
because he the appropriate civil service
Commissioner of the COMELEC?eligibility because of the
appointment."
combined the first three categories into one, he be absence of appropriate
SUGGESTED ANSWER: eligibles and it is
given full credit.) necessary in the public
No. The President wasInterest
wrong to in fill the vacancy.
extending an ad
2.) According to Sarmiento v. Mison, 156 SCRA 549, the only interim appointment in favor of Commissioner C. In
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 prohibits November 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, it the 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 extended a does 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 by cannot 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 character said 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 No I -A What
7. crime committed
are the limitations/restrictions
during the state of
resolution, asked that the agreement be submitted calamity will
provided by be theconsidered
Constitution aggravated
on the under
powerArt.of
to it for ratification. The Secretary of Foreign 14, par. 7 of
Congress totheauthorize
Revisedthe Penal
President
Code. to fix tariff
Affairs advised the Secretary of Public Works and rates, import and export quotas, tonnage and
Highways not to comply with the request of the wharfage dues. Explain. (2%)
Senate. 2) Is the President bound to submit the Declaration; State
SUGGESTED ANSWER: of National Emergency (Q1-
agreement to the Senate for ratification? 2006)
According to Section 28(2), Article VI of the
2.
Constitution,
On February
Congress24, may,
2006,
by law,
President
authorize
Gloria
the
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Macapagal-Arroyo
President to fix withinissued Proclamation
specified No. subject
limits, and 1017
No, the President is not bound to submit the declaring
to such limitations
a state ofand national
restrictions
emergency.
it may impose,
Is this
agreement to the Senate for ratification. Under Proclamation
tariff constitutional?
rates, import and exportExplain.
quotas,(2.5%)
tonnage and
Section 20, Article VII of the Constitution, only the wharfage dues and other duties or imposts within
prior concurrence of the Monetary Board is SUGGESTED
the framework ANSWER:
of the national development
required for the President to contract foreign The proclamation
program is constitutional insofar as it
of the Government.
loans on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines. constitutes a call by the President for the AFP to
prevent or suppress lawless violence as this is
Martial
sustained Lawby& Section
Suspension 18, of Writ of
Article VII Habeas
of the
Enter into Contract or Guarantee Foreign Corpus (1987)
Constitution.
Loans (1999) No. XVII: One of the features of the government
No I - What are the restrictions prescribed by the However, PP
established under1017's
the 1987 provisions
Constitutiongiving
is thethe
Constitution on the power of the President to President express
restoration of theor principle
implied power (1) to issue
of checks and
contract or guarantee foreign loans on behalf of decrees; (2)
balances. This tois especially
direct the noteworthy
AFP to in enforce
the
the Republic of the Philippines? Explain. (2%) obedience to all lawspowers
Commander-in-Chief even thoseof the not President
related to
lawlesssubstantially
which violence asaffects well as decrees
what promulgated
was styled under
SUGGESTED ANSWER: by thepast
the President; and (3) toasimpose
dispensation the standards
"calibrated on
Under Section 20, Article VII of the Constitution, media or any
response" form ofemergencies,
to national prior restraint on the press,
the power of the President to contract or (a)
are Discuss
ultra vires fully and
the unconstitutional.
provisions of theLikewise,1987
guarantee loans on behalf of the Republic of the Constitution, giving the scope, limits
under Section 17, Article XII of the Constitution,and the role
Philippines is subject to the prior concurrence of of the principle of checks and balances
the President, in the absence of legislation, cannot on the
the Monetary Board and subject to such President's exercise of the power:
take over privately-owned public utilities and
limitations as may be prescribed by law. To suspend affected
businesses the privilege
with of
thethe writ of
public habeas(David
interest
corpus
v. Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396, May 3, 2006).
Enter into Executive Agreements (2003) Proclamation of martial law.
No XX - An Executive Agreement was executed
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 the The 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) from would 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
Impose Tariff Rates, Import and Export authorized the Secretary of Public Works and
Quotas (1999) Highways to negotiate and sign a loan agreement
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 a for a limited period and then the period of
check on Executive action in the form of judicial retention is limited to 3 days which may not really
review at the instance of any citizen. The be effective. On the other hand, public criticism of
Constitution embodies in this respect the ruling in the action may only erode the President's
Garcia v. Lansang, 42 SCRA 448 (1971) that the authority.
Court can determine the sufficiency of the factual 3) There is practically little difference, as far
basis of the proclamation of martial law or the as the ability of the President to meet an
suspension of the privilege or the extension emergency is concerned, between option 1, on
thereof not for the purpose of supplanting the the 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 duty following thought: "Government of limited power
of determining whether or not there has been need not be anemic government. Assurance that
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or rights are secure tends to diminish fear and
excess of jurisdiction on the part of the other jealousy of strong government, and, by making
branches of the government, in this case, the us 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 the No XVII. Declaring a rebellion, hostile groups
Constitution or supplant the courts and the have opened and maintained armed conflicts on
legislature. Neither can he authorize the trial of the Islands of Sulu and Basilan. a) To quell this,
civilians by military tribunals so long as courts are can 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 does b) What are the constitutional safeguards
not carry with it the suspension of the writ of on the exercise of the President's power to
habeas corpus, so that the decision on Aquino v. proclaim martial law?the
(b) Considering (2%) pressing problems of
Ponce Enrile, 59 SCRA 183 (1973) is now SUGGESTED
insurgency, rebel ANSWER:activities, liberation movements
overruled. Nor does the suspension of the writ a)
andIf public
terrorist safety requireswhich
violence, it, the in
President can
your considered
deprive courts of their power to admit persons to place
opinion Suluamong
and Basilan
the underoptions martial law since
available to the
bail, where proper. The Constitution thus there is an as
President actual rebellion. Under Section
Commander-in-Chief would18,be the
overrules the cases of Garcia-Padilla v. Ponce Article VII of theinConstitution,
most effective meeting thethe President can
emergencies by the
Enrile, 121 SCRA 472 (1983) and Morales v. place
nation? any part of the Philippines under martial
Explain.
Ponce Enrile. 121 SCRA 538 (1983). law in case of rebellion,
SUGGESTED ANSWER: when public safety
requires it.
(a) 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 constitutional
to several checkssafeguards
by
lawless violence, invasion or rebellion; (2) TO on the exercise
Congress and byofthetheSupreme
power of Court.
the President
The to
SUSPEND the privilege of the writ of habeas proclaim
Presidentmartial law: a)
is required There must
to report be actual
to Congress within
corpus or (3) TO PROCLAIM martial law. The last invasion
48 hours or hisrebellion;
action inb) The duration
declaring martial oflaw
the or
two options can be resorted to only in cases of proclamation
suspending the shall not of the writ, and Congress
privilege
invasion or rebellion when public safety requires is inexceed sixty days:
turn required to convene, if it is not in
either the supension of the privilege or the c)
session,Within
withinforty-eight hours, the
24 hours following thePresident
proclamation of martial law. shall report hisofaction
proclamation martialtolaw Congress. If Congress
or the suspension of
is
thenot in session,
privilege it must
without needconvene within
of any call, in twenty-
four hours; with its rules. The proclamation of
accordance
It is submitted that the most effective means of d)
martial law Congress may by majority
or suspension of the writ vote of all its for
is effective
meeting the current emergency which is brought members
60 days only, voting
butJointly
Congress revokecanthe
cutproclamation,
short its
about by rebellion, liberation and the President
effectivity by revoking cannotthe set 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 days and 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 decision by 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 Commission event, the determination of whether the rebellion
has recommended the grant of absolute and poses danger to public safety involves a question
unconditional amnesty to all rebels. There is the of fact and the Supreme Court is not a trier of
view that it is not necessary for the rebels to facts. 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 is rights which are legally demandable and
not a condition sine qua non for the availment of enforceable, 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, was the proclamation of martial law. Thus, in the
captured by policemen while about to board a matter of such declaration, two conditions must
passenger bus bound for Sorsogon. Charged concur: (1) there must be an actual invasion or
with rebellion he pleaded not guilty when rebellion; and (2) public safety must require it.
arraigned. Before trial he was granted absolute The Supreme Court cannot renege on its
pardon by the President to allow him to constitutional duty to determine whether or not
participate in the peace talks between the the 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 in criminal cases, it would have been unnecessary
absolute pardon by the President to allow him to 4. exclude
to No, the accused
impeachment
cannotcases
availfrom
of the
thisbenefits
scope. of
If
participate in the peace talks between the amnesty
the President
if he can
continues
grant pardons
to professin criminal
his innocence.
cases,
government and the communist rebels. with more
In Vera vs.reason he 7can
People, grant152.
SCRA executive
since amnesty
