2005 BAR EXAMINATION

IN POLITICAL AND PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW


BAR EXAMINATION 2005
POLITICAL AND PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW
4 September 2005 8 A.M. — 12 Noon

INSTRUCTIONS

This questionnaire consists of ten (10) numbers contained in ten (10) pages.
Read each question very carefully. Answer legibly, clearly and concisely.
Start each number on a separate page; an answer to a sub-question under
the same number may be written continuously on the same and immediately
succeeding pages until completed. Do not repeat the question. A mere “Yes”
or “No” answer without any corresponding discussion will not be given any
credit.

HAND IN YOUR NOTEBOOK WITH THIS QUESTIONNAIRE GOOD LUCK!!!

(Sgd.) Romeo J. Callejo, Sr.
Chairman
2005 Bar Examination Committee

PLEASE CHECK THE NUMBER OF PAGES IN THIS SET WARNING: NOT FOR
SALE OR UNAUTHORIZED USE





POLITICAL AND PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

- I -

(a) The present Constitution introduced the concepts and processes of
Initiative and Referendum. Compare and differentiate one from the other.
(3%)

(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%)

(c) Enumerate the rights of the coastal state in the exclusive economic zone.
(3%)
- II -

(1.) Police Officer Henry Magiting of the Narcotics Section of the Western
Police District applied for a search warrant in the Regional Trial Court of
Manila for violation of Section 11, Article II (Possession of Prohibited Drugs)
of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002) for the search and seizure of heroin in the cabin of the Captain of the
MSS Seastar, a foreign-registered vessel which was moored at the South
Harbor, Manila, its port of destination. Based on the affidavits of the
applicant’s witnesses who were crew members of the vessel, they saw a box
containing ten (10) kilograms of heroin under the bed in the Captain’s cabin.
The RTC found probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant;
nevertheless, it denied the application on the ground that Philippine courts
have no criminal jurisdiction over violations of R.A. No. 9165 committed on
foreign-registered vessels found in Philippine waters. Is the ruling of the
court correct? Support your answer with reasons. (5%)

(2.) The Philippines and Australia entered into a Treaty of Extradition
concurred in by the Senate of the Philippines on September 10, 1990. Both
governments have notified each other that the requirements for the entry
into force of the Treaty have been complied with. It took effect in 1990. The
Australian government is requesting the Philippine government to extradite
its citizen, Gibson, who has committed in his country the indictable offense
of Obtaining Property by Deception in 1985. The said offense is among those
enumerated as extraditable in the Treaty. For his defense, Gibson asserts
that the retroactive application of the extradition treaty amounts to an ex
post facto law. Rule on Gibson’s contention. (5%)
- III -

(1.) Italy, through its Ambassador, entered into a contract with Abad for the
maintenance and repair of specified equipment at its Embassy and
Ambassador’s Residence, such as air conditioning units, generator sets,
electrical facilities, water heaters, and water motor pumps. It was stipulated
that the agreement shall be effective for a period of four years and
automatically renewed unless cancelled. Further, it provided that any suit
arising from the contract shall be filed with the proper courts in the City of
Manila. Claiming that the Maintenance Contract was unilaterally, baselessly
and arbitrarily terminated, Abad sued the State of Italy and its Ambassador
before a court in the City of Manila. Among the defenses they raised were
“sovereign immunity” and “diplomatic immunity”.
(a) As counsel of Abad, refute the defenses of “sovereign immunity” and
“diplomatic immunity” raised by the State of Italy and its Ambassador.

(b) At any rate, what should be the court’s ruling on the said defenses?
(5%)

(2.) Adams and Baker are American citizens residing in the Philippines.
Adams befriended Baker and became a frequent visitor at his house. One
day, Adams arrived with 30 members of the Philippine National Police,
armed with a Search Warrant authorizing the search of Baker’s house and its
premises for dangerous drugs being trafficked to the United States of
America. The search purportedly yielded positive results, and Baker was
charged with Violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. Adams was the
prosecution’s principal witness. However, for failure to prove his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt, Baker was acquitted. Baker then sued Adams for damages
for filing trumped-up charges against him. Among the defenses raised by
Adams is that he has diplomatic immunity, conformably with the Vienna
Convention on Diplomatic Relations. He presented Diplomatic Notes from the
American Embassy stating that he is an agent of the United States Drug
Enforcement Agency tasked with “conducting surveillance operations” on
suspected drug dealers in the Philippines believed to be the source of
prohibited drugs being shipped to the U.S. It was also stated that after
having ascertained the target, Adams would then inform the Philippine
narcotic agents to make the actual arrest.
(a) As counsel of plaintiff Baker, argue why his complaint should not be
dismissed on the ground of defendant Adams’ diplomatic immunity from
suit.

