P. 1
Answers to Phil Bar Exams 1987-2006 Political Law

Answers to Phil Bar Exams 1987-2006 Political Law

|Views: 164|Likes:
Published by Hanna Mapandi

More info:

Published by: Hanna Mapandi on Mar 14, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


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





No. 10: A City Mayor in Metro Manila was
designated as Member of the Local Amnesty
Board (LAB) as allowed under the Rules and


Proclamation Nos. 347 and 348. as amended
by Proclamation No. 377. The LAB is entrusted
with the functions of receiving and processing
applications for amnesty and recommending to
the National Amnesty Commission approval or
denial of the applications. The term of the
Commission and, necessarily, the Local
Amnesty Boards under it expires upon the
completion of its assigned tasks as may be
determined by the President.

May the City Mayor accept his
designation without forfeiting his elective
position in the light of the provision of Sec. 7,
1st par. Art. IX-B of the 1987 Constitution which
pertinently states that "[N]o elective official shall
be eligible for appointment or designation in any
capacity to any public office or position during
his tenure?" Discuss fully,


No, the City Mayor may not accept his
designation without forfeiting his elective
positions. As stated in Flores vs. Drilon 223
SCRA 568, it is the intention of Section 7,
Article X-B of the 1987 Constitution that local
elective officials should devote their full time to
their constituents. While second paragraph of
Section 7, Article IX-B of the 1987 Constitution
allows appointive officials to hold other offices
when allowed by law or by the primary functions
of their positions, no such exception is made in
the first paragraph, which deals with elective
officials. It is the Intention of the 1987
Constitution to be more stringent with elective
local officials.


Yes, he may accept such designation
without forfeiting his mayorship. The



contemplates a "public office or position". It is
believed that the Local Amnesty Board is not
such an office since it is merely an ad hoc body.
Besides, it is believed that its functions are not
"sovereign" in character which is one of the
elements of a public office.

Ombudsman: Power to Suspend; Preventive
Suspension (2004)
Director WOW failed the lifestyle check
conducted by the Ombudsman's Office
because WOWs assets were grossly
disproportionate to his salary and allowances.
Moreover, some assets were not included in his
Statement of Assets and Liabilities. He was
charged of graft and corrupt practices and
pending the completion of investigations, he
was suspended from office for six months.

A. Aggrieved, WOW petitioned the Court of
Appeals to annul the preventive suspension
order on the ground that the Ombudsman
could only recommend but not impose the
suspension. Moreover, according to WOW,
the suspension was imposed without any
notice or hearing, in violation of due
process. Is the petitioner's contention
meritorious? Discuss briefly. (5%)

The contention of Director WOW is not
meritorious. The suspension meted out to him
is preventive and not punitive. Section 24 of
Republic Act No. 6770 grants the Ombudsman
the power to impose preventive suspension up
to six months. Preventive suspension maybe
imposed without any notice or hearing. It is
merely a preliminary step in an administrative
investigation and is not the final determination
of the guilt of the officer concerned. (Garcia v.
Mojica, 314 SCRA 207 [1999]).

B. For his part, the Ombudsman moved to
dismiss WOWs petition. According to the
Ombudsman the evidence of guilt of WOW
is strong, and petitioner failed to exhaust
administrative remedies. WOW admitted he
filed no motion for reconsideration, but only
because the order suspending him was
immediately executory. Should the motion
to dismiss be granted or not? Discuss
briefly. (5%)

B. The motion to dismiss should be denied.
Since the suspension of Director WOW was
immediately executory, he would have suffered
irreparable injury had he tried to exhaust
administrative remedies before filing a petition
in court (University of the Philippines Board of
Regents v. Rasul, 200 SCRA 685 [19910-
Besides, the question involved is purely legal.
(Azarcon v. Bunagan, 399 SCRA 365 [2003]).

You're Reading a Free Preview

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