(1) Is the pardon of the President valid? clemency
presupposes in administrative
the commissioncases,of which are less
a crime. It is
Explain. serious.
inconsistent for an accused to seek forgiveness
(2) Assuming that the pardon is valid, can Lucas for something which he claims he has not
reject it? Explain. Pardoning
committed. Power; Executive Clemency (1999)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. The pardon is not valid. Under Section 19, A. What are the
Pardoning Power;constitutional
Breachlimitations
of Condition;
on the
Article VII of the 1987 Constitution, pardon may Revocation
pardoning (Q5-2005)
power of the President? (2%)
be granted only after conviction by final (1) Bruno still had several years to serve on his
Judgment. sentence
B. when between
Distinguish he was conditionally
pardon andpardoned amnesty.by
2. Yes, Lucas can reject the pardon As held in the President. Among the conditions imposed was
(2%)
United States vs. Wilson, 7 Pet. 150 and Burdick SUGGESTED
that he would ANSWER:"not again violate any of the penal
vs. United States, 274 U.S. 480. acceptance is A.
lawsThe following
of the are theBruno
Philippines." limitations on theall of the
accepted
essential to complete the pardon and the pardon pardoning
conditions powerand was of the President.
released. 1) It cannot
Shortly be
thereafter,
may be rejected by the person to whom it is granted
Bruno was in cases
charged of with 2 counts of estafa. He
tendered, for it may inflict consequences of impeachment;
was then incarcerated2) Reprieves, to commutations,
serve the i expired
greater disgrace than those from which it purports pardon,
portion of and his sentence following the revocation by
to relieve. remissionof
the President ofthe
fines and forfeitures can be
pardon.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: granted only after conviction by final
No, Lucas cannot reject the pardon. According to judgment.
Biddle vs. Perovich, 274 U.S. 480, acceptance is 3) The favorable recommendation of the
not necessary, for the grant of pardon involves a Bruno's is
COMELEC family filed for
required a petition
violationforof habeas
election
determination by the President that public welfare laws,corpus,
rules andalleging that it was error to have him
regulations.
will be better served by inflicting less than what recommitted as the charges were false, in
the judgment fixed. fact, half of
B. According to them were already
Barrioquinto dismissed.
v. Fernandez, 82
Phil.Resolve
642, the petitionfollowing witharereasons.
the (4%)
distinctions
SUGGESTED
between pardon ANSWER:
and amnesty.
Pardoning Power; Executive Clemency (1997) The petition
1Pardon is a should
private notact beandgiven
mustdue course. and
be pleaded The
grant ofby pardon
proved the person andpardoned;
the determination
while amnesty of the
is
No. 15; Governor A was charged administratively terms
a publicand
actconditions
of which courts of a conditional
take judicialpardon
notice; are
with oppression and was placed under preventive PURELY does
2Pardon EXECUTIVE
not require ACTS the concurrence
which are of not
suspension from office during the pendency of his subject towhile
Congress, judicial
amnesty scrutiny.
requires The
the acceptance
case. Found guilty of the charge, the President concurrence
thereof by the of Congress;
convict or prisoner carried with it
suspended him from office for ninety days. Later, 3Pardon
the authorityis granted to individuals,
or power of thewhile amnesty to
Executive
the President granted him clemency by reducing is granted to
determine classes
whether a of personsororconditions
condition communities;of the
the period of his suspension to the period he has 4Pardon
pardon has mayor be have
granted for any
been offense,
violated. while the
Where
already served. The Vice Governor questioned the amnesty
Presidentisopts granted for political
to revoke the offenses;
conditional pardon
validity of the exercise of executive clemency on 5Pardon
given, nois judicial
granted pronouncement
after final conviction, whileof a
of guilt
the ground that it could be granted only in criminal, amnesty
subsequent may crime
be granted at any time; and
is necessary, much less
not administrative, cases. How should the question 6Pardon
convictionlooks forward
therefor and judgment
by final relieves the of offender
a court, in
be resolved? from
orderthethatconsequences
a convict mayofbe hisrecommended
offense, whilefor the
amnesty
violation looks of backward and the person
his conditional granted
pardon. Theit
SUGGESTED ANSWER: stands before the
determination of thelawoccurrence
as though he of had
a breach of a
The argument of the Vice Governor should be committed
condition no of offense.
a pardon, and the proper
rejected. As held in Llamas vs. Orbos, 202 SCRA consequences of such breach, is a purely
844. the power of executive clemency extends to executive act, not subject to judicial scrutiny.
administrative cases. In granting the power of (Torres v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 76872, July 23,
executive clemency upon the President, Section 1987)
19, Article VII of the Constitution does not
SUGGESTED
distinguish ANSWER:
between criminal and administrative Pardoning Power; Exec Clemency; Pardon
3. The Section
cases. President19,may grant
Article VIIthe accused
of the amnesty.
Constitution (1995)
Accordingimpeachment
excludes to Barrioquinto vs. Fernandez,
cases, which are not 82 Phil. No. 5: Lucas, a ranking member of the NDF, was
642, Amnesty
criminal cases,may
from be
thegranted
scope ofbefore or after
the power of the captured by policemen while about to board a
institution of
executive clemency.
the criminal
If this
prosecution.
power may be passenger bus bound for Sorsogon. Charged
exercised only with rebellion he pleaded not guilty
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 as Secretary
No. 7: Can the ofPresident
Trade andtake Industry.
activeThe partprovision
in the
positions? (3%) b) the issue on the payment of of Art, VII, process?
legislative Sec, 13, prohibiting
Explain. Cabinet members
additional or double compensation?(2%) Explain SUGGESTED
from holding any ANSWER:
other office or employment, is
your answers fully. Yes, The
subject toPresident
the exceptions can take in Art.
active
IX, B,part
Sec.
in the
7.
legislative process to the extent allowed by the
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Constitution. He can address Congress at any
(a) If I were the judge, I would uphold the validity b.
timeDean
to proposeSinco the believes
enactmentthat members
of certain laws. of
of the designation of Secretary M as ex officio Congress
He recommends cannotthe begeneral
members of the Board
appropriations bill. of
member of the Monetary Board, As stated in Civil Regents
He can call of the University
a special session of the Philippinesatunder
of Congress any
Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary, 194 SCRA the
time. He Incompatibility
can certify to the Clause
necessity of of the 1935
317 (1991), the prohibition against the holding of Constitution
immediate enactment which is of similar
a bill toto meet
the provision
a public of
multiple positions by Cabinet Members in Article Art. VI, Sec.
calamity 13 of the present
or emergency. He canConstitution.
veto a bill. Under
VII, Section 13 of the Constitution does not apply this view, the membership of the Chairman of the
to positions occupied in an ex officio capacity as Presidential
Senate Immunity
Committee from Suit
on Trade and (1997)
Industry in the
provided by law and as required by the primary No. 13: Upon
Export Control complaint
Board of cannot
the incumbentbe sustained.
functions of their office. PresidentPhilippine
(Sinco, of the Republic, Political"A" Law
was charged
136 (llth withEd.
libel before the Regional Trial Court. "A" moved
1962).
to dismiss the information on the ground that the
(b) If I were Power;
Pardoning the Judge, Pardon,
I would Conditional
rule that Secretary
(1997) Moreover,
Court had no since the apparent
jurisdiction over the justification
offense for the
M cannot receive any additional compensation. membership
charged because of the President,
Chairman being of the immuneSenate
No.stated
As 16; A in while
Civilserving
Liberties imprisonment
Union v. Executive
for estafa. Committee
from suit, should is to alsoaid him in hisfrom
be disqualified legislative
filing a
Secretary, 194 SCRA 317
upon recommendation of the(1991),
Boarda of Cabinet
Pardons functions,
case against this"A"purpose
in court.can easily
Resolve thebe achieved
motion.
Member
and Parole, holding an ex-officio
was granted pardonposition
by thehas no
President through legislative investigations under Art. VI,
right to receive
on condition thatadditional
he should compensation,
not again violate for his
any SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Sec.21.
services
penal lawinofthat theposition
land. Later, are already
the Board paidof for by
Pardons The motion should be denied according to
the
andcompensation
Parole recommended attachedtotothe hisPresident
principal office.
the Soliven
On the us.other
Makasiar,
hand, 167 DeanSCRA Cortes
393, theappears to
cancellation of the pardon granted him because A suggest
immunity aof contrary
the President view,from noting
suit isthat after the
personal to
had been charged with estafa on 20 counts and the President.
decision in Government
It may be invoked of the Philippine
by the President
Islands
Prohibition
was convictedagainst of the offense Multiple
charged Positions
although by he v.
onlySpringer
and not50 by Phil.
any other259 (1927),
person. in validating the
Gov’t Officials (1987)
took an appeal therefrom which was still pending. law designating the Senate President and
No. I: Assume that
As recommended, the a law hascanceled
President been passed
the Prohibition
Speaker as Against membersMultiple of the BoardPositions &
of Control of
creating the Export Control Board
pardon he had granted to A. A was thus arrested composed of: Additional Compensation (2002)
government corporations, no other decision has
The Secretary of Trade and
and imprisoned to serve the balance of his Industry as Chairman No
been VI.rendered.
M is the Secretary of the Department
On the contrary, laws have of been
and as Members:
sentence in the first case. A claimed in his petition Finance. He is also an ex-officio
enacted, making members of Congress members member of the
forThe Chairman
habeas corpus offiled
the Senate
in courtCommittee on Trade
that his detention Monetary
of various Board
boards. of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas
and Industry
was illegal because he had not yet been convicted from which he receives an additional
byAn Associate
final judgment Justice
and was of the
notSupreme Court to
given a chance compensation for every Board meeting attended.
bedesignated
heard before by the
he was Chief Justice
recommitted to prison. Is Indeed, the membership of the Chairman of the
The
A's Commissioner
argument valid? of Customs, and Senate Committee on Trade and Industry may be
The President of the Philippine Chamber of N, a taxpayer,
upheld as being filedin aaid
suitofinhiscourt to declare
legislative functions
Commerce and Industry, Secretary
since whatM's membership
is prohibited by in theVI,
Art. Monetary
Sec. 13Board is the
SUGGESTED ANSWER: and his receiptofof additional
acceptance an incompatiblecompensation illegalor
office
The argument
National of Constitutional
A is not valid.Association
As held in Torresof the and in violation in
employment of thethe Constitution.
government. N invoked (Cortes,
vs. Gonzales.has
Philippines 152 SCRA
filed suit 272 atojudicial
challenge the Article VII, Presidency,
Philippine Section 13 of pp.the Constitution which
111112(1966))
pronouncement of
constitutionality thatthea law.
convict who was granted a provides that the President, Vice-President, the
pardon subject to the condition that he should not Members of the Cabinet, and their deputies or
Determine
again violate whether
any penal thelaw membership of each of
is not necessary (c) The designation
assistants shall not, of an Associate
unless otherwiseJusticeprovided of in
the
beforeabove
he can in bethedeclared
Board to can
havebeviolated
upheld.the Cite the Supreme
Constitution, Court hold cannot
any otherbe sustained
office or being
relevant
conditionconstitutional
of his pardon.provisions.
Moreover, a hearing is the impositionduring
employment on thetheirmembers
tenure.ofNthe alsoCourt,
cited of Article
SUGGESTED
not necessary before ANSWER: A can be recommitted to non-judicial
IX-B, Sectionduties, 8 of the contrary to the principle
Constitution, of
which provides
a. The chairmanship
prison. By accepting the of the Secretarypardon,
conditional of Trade A, separation
that no electiveof powers. It is judicial
or appointive public power
officerandor
and
agreedIndustry
that thein the Board can by
determination be the
upheld on the
President judicial
employee power
shallonly which
receive the Supreme
additional, double,Courtor and
basis
that heofviolated
Art. IX, the
B, Sec. 7, which
condition allows
of his pardon shall its members
indirect may exercise.
compensation, unless(Artspecifically
VIII. Sec. 1;
appointive
be conclusive officials
upontohim hold andother officesforif his
an order allowed Manila
authorizedElectric
by law.Co.Ifv.you PasaywereTrans. Co., 57
the judge, how Phil.
by lawshould
arrest (such as the law
at once in this case creating the
issue. 600
would (1932))
you decide the following:
Export Control Board) or justified by the primary
President;
functions of Participation;
their offices. The Legislative
functions Process
of the (d) The Commissioner of Customs may be made
(1996) is related to his functions
Board member of the Board for the same
reason in the case of the Secretary of Trade and (4) Cases heard by a division when the
Industry, under Art. IX, B, Sec. 7. required majority is not obtained;
(5) Cases where a doctrine or principle of law
(e) The membership of the President of the
previously laid down will be modified or reversed;
Philippine Chamber of Commerce may also be
upheld on the ground that Congress has the
power to prescribe qualifications for the office. (6) Administrative cases against judges when
the penalty is dismissal; and
Suspension of Writ of Habeas Corpus (1997)
(7) Election contests for President or Vice-
(a) When may the privilege of the writ of habeas
President.
corpus be suspended?
(b) If validly declared, what would be the full
consequences of such suspension?
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 the or 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 Constitutional
continuing Powers (1996)Convention. The criticism
(HLURB) which is vested with original and No.based
is 3: 2) Onon the
the first day of thethat
assumption trialinofexercising
a rape- its
exclusive Jurisdiction over cases involving the murderofcase
power where
judicial the victim
review was a popular
the Supreme Court TV Is not
real estate business. Rico prays for the dismissal star, over
merely a hundredthe
interpreting of her fans rallied
Constitution butatisthe
trying to
of the complaint and for the nullity of the decision. entrance the
remake of theGovernment
courthouse, on eachthe carrying
basisa of the
The realty firm opposes the motion arguing that placard demanding
personal predilections the conviction
of the Members of the accusedof the
under BP 129, RTCs have exclusive and original and the imposition
Supreme Court, this of theis deatha powerpenalty thaton properly
him.
jurisdiction over cases in which the amount of The rally was
belongs to peaceful
the people and didand not disturb
their the elected
controversy exceeds P20,000.00. Answer the proceedings of the case. a) Can the trial court
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
beingSupreme
punishedCourt cannot decide
for contempt of court,casesif theymerely
fail to
become final and executory, can it still be on the basis
do so? Explain. of the
b) letter of the
If instead of Constitution.
a rally, the fans It has
of
vacated? to
theinterpret
victim wrote the letters
Constitution
to the to give effect
newspaper to the
editors
SUGGESTED ANSWER: intent
demanding of its the
framers and ofofthe
conviction thepeople
accused, adopting
can the it.
1} The HLURB 2) Yes, the decision of the In Interpreting the Constitution,
trial court punish them for contempt? Explain. the Supreme
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 SUGGESTED
Court strikes down ANSWER: an act of the Legislative or the
case, the decision is void. 2. a) Yes, the
Executive Department,trial court itcan order the
is merely dispersal of
discharging its
the rally under pain of being
duty under the Constitution to determine cited for contempt.
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 ALTERNATIVE
vs. Flores, 239 SCRA ANSWER: 83, any conduct by any
of the Constitution that the judiciary shall enjoy To
partya which
certaintends extent, the or
to directly Supreme
indirectlyCourt Impede, is a
fiscal autonomy? Cite the constitutional provisions continuing
obstruct or degradeConstitutional Convention.
the administration When isa
of justice
calculated to bring about the realization of the said case
subject is to
brought in courtpowers
the contempt involving of thea constitutional
court.
constitutional mandate. (2%) issue. It becomes necessary to interpret the
Constitution, Since the Supreme Court is supreme
SUGGESTED ANSWER: b) No, the
within its trial
owncourt cannot
sphere, itspunish for contempt
interpretation of the
Under Section 3, Article VIII of the Constitution, the fans of the
Constitution willvictim
form who part of wrote
the letters
law 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 the Judge of
Issuance andRestraining
the publication Orders
of the andletters
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 in the absenceis considering
of a clearnew andmeasures
present to
released. encourage
danger to theforeign administrationcorporations
of Justice. to In bring their
investments
Cabansag vs. to the Philippines.
Fernandez, 102 Phil 152, Congress
it was has
In Bengzon v. Drilon, 208 SCRA 133, the found
held that thata foreign
party who investments
wrote to the arePresidential
deterred by the
Supreme Court explained that fiscal autonomy uncertain
Complaintsinvestment
and Action climate Committee in tothecomplain
Philippines.
contemplates a guarantee of full flexibility to One
aboutsource
the delay of such
in theuncertainty
disposition is the case
of his heightened
allocate and utilize resources with the wisdom and judicial
could not intervention
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 Finality of Void
administrative agency
Judgmentsshall issue(1993) any restraining
and pay order or injunction against the
Central Bank" in the Bank's exercise of its 1The Secretary of Justice as ex officio member;
regulatory power over specific foreign exchange 2A representative of Congress as ex officio
transactions. member;
3A representative of the Integrated Bar;
Would this be a valid measure? Explain. 4A professor of law;
SUGGESTED ANSWER: 5A retired Justice of the Supreme Court; and
Yes, the measure is valid. In Mantruste Systems, 6A representative of the private sector. (Section 8
Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 179 SCRA 136, the (1), Article VIII of the Constitution)
Supreme Court held that a law prohibiting the
issuance of an injunction is valid, because under
Section 2, Article VIII of the Constitution, the The term of office of the regular members is four
jurisdiction of the courts may be defined by law. (4) years. (Section 8(2), Article VIII of the
Constitution)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Since under Sections 1 and 5(2), Article VIII of Judicial Department; Writ of Amparo (1991)
the Constitution, the courts are given the power No 1: What is a Constitutional writ of Amparo
of Judicial review, the measure is void, Such and what is the basis for such a remedy under
power must be preserved. The issuance of the Constitution?
restraining orders and Injunctions is in aid of the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
power of judicial review. The writ of Amparo in Mexican law is an
extraordinary remedy whereby an interested party
Judicial & Bar Council (1988) may seek the invalidation of any executive,
No. 11: A novel feature of the present Constitution legislative or judicial act deemed in violation of a
is the Judicial and Bar Council. Please state: fundamental right. The adoption of such a remedy
in the Philippines may be based on Article VIII,
1. Its principal function; Sec. 5(5) of the Constitution, which empowers the
2. Its composition; and Supreme Court to promulgate rules concerning
3. Who supervises it, and takes care of its the protection and enforcement of constitutional
appropriations? rights.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. The Judicial and Bar Council has the principal Judicial Independence; Safeguard (2000)
function of recommending appointees to the No I. Name at least three constitutional
Judiciary. It may exercise such other functions safeguards to maintain judicial independence.
and duties as the Supreme Court may assign to (3%)
it. (Art. VIII, sec. 8(5)). SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The following are the constitutional safeguards
2. The JBC is composed of the Chief Justice as to maintain judicial independence:
ex officio Chairman, the Secretary of Justice and
(1) The Supreme Court is a constitutional
a representative of the Congress as ex officio
body and cannot be abolished by mere
Members, a representative of the Integrated Bar,
legislation.
a professor of law, a retired Member of the
Supreme Court, and a representative of the (2) The members of the Supreme Court
private sector. (Art. VIII, sec. 8(1)). cannot be removed except by impeachment.

(3) The Supreme Court cannot be deprived


3, The Supreme Court supervises the JBC and
of its minimum jurisdiction prescribed in Section
provides in the annual budget of the Court the
5, Article X of the Constitution.
appropriations of the JBC. (Art. VIII, sec. 8(4)).
(4) The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme
Judicial & Bar Council (1999) Court cannot be increased by law without its
No XI - What is the composition of the Judicial advice and concurrence.
and Bar Council and the term of office of its
(5) Appointees to the Judiciary are nominated
regular members? (2%)
by the Judicial and Bar Council and are not subject
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
to confirmation by the Commission on
The Judicial and Bar Council is composed of the
Appointments.
following:
1. The Chief Justice as ex officio chairman;
(6) The Supreme Court has administrative Senator de Leon took the floor of the Senate to
supervision over all lower courts and their speak on a "matter of personal privilege" to
personnel. vindicate his honor against those "baseless and
malicious" allegations. The matter was referred to
(7) The Supreme Court has exclusive power
the Committee on Accountability of Public
to discipline Judges of lower courts.
Officers, which proceeded to conduct a legislative
inquiry. The Committee asked Mr. Vince
(8) The Members of the Judiciary have Ledesma, a businessman linked to the transaction
security of tenure, which cannot be undermined and now a respondent before the Sandiganbayan,
by a law reorganizing the Judiciary. to appear and to testify before the Committee.

(9) Members of the Judiciary cannot be


Mr Ledesma refuses to appear and file suit before
designated to any agency performing quasi-
the Supreme Court to challenge the legality of the
Judicial or administrative functions.
proceedings before the Committee. He also asks
whether the Committee had the power to require
(10) The salaries of Members of the Judiciary him to testify. Identify the issues Involved and
cannot be decreased during their continuance in resolve them.
office.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(11) The Judiciary has fiscal
The issues involved in this case are the following:
autonomy.
(12) The Supreme Court has exclusive power
to promulgate rules of pleading, practice and 1Whether or not the Supreme Court has
procedure. jurisdiction to entertain the case;
2Whether or not the Committee on Accountability
(13) Only the Supreme Court can temporarily
of Public Officers has the power to investigate a
assign judges to other stations.
matter which is involved in a case pending in
court; and
(14) It is the Supreme Court who appoints all 3Whether or not the petitioner can invoke his right
officials and employees of the Judiciary. (Cruz, against self-incrimination.
Philippine Political Law, 1995 ed. (pp. 229-31.)

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%]
2Whether Ang is a natural bom citizen of

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


decided? SUGGESTED ANSWER:

1. The case is justiciable. As stated In Lazatin All these Issues were resolved in the case of
vs. House Electoral Tribunal 168 SCRA 391, 404, Bengzon vs. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee,
since judicial power includes the duty to 203 SCRA 767.
determine whether or not there has been a grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the
of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or case, because it involves the question of whether
instrumentality of the Government, the Supreme or not the Committee on Accountability of Public
Court has the power to review the decisions of Officers has the power to conduct the
the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal investigation. Under Section 1, Article VIII of the
in case of grave Abuse of discretion on its part. Constitution, judicial power includes the duty of
the courts to determine whether or not any branch
2. Andres Ang should be considered a natural of the government is acting with grave of abuse of
born citizen of the Philippines. .... discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. The
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) the power plant,
amounting to lackbecause
or excess no of
public
jurisdiction
funds will
on be the
No. 6: The Philippine Environmentalists' part offor
spent any itsbranch
operation.
or instrumentality
As held in Gonzales
of the vs.
Organization for Nature, a duly recognized non- Government.
Marcos, 65 SCRA As held624,in aMarcos
taxpayer us.has
Manglapus,
no
governmental organization, intends to file suit to 177 SCRA
standing to 668.
file athis
case provision
if no expenditure
limits resort of public
to the
enjoin the Philippine Government from allocating political
funds is question
involved.doctrine and broadens the scope
funds to operate a power plant at Mount Tuba In a of juridical inquiry into areas which the courts
southern island. They claim that there was no Since
under the no 1935
member and theor 1973
officer of the Philippine
Constitutions would
consultation with the Indigenous cultural Environmentalists'
normally have left toOrganization belongs to tothe
the political departments
community which will be displaced from ancestral decide. indigenous community, none of the rights
affected
lands essential to their livelihood and ALTERNATIVE
of the PhilippineANSWER: Environmentalists' Organization
indispensable to their religious practices. Under
and of the 1935 and
its officers and 1973membersConstitutions,
are affected. there
In
was no provision
accordance with thedefining
ruling the scope of
in National judicial
Economic
The organization is based in Makati. All its officers liveProtectionism
power as vested in the vs.
Association judiciary.
Ongpin, While
171 SCRAthese
and work in Makati. Not one of its officers or members657,Constitutions, both provided
the organization has noforstanding
vesture of to judicial
file the
belong to the affected indigenous cultural community. case.
power "in one Supreme Court and in such inferior
Do they have the standing in this dispute? Explain. courts as may be established by law," they were
Would your answer be different if the Philippine PowerJudicial
silent as toReview;
the scope Requisites (1994)
of such power.
Corporation, a private company, were to operate the No. 2: 2) Assume that the constitutional question
plant? Explain. raised in a petition before the Supreme Court is
The Iis
the 1987motaConstitution,
of the case,ongive theatother
least hand,
two otherre-
wrote the provisions
requirements before the on theCourtvesture of judicial
will exercise its
SUGGESTED ANSWER: power of originally
judicial appearing
review? in the 1935 and 1973
a) Under Section 5, Article XII of the Constitution, SUGGESTED
Constitutions, as ANSWER:
follows:
the State should protect the rights of cultural 2) "The
According
judicialtopower
Macasiano
shall bevs.vested
National
in oneHousing
Indigenous communities to their ancestral lands to Authority,
Supreme224 CourtSCRA
and in236,such lower
in addition
courts as to the
ensure their well-being. Under Section 17, Article may be established
requirement by law.
that the constitutional question raised
XIV of the Constitution, the State should protect be the lis mota of the case, the following
the rights of indigenous cultural communities to "Judicialmust
requisites power beincludes
present the dutyexercise
for the of the courts
of the
preserve and develop this cultures, traditions, and of of
power justice
judicialtoreview:
settle actual controversies
institutions and should consider these rights in the Involving rights which are legally demandable
1There must be an actual case or controversy
formulation of national plans and policies. The and enforceable, and to determine whether or
involving a conflict of legal rights susceptible of
government violated these provisions, because it not there has been a grave abuse of discretion
Judicial determination;
decided to operate the power plant without amounting to lack or excess of Jurisdiction on
2The constitutional question must be raised by the
consulting the indigenous cultural community and the part of any branch or instrumentality of the
proper party; and
the operation of the power plant will result in its Government." (Sec. 1. Art. VIII)
3The 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
If the projected lawsuit will be based on violation contains a new definition of judicial power
of the rights of the indigenous cultural particularly the scope thereof. The first portion
communities, the Philippine Environmentalists thereof represents the traditional concept of
Organization will have no standing to file the Judicial power, involving the settlement of
case. None of its officers and members belong to conflicting rights as by law, which presumably was
the indigenous cultural community. None of their implicit in the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions. The
Judicial
rights arePower;
affected. Scope (1994) second (latter) portion of the definition represents a
No. 2: 1} What is the difference, if any. between broadening of the scope of judicial power or, in the
If
thethescope
lawsuitofwill seek topower
Judicial enjoinunder
the use theof 1987
public language of the Supreme Court, conferment of
funds to operate
Constitution on onethe hand,
power andplant,the
the1935Philippine
and "expanded Jurisdiction" on the Judiciary (Daza v.
Environmentalists'
1973 Constitutions onOrganization
the other? can file a Singson, 180 SCRA 496) to enable the courts to
SUGGESTED
taxpayer's suit.ANSWER:
As held in Maceda us. Macaraig, review the exercise of discretion by the political
The scope
197 SCRAof 771,judiciala power
taxpayerunderhas
the standing
1987 to departments of government. This new prerogative
Constitution
question the is broader
illegal than its scope
expenditure under
of public the
funds. of the judiciary as now recognized under the 1987
1935 and 1973 Constitution because of the Constitution was not constitutionally permissible
second paragraph of Section 1, Article VIII of the under the 1935 and 1973 Charters.
1987
b) TheConstitution,
Philippine Environmentalists
which states that Organization
it includes
the duty
will havetonodetermine
standing to whether
file theorcase
not ifthere
it is a
has
been a company
private grave abuse thatofwill
discretion
operate
motion arguing that under BP 129, RTCs have within three months (Art. X, Sec. 11). In Marcelino
exclusive and original jurisdiction over cases in vs. Cruz, 121 SCRA 51 (1983) it was held that
which the amount of controversy exceeds the periods prescribed are only directory, not
P20,000.00. Answer the following queries: mandatory.
(1) Who has jurisdiction over the collection suit?
Political Question (1995)
(2) The RTC decision, having become final and No. 13: Judicial power as defined in Sec. 1, 2nd
executory, can it still be vacated? 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 Investors controversies 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 is whether or not there has been a grave abuse of
the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board discretion amounting to lack of excess of
which has jurisdiction over the claim of a jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
developer against a buyer for the payment of the instrumentality of the Government. "This definition
balance of the purchase price of a lot. The is said to have expanded the power of the
jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court over cases judiciary to include political questions formerly
in which the amount of controversy exceeds beyond 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 or constitutional 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 SUGGESTED ANSWER:
lapse of 90 days, the court had lost jurisdiction to 1. Yes, the second paragraph of Section 1, Article
decide the case. Should the motion be granted? VIII of the 1987 Constitution has expanded
the power of the Judiciary to include political
SUGGESTED ANSWER: questions. This was not found in the 1935 and
No, the motion should not be granted. Section 15 the 1973 Constitution, Precisely, the framers
(4), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution provides: of the 1987 constitution intended to widen the
scope of judicial review.
"Despite the expiration of the applicable Jurisdiction
2. As pointed of outHLURB
in Marcos (1993)
vs. Manglapus, 177
mandatory period, the court, without prejudice No. SCRA
8; The668,ABC so asRealty,
not toInc, filed aentirely
disregard complaint
the
to such responsibility as may have been against Rico
political for doctrine,
question the collection
the extent of of unpaid
incurred in consequence thereof, shall decide installments on a subdivision
judicial review when political lot purchased
questions are by the
or resolve the case or matter submitted latter, Rico failed
involved should to be
filelimited
an answer, was declared
to a determination
thereto for determination, without further in ofdefault;
whetherand or not after
therereception
has been aofgrave plaintiffs
delay." evidence
abuse of exdiscretion
parte, amounting
judgment to was lackrendered
or
against
excess
him.ofThe
jurisdiction
decisionon became
the partfinal,
of the andofficial
upon
Thus, the failure of the trial court to decide the whose
motion act isRealty,
by ABC being questioned. If grave
the judge issued a abuse
writ of
case within ninety days did not oust it of of discretion is not shown, the courts should
execution.
jurisdiction to decide the case. not substitute their judgment for that of the
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: Ricoofficial
now files a motionand
concerned to quash
decidethe writ and
a matter to
which
The 1973 Constitution provided for certain vacate thenature
by its Judgment
or bycontending
law is for the that it is alone
latter the to
consequences on the decisions of courts in case Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board
decide.
of the failure of the Supreme Court and other (HLURB) which is vested with original and
inferior collegiate courts to decide cases within exclusive Jurisdiction over cases involving the
prescribed periods. But it did not provide for real estate business. Rico prays for the dismissal
consequences on the decisions of trial courts as of the complaint and for the nullity of the decision.
a result of their failure to decide cases The realty firm opposes the
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The assault of a fellow Senator constitutes
Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution has disorderly 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 of commonly provide that "Judicial power shall be
discretion amounting to lack or excess of vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or courts as may be established by law."
instrumentality of the Government. In Marcos vs.
Manglapus, 177 SCRA 668, the Supreme Court What is the effect of the addition in the 1987
stated that because of this courts of justice may Constitution of the following provision: "Judicial
decide political questions if there was grave abuse power includes the duty of the courts of justice to
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of settle actual controversies involving rights which
jurisdiction on the part of the official whose action are 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 Powers instrumentality 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 a Article 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 that Constitutions, 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 could Secretary of Justice, and believing that it would
not compel the Senate to reinstate a Senator who be good for the country, the President enters into
assaulted another Senator and was suspended for an agreement with the Americans for an
disorderly behavior, because it could not compel a extension for another five (5) years of their stay
separate and co-equal department to take any at their military bases in the Philippines, in
particular action. In Osmeña v. Pendatun (109 consideration 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 the payable to the Philippine government in advance;
House of Representatives is the judge of what (2) An undertaking
Political Question on the part(1997)
Doctrine of the American
constitutes disorderly behavior. government
No. 5; To whatto implement
extent, ifimmediately
at all, hasthe
themini-
1987
Marshall plan for
Constitution the country
affected the involving
"political question
doctrine"?
ten billion U.S. dollars in aids and No. 11: How may the following be removed from
concessional loans; and office: 1) Senators & Congressmen 2) Judges of
(3) An undertaking to help persuade American lower courts 3) Officers and employees in the
banks to condone interests and other charges on Civil 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 American the 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 nuclear removed by dismissal by the Supreme by a vote
weapons at Subic and at Clark Field. A vital of a majority of the Members who actually took
military need comes, under the agreement, when part 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 that 1. a) Yes, the Supreme Court can review the
this provision does not do away with the political correctness of the action of the President In
question doctrine. It was inserted in the commuting the penalty imposed on X. By doing
Constitution to prevent courts from making use of so, the Supreme Court is not deciding a political
the doctrine to avoid what otherwise are question. The Supreme Court is not reviewing the
justiciable controversies, albeit involving the wisdom of the commutation of the penalty. What
Executive Branch of the government during the it is deciding is whether or not the President has
martial law period. On the other hand, at this the power to commute the penalty of X, As stated
stage, no justiciable controversy can be framed to in Daza vs. Singson. 180 SCRA 496, it is within
justify judicial review, I would, therefore, advice the scope of Judicial power to pass upon the
the Nuclear Free Philippine Coalition to resort to validity of the actions of the other departments of
the media to launch a campaign against the the 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) 1. No, the court cannot take cognizance of the
(2) Pedro Masipag filed with the Ombudsman a case. As held in Joya vs. Presidential Commission
complaint against RTC Judge Jose Palacpac with on Good Government, 225 SCRA 569, since the
violation of Article 204 of the Revised Penal Code petitioners were not the legal owners of paintings
for knowingly rendering an unjust judgment in and antique silverware, they had no standing to
Criminal Case No. 617. Judge Palacpac filed a question their disposition. Besides, the paintings
motion with the Ombudsman to refer the complaint and the antique silverware did not constitute
to the Supreme Court to determine whether an important cultural properties or national cultural
administrative aspect was involved in the said case. treasures, as they had no exceptional historical
The Ombudsman denied the motion on the ground and cultural significance to the Philippines.
that no administrative case against Judge Palacpac
relative to the decision in Criminal Case No. 617 2. According to Joya us. Presidential Commission
was filed and pending in his office. State with on Good Government, 225 SCRA
reasons whether the Ombudsman's ruling is 568. for a taxpayer's suit to prosper, four
correct. (4%) requisites must be considered:
(1) the question must be raised by the proper
party;
(2) there must be an actual controversy;
(3) the question must be raised at the earliest
SUGGESTED ANSWER: possible opportunity; and
The Ombudsman's ruling is not correct. Under (4) the decision on the constitutional or legal
Section 6, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is the question must be necessary to the determination
Supreme Court which is vested with exclusive of the case.
administrative supervision over all courts and its
personnel. Prescinding from this premise, the
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) ARTICLE IX Civil Service
No. 7: Can five members of the Supreme Court
declare a municipal ordinance unconstitutional? Commission
Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Career Service; Characteristics (1999)
Yes. five Members of the Supreme Court sitting en- No IX - What characterizes the career service
banc can declare a municipal ordinance and what are included in the career service?
unconstitutional. Under Section 4(2). Article VIII of (2%)
the Constitution, a municipal ordinance can be SUGGESTED ANSWER:
declared unconstitutional with the concurrence of a According to Section 7, Chapter 2, Title I, Book V
majority of the Members of the Supreme Court who of the Administrative Code of 1987, the career
actually took part in the deliberation on the issues service is characterized by
in the case and voted thereon. If only eight (1) Entrance based on merit and fitness to be
Members of the Supreme Court actually took part determined as far as practicable by competitive
in deciding the case, there will still be a quorum. examination or based on highly technical
Five Members will constitute a majority of those qualifications;
who actually took part in deciding the case. (2) opportunity for advancement to higher career
positions; and
(3) security of tenure.

The career service includes:


ARTICLE IX Constitutional (1) OPEN CAREER POSITIONS for
Commissions Rotational appointment to which prior qualifications in an
Scheme (1999) appropriate examination is required;
No XIII - What are the requisites for the effective (2) CLOSED
In order that CAREER
a taxpayerPOSITIONS
may havewhich are to
standing
operation of the so-called "Rotational Scheme" for scientific
challengeorthe highly technical
legality of anin nature;
official act of the
Constitutional Commissions? (2%) (3) Positions inthe
government, the CAREER
act beingEXECUTIVE
questioned must
SERVICE;
involve a disbursement of public funds upon the
SUGGESTED ANSWER: (4) Career
theory that officers other thanofthose
the expenditure publicinfunds
the career
for an
As held in Republic v. Imperial, 96 Phil. 770, for executive service, who are appointed by
unconstitutional act is a misapplication of such the
the effective operation of the rotational scheme of President;
funds, which may be enjoined at the instance of a
the Constitutional Commission, the first (5) Commissioned officers and enlisted men of
taxpayer.
Commissioner should start on a common date the Armed Forces;
and any vacancy before the expiration of the term (6)
Term Personnel
of Office;ofJustices
government -owned or
(1996)
should be filled only for the unexpired balance of controlled
No. 9: A, an associate justice performing
corporations, whether of the Supreme
the term. governmental
Court reachedor the proprietary
age of functions,
seventy on whoJuly
do not
1,
fall under the non-career service;
1996. There was a case calendared for and
Constitutional Commissions & Council (Q7- deliberation on that day where the vote of A was
2006) (7) Permanent
crucial. Can Alaborers, whether
hold over the skilled,
position and
2. The legislature may abolish this body: (5%) semiskilled, or unskilled.
participate in the deliberation of the case on July
Commission on Appointments 1, 1996? Explain.
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,
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Members of the Supreme Court hold office until
The legislature may abolish the d) COURT OF they reach the age of seventy years or become
TAX APPEALS since it is merely a creation of incapacitated to discharge their duties.
law unlike the Commission on Appointments, Constitutional officers whose terms are fixed by
Ombudsman, Judicial and Bar Council and the Constitution have no right to hold over their
Commission on Audit which are all constitutional positions until their successors shall have been
creations. Thus, the latter agencies may only be appointed and qualified unless otherwise
abolished by way of an amendment or revision of provided in the Constitution. (Mechem, A Treaties
the Constitution. on the Law of Public Offices and Officers, p. 258.)
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, ADS of 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. The 2The 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%]
3The rule prohibiting members of the
Is ADS' refusal justified? Can COA disallow the Constitutional Commissions, during their tenure,
payment of backwages by ADS to the dismissed to be financially interested in any contract with or
employees due under a final CSC decision? any franchise or privilege granted by the
Decide and reason briefly. (5%) government, [2%]
4The rule providing for post audit by the COA of
SUGGESTED ANSWER: certain government agencies. [2%]
A. The refusal of ADS is not justified, and the 5The rule requiring Congress to provide for the
Commission on Audit cannot disallow the payment standardization of compensation of government
of backwages by ADS to the dismissed employee. officials and employees. [2%]
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
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
on Audit cannot set aside a final decision of the Civil
Service Commission. The payment of backwages to 1Section 13. Article VII of the Constitution, which
illegally dismissed government employee is not an prohibits the President from appointing his spouse and
irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant or relatives within the fourth degree of consanguinity or
unconscionable expenditure. (Uy v. Commission on affinity does not distinguish between government
Audit, 328 SCRA 607 [2000]). corporations with original charters and their
subsidiaries, because the prohibition applies to both.
2Section 13, Article VII of the Constitution, which
prohibits Members of Congress from holding any other
Function of CSC (1994) office during their term without forfeiting their seat,
No. 15 - 2) Can the Civil Service Commission does not distinguish between government
revoke an appointment by the appointing power corporations with original charters and their
and direct the appointment of an individual of its subsidiaries, because the prohibition applies to both.
choice? 3Section 2, Article IX-A of the Constitution, which
SUGGESTED ANSWER: prohibits Members of the Constitutional Commissions
According to the ruling in Medalla vs. Sto. Tomas, from being financially interested in any contract with or
208 SCRA 351, the Civil Service Commission any franchise or privilege granted by the Government,
cannot dictate to the appointing power whom to does not distinguish between government
appoint. Its function is limited to determining corporations with original charters and their
whether or not the appointee meets the minimum subsidiaries, because the prohibition applies to both.
qualification requirements prescribed for the 4Section 2(1), Article IX-D of the Constitution which
position. Otherwise, it would be encroaching Civil Service Commission vs. COA (2004)
provides for post audit by the Commission on audit of
upon the discretion of the appointing power. (9-a) Former Governor PP of ADS Province had
government corporations, does not distinguish
dismissed several employees to scale down the
between government corporations with original
operations of his Office. The employees
charters and their subsidiaries, because the provision
GOCCs Without Original Charter vs. GOCCs complained to the Merit Systems Protection Board,
applies to both.
With Original Charter (1998) which ruled that the Civil Service rules were
5Section 5, Article IX-B of the Constitution, which
No II.-- The Constitution distinguishes between two violated when the employees were dismissed. The
provides for the standardization of the
types of owned and/or controlled corporations: Civil Service Commission (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 and memorandum-order, directs the corporation to
employees, distinguishes between government comply with Civil Service Rules in the
corporations and their subsidiaries, for the appointment 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 personnel 1) Senators, Cong., Art. III, section 16(3), of the
are covered by the Social Security System and not Constitution, ...
the Government Service Insurance System, The
question posed in the petition for certiorari at bar is 2) Judges, Art. VIII, sec. 11 of the Constitution,
whether or not a labor law claim against a
government-owned or controlled corporation like 3) Under Art. IX-B. Sec. 2(3) of the Constitution,
the Food Terminal, Inc. falls within the jurisdiction officers and employees in the Civil Service may
of the Department of Labor and Employment or only be removed for cause as provided by law
the Civil Service Commission? Decide and and 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 Commissioner of


Customs, how would you justify his dismissal of
customs officials and employees?

2. If on the other hand, you were a counsel for


the dismissed officials and employees, how
would you sustain the order of the Civil Service
Commission reinstating most of them? State your
reasons.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. I would invoke the resolution in Jose v. Arroyo,
G.R. No. 78435, Aug. 11, 1987, in which the
Supreme Court held that under Art. XVIII, sec, 16
of the Constitution, career service employees
may be removed "not for cause but as a result of
the reorganization pursuant to Proclamation No.
3 dated March 25, 1986 and the reorganization
following the ratification of this Constitution." By
virtue of this provision, it was held that the
reorganization of the Bureau of Customs under
Executive Order No, 127 may continue even after
the ratification of the Constitution, and career
service employees may be separated from the
service without cause as a result of such
reorganization.