(b) As counsel of defendant Adams, argue for the dismissal of the complaint.
(5%)

- IV -

(1.) Squatters and vendors have put up structures in an area intended for a
People’s Park, which are impeding the flow of traffic in the adjoining
highway. Mayor Cruz gave notice for the structures to be removed, and the
area vacated within a month, or else, face demolition and ejectment. The
occupants filed a case with the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) to stop
the Mayor’s move. The CHR then issued an “order to desist” against Mayor
Cruz with warning that he would be held in contempt should he fail to
comply with the desistance order. When the allotted time lapsed,

Mayor Cruz caused the demolition and removal of the structures.
Accordingly, the CHR cited him for contempt.
(a) What is your concept of Human Rights? Does this case involve violations
of human rights within the scope of the CHR’s jurisdiction?

(b) Can the CHR issue an “order to desist” or restraining order?

(c) Is the CHR empowered to declare Mayor Cruz in contempt?

Does it have contempt powers at all? (5%)

(2.) In March 2001, while Congress was adjourned, the President appointed
Santos as Chairman of the Commission on Elections. Santos immediately
took his oath and assumed office. While his appointment was promptly
submitted to the Commission on Appointments for confirmation, it was not
acted upon and Congress again adjourned. In June 2001, the President
extended a second ad interim appointment to Santos for the same position
with the same term, and this appointment was again submitted to the
Commission on Appointments for confirmation. Santos took his oath anew
and performed the functions of his office. Reyes, a political rival, filed a suit
assailing certain orders issued by Santos. He also questioned the validity of
Santos’ appointment. Resolve the following issues:cralaw
(a) Does Santos’ assumption of office on the basis of the ad interim
appointments issued by the President amount to a temporary appointment
which is prohibited by Section 1(2), Article IX-C of the Constitution?

(b) Assuming the legality of the first ad interim appointment and assumption
of office by Santos, were his second ad interim appointment and subsequent
assumption of office to the same position violations of the prohibition on
reappointment under Section 1(2), Article IX-C of the Constitution? (5%)

- V -

(1.) Bruno still had several years to serve on his sentence when he was
conditionally pardoned by the President. Among the conditions imposed was
that he would “not again violate any of the penal laws of the Philippines.”
Bruno accepted all of the conditions and was released. Shortly thereafter,
Bruno was charged with 20 counts of estafa. He was then incarcerated to
serve the unexpired portion of his sentence following the revocation by the
President of the pardon. Bruno’s family filed a petition for habeas corpus,
alleging that it was error to have him recommitted as the charges were
false, in fact, half of them were already dismissed. Resolve the petition with
reasons. (4%)

(2.) Ricardo was elected Dean of the College of Education in a State
University for a term of five (5) years unless sooner terminated. Many were
not pleased with his performance. To appease those critical of him, the
President created a new position, that of Special Assistant to the President
with the rank of Dean, without reduction in salary, and appointed Ricardo to
said position in the interest of the service. Contemporaneously, the
University President appointed Santos as Acting Dean in place of Ricardo.
(a) Does the phrase “unless sooner terminated” mean that the position of
Ricardo is terminable at will?

(b) Was Ricardo removed from his position as Dean of the College of
Education or merely transferred to the position of Special Assistant to the
President? Explain. (5%)

(3.) Pedro Masipag filed with the Ombudsman a complaint against RTC
Judge Jose Palacpac with violation of Article 204 of the Revised Penal Code
for knowingly rendering an unjust judgment in Criminal Case No. 617. Judge
Palacpac filed a motion with the Ombudsman to refer the complaint to the
Supreme Court to determine whether an administrative aspect was involved
in the said case. The Ombudsman denied the motion on the ground that no
administrative case against Judge Palacpac relative to the decision in
Criminal Case No. 617 was filed and pending in his office. State with reasons
whether the Ombudsman’s ruling is correct. (4%)
- VI -

(1.) The two accepted tests to determine whether or not there is a valid
delegation of legislative power are the Completeness Test and the Sufficient
Standard Test. Explain each. (4%) (2.) Section 32 of Republic Act No. 4670
(The Magna Carta for Public School Teachers) reads: Sec. 32. Penal
Provision.―A person who shall willfully interfere with, restrain or coerce any
teacher in the exercise of his rights guaranteed by this Act or who shall in
any other manner commit any act to defeat any of the provisions of this Act
shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not less than one hundred
pesos nor more than one thousand pesos, or by imprisonment, in the
discretion of the court.