2. I would argue that art. XVIII, sec. 16 does not


really authorize the removal of career service
employees but simply provides for the payment of
separation, retirement, and other benefits accruing
to them under the applicable laws. The reference
to career service employees separated "as a result
of the reorganization following the ratification of
this Constitution" is only to those separated as a
result of reorganization of the structure and
functions of government (e.g., as a result of
removed except for cause. (Sta. Maria v. Lopez, Each
abolition Electoral
of offices)Tribunal as shall be composed
distinguished from ofthe
G.R. No. L-30773, February 18,1970) NINE Members,
reorganization of three
personnel of whom whichshallis whatbe isJustices
referred
of
to the
thereinSupremeas "the Courtreorganization
to be designated by the to
pursuant
(b) Was Ricardo removed from his Chief Justice,No.
Proclamation and the remaining
3 dated March 25, six 1986."shallForbethe
position as Dean of the College of Education Members
power of ofthethegovernment Senate or totheterminate House of the
or merely transferred to the position of Special Representatives,
employment of elective as the case and may be, who officials
appointive shall
Assistant to the President? Explain. be chosen
pursuant to Art. on III,the sec. basis of proportional
2 of Proclamation No. 3
representation
(otherwise known fromasthe thepolitical
Provisional parties and the
Constitution),
SUGGESTED ANSWER: parties
through or the organizations
appointment registered or designation underof the their
Ricardo was removed from his position as dean. party-list
successors system
has been represented
repeatedly therein.
held toThe have senior
ended
Having an appointment with a fixed term, he Justice
on February in the 2, Electoral
1987, when Tribunal
the new shall be its
Constitution
cannot, without his consent, be transferred before Chairman
took effect. (De (Article
Leon v.VI, Esguerra,Section 153 SCRA17,1987 602
the end of his term. He cannot be asked to give Constitution).
(1987); Reyes v. Ferrer G.R. No. 77801, Dec. 11,
up his post nor appointed as dean of another 1987; Osias v. Ferrer, G.R, No. 77049, March 28,
college, much less transferred to another position Fair
1988), Election;
Moreover, EqualsuchSpace & Timeofinincumbents
replacement Media
even if it be dignified with a dean's rank. More (1989)
can only be for cause as prescribed by Executive
than this, the transfer was a demotion because No.
Order16:No.A 17, COMELECdated May (COMELEC)
28, 1986.resolutionSince the
deanship in a university, being an academic provides that political
summary dismissals parties aresupporting
in question not for cause, a
position which requires learning, ability and common
the removal set of candidates shall
the Bureau of Customs officialsbe allowed to
scholarship, is more exalted than that of a special purchase
violates art.jointly
IX, B, sec, air time 2(3) ofand the aggregate
the Constitution.
assistant who merely assists the President, as the amount of advertising space purchased for
title indicates. The special assistant does not campaign purposes shall not exceed that allotted
make authoritative decisions unlike the dean who to other political parties or groups that nominated
does so in his own name and responsibility. The Security
only one ofset Tenure (Q5-2005) The resolution is
of candidates.
position of dean is created by law, while the (3) Ricardo as
challenged wasa elected
violationDean of the of thefreedomCollege of of
special assistant is not so provided by law; it was Educationand
speech in a ofState theUniversity
press. Isfor the a term of five (5)
resolution
a creation of the university president. (Sta. Maria years unless sooner
constitutionally defensible? terminated.
Explain. Many were not
v. Lopez, G.R. No. L-30773, February 18, 1970) SUGGESTED
pleased with his ANSWER:performance. To appease those
Yes,
criticaltheof resolution
him, the President is constitutionally
created a defensible.
new position,
Under Section Assistant
that of Special 4, Articleto IX-C of the with
the President 1987the
Constitution,
rank of Dean,during without thereduction
election inperiod salary,theand
Security of Tenure; Meaning (1999) COMELEC
appointed Ricardo may supervise or regulate
to said position in thetheinterest
media of
No IX - -What is the meaning and guarantee of of
thecommunication or information to ensure
service. Contemporaneously, equal
the University
security of tenure? (2%) opportunity,
President appointed time, and Santosspace asamong
Acting Deancandidates
in place
SUGGESTED ANSWER: with the objective
of Ricardo. (5%) of holding free, orderly, honest,
According to Palmera v. Civil Service Commission, peaceful, and credible elections. To allow
235 SCRA 87, SECURITY OF TENURE means candidates which are supported by more than one
that no officer or employee in the Civil Service political party to purchase more air time and
shall be suspended or dismissed except for cause (a)
advertising Does
space than the candidates
phrase "unless supported soonerby
as provided by law and after due process. one terminated"
political party mean only thatwillthedeprive
position theof latter
Ricardo of
equalis terminable
time and space at will? in the media.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
ARTICLE IX COMELEC Electoral No, the term "unless
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: sooner terminated" could
not mean
No. Although thatthe hisexpenditure
position is limitation
terminable applies
at will.
Tribunal; Functions & Composition (Q5-
Security
only to the ofpurchase
tenure means of air time,
that dismissal
thus leaving should
2006)
political
only be parties
for cause, free as to spend
provided for other
by law forms
andofnot
1. What is the function of the Senate
campaign,
otherwise. the limitation
(Palmera nonetheless
v. CSC, G.R. No. results in a
110168,
Electoral Tribunal and the House of
direct
Augustand substantial reduction of the quantity of
4, 1994)
Representatives Electoral Tribunal? (2.5%)
political speech by restricting the number of
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
ALTERNATIVE
issues that can be ANSWER:
discussed, the depth of their
Under Article VI, Section 17 of the 1987
No, his position
discussion and the is not
size terminable
of the audienceat will. that
Ricardo's
can
Constitution, the Senate and House of
contract
be reached, of employment
through the has a fixed media.
broadcast term ofSincefive
Representatives Electoral Tribunals shall be the
years.
the It is not
purpose of an
theappointment
Free SpeechinClause an acting is to
sole judge of all contests relating to the election,
capacity the
promote or as officer-in-charge.
widest possible disseminationA college dean of
returns, and qualifications of their respective
appointed with
information, anda thetermreality
cannot be separated
is that to do this
Members.
without cause.
requires Ricardo, with
the expenditure a definite
of money, term of on
a limitation
employment,for
expenditure may thisnot thus becannot be justified,
purpose
2. What is the composition of each? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: not even for the purpose of equalizing
the opportunity of political candidates. This is the
ruling in Buckley vs. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976),
which invalidated a law limiting the expenditures
of candidates for campaigning in the United
States. In the Philippines, a provision of the
Tañada-Singson Law, limiting the period for
campaigning, was nearly invalidated on this same
principle, except that the majority of court lacked
one more vote to make their decision effective.
(See Gonzalez vs. Comelec, 27 SCRA 835
(1969).

Grant of Pardon in Election Offenses (1991)


No. 11 - In connection with the May 1987
Congressional elections, Luis Millanes was
prosecuted for and convicted of an election
offense and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment
for six years. The court did not impose the
additional penalty of disqualification to hold public
office and of deprivation of the right of suffrage as
provided for in Section 164 of the Omnibus
Election Code of the Philippines
(B.P. Blg. 881).

In April 1991, the President granted him absolute


pardon on the basis of a strong recommendation
of the Board of Pardons and Parole.

Then for the election in May 1992, Luis Millanes


files his certificate of candidacy for the office of
Mayor in his municipality.

(a) What is the effect of the failure of the court to


impose the additional penalty?
(b) Is the pardon valid?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) No need to expressly impose – they are
accessory penalties.

(b) The pardon is void, since Luis Millanes was


convicted for the commission of an election
offense and his pardon was not made upon the
recommendation of the COMELEC. Under Article
IX, C, Sec. 5 of the Constitution, no pardon for
violation of an election law may be granted
without the favorable recommendation of the
COMELEC
be disqualified as a candidate and so ineligible Court, from the decision of the COMELEC First
for the office to which he was elected. Would this Division? If yes. Why? If not what procedural
fact entitle a competing candidate who obtained step must he undertake first? ( 5%)
the second highest number of votes to ask and to SUGGESTED ANSWER:
be proclaimed the winner of the elective office? "A" cannot file a petition for certiorari with the
Reasons. Supreme Court. As held in Mastura vs.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: COMELEC, 285 SCRA 493 (1998), the Supreme
According to Trinidad v. COMELEC. 315 SCRA Court cannot review the decisions or resolutions
175 [1999], if the candidate who obtained the of a division of the COMELEC. "A" should first file
highest number of votes is disqualified, the a motion for reconsideration with the COMELEC
candidate who obtained the second highest en banc.
number of votes cannot be proclaimed the
winner. Since he was not the choice of the Removal from Office; Commissioners (1998)
peopl