Is the proviso granting the court the authority to impose a penalty of
imprisonment in its discretion constitutional? Explain briefly. (4%)
- VII -

(1.) State with reason(s) whether bail is a matter of right or a matter of
discretion in the following cases: (a) The imposable penalty for the crime
charged is reclusion perpetua and the accused is a minor; (b) The imposable
penalty for the crime charged is life imprisonment and the accused is a
minor; (c) The accused has been convicted of homicide on a charge of
murder and sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of from eight (8)
years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to twelve (12) years
and four (4) months of reclusion temporal, as maximum. (4%)

(2.) State with reason(s) which of the following is a government agency or a
government instrumentality:cralaw
(a) Department of Public Works and Highway;

(b) Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas;

(c) Philippine Ports Authority;

(d) Land Transportation Office;

(e) Land Bank of the Philippines. (5%)

- VIII -

(1.) Mariano was arrested by the NBI as a suspect in the shopping mall
bombings. Advised of his rights, Mariano asked for the assistance of his
relative, Atty. Santos. The NBI noticed that Atty. Santos was inexperienced,
incompetent and inattentive. Deeming him unsuited to protect the rights of
Mariano, the NBI dismissed Atty. Santos. Appointed in his place was Atty.
Barroso, a bar topnotcher who was in the premises visiting a relative. Atty.
Barroso ably assisted Mariano when the latter gave a statement. However,
Mariano assailed the investigation claiming that he was deprived of counsel
of his choice.

Was the NBI correct in dismissing Atty. Santos and appointing Atty. Barroso
in his stead?

Is Mariano’s statement, made with the assistance of Atty. Barroso,
admissible in evidence? (5%)

(2.) Emilio had long suspected that Alvin, his employee, had been passing
trade secrets to his competitor, Randy, but he had no proof. One day, Emilio
broke open the desk of Alvin and discovered a letter wherein Randy thanked
Alvin for having passed on to him vital trade secrets of Emilio. Enclosed in
the letter was a check for P50,000.00 drawn against the account of Randy
and payable to Alvin. Emilio then dismissed Alvin from his employment.
Emilio’s proof of Alvin’s perfidy are the said letter and check which are
objected to as inadmissible for having been obtained through an illegal
search. Alvin filed a suit assailing his dismissal.

Rule on the admissibility of the letter and check. (5%)
- IX -

(1.) In the May 8, 1995 elections for local officials whose terms were to
commence on June 30, 1995, Ricky filed on March 20, 1995 his certificate of
candidacy for the Office of Governor of Laguna. He won, but his
qualifications as an elected official was questioned. It is admitted that 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:cralaw
(a) A Filipino Citizen? Explain.

(b) A resident of the locality? Explain. (5%)

(2.) Manuel was elected Mayor of the Municipality of Tuba in the elections of
1992, 1995 and 1998. He fully served his first two terms, and during his
third term, the municipality was converted into the component City of Tuba.
The said charter provided for a hold-over and so without interregnum
Manuel went on to serve as the Mayor of the City of Tuba. In the 2001
elections, Manuel filed his certificate of candidacy for City Mayor. He
disclosed, though, that he had already served for three consecutive terms as
elected Mayor when Tuba was still a municipality. He also stated in his
certificate of candidacy that he is running for the position of Mayor for the
first time now that Tuba is a city. Reyes, an adversary, ran against Manuel
and petitioned that he be disqualified because he had already served for
three consecutive terms as Mayor. The petition was not timely acted upon,
and Manuel was proclaimed the winner with 20,000 votes over the 10,000
votes received by Reyes as the only other candidate. It was only after
Manuel took his oath and assumed office that the COMELEC ruled that he
was disqualified for having ran and served for three consecutive terms.
(a) As lawyer of Manuel, present the possible arguments to prevent his
disqualification and removal.

(b) How would you rule on whether or not Manuel is eligible to run as Mayor
of the newly-created City of Tuba immediately after having already served
for three (3) consecutive terms as Mayor of the Municipality of Tuba?

(c) Assuming that Manuel is not an eligible candidate, rebut Reyes’ claim
that he should be proclaimed as winner having received the next higher
number of votes. (5%)

- X -

(1.) There was a boundary dispute between Dueñas, a municipality, and
Passi, an independent component city, both of the same province. State how
the two local government units should settle their boundary dispute. (5%)

(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 be
other available lots in Santa for a sports center. Nonetheless, the
Municipality of Santa, through its Mayor, filed a complaint for eminent
domain. Christina opposed this on the following grounds:cralaw
(a) the Municipality of Santa has no power to expropriate;

(b) Resolution No. 1 has been voided since the Sangguniang Panlalawigan
disapproved it for being arbitrary; and

(c) the Municipality of Santa has other and better lots for that purpose.
Resolve the case with reasons. (5%)

NOTHING FOLLOWS.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful