1997 Political Law Bar Exams

Question No. 1:
What do you understand by the "Doctrine of Incorporation In Constitutional Law?
Question No. 2:
The Sangguniang Panlungsod of Manila approved an ordinance (No. 1000) prohibiting the operation
in the streets within the city limits of taxicab units over eight years old (from year of manufacture).
The Imposable penalty for violation thereof is a fine of P4,000.00 or imprisonment for one year
upon the erring operator. Thereafter and while the city ordinance was already in effect, Congress
enacted a law (Republic Act No. 500) prohibiting the operation in the streets of cities throughout the
country of taxicab units beyond ten years old. The imposable penalty for violation thereof is the
same as in Ordinance No. 1000. A. an owner/operator of a taxicab unit operating in the City of
Manila, was charged with violation of the city ordinance. Upon arraignment, he pleaded not guilty:
whereupon, trial was set five days thereafter. For failure of the witnesses to appear at the trial, the
City Court dismissed the case against A. The City Prosecutor of Manila forthwith filed another
Information in the same court charging A with violation of Republic Act No. 500 for operating the
taxicab unit subject of the information in the first case. The accused moved to dismiss the second
case against him invoking double jeopardy.
How would you rule on As motion if you were the Judge?
Question No. 3:
Are government-owned or controlled corporations within the scope and meaning of the
Government of the Philippines?
Question No. 4:
Upon request of a group of overseas contract workers in Brunei, Rev. Father Juan de la Cruz, a
Roman Catholic priest, was sent to that country by the President of the Philippines to minister to
their spiritual needs. The travel expenses, per diems, clothing allowance and monthly stipend of
P5,000.00 were ordered charged against the Presidents discretionary fund. Upon post audit of the
vouchers therefore, the Commission on Audit refused approval thereof claiming that the
expenditures were in violation of the Constitution.
Was the Commission on Audit correct in disallowing the vouchers in question?
Question No. 5:
To what extent, if at all, has the 1987 Constitution affected the political question doctrine?
Question No. 6:
It is said that "waiver of immunity by the State does not mean a concession of its liability. What
are the implications of this phrase?
Question No. 7:
A month before a forthcoming election, A one of the Incumbent Commissioners of the Commission
on Elections, died while in office and "B", another Commissioner, suffered a severe stroke. In view of
the proximity of the elections and to avoid paralyzation In the Commission on Elections, the
President who was not running for any office, appointed Commissioner C of the Commission
onAudit, who was not a lawyer but a certified public accountant by profession, ad interim
Commissioner to succeed Commissioner A and designated, by way of a temporary measure,
Associate Justice D of the Court of Appeals as acting Associate Commissioner during the absence of
Commissioner B.
Did the President do the right thing in extending such ad interim appointment in favor of
Commissioner C and designating Justice D acting Commissioner of the Commission on Elections?

Question No. 8:
About a hundred people occupied a parcel of land in Quezon City belonging to the city government
and built shanties thereon which they utilized for dwelling, sari-sari stores. etc. The City Mayor
issued an order directing the occupants to vacate the structures within five days from notice,
otherwise they would be evicted and relocated and their shanties removed. in order that the parcel
of land could be converted into a park for public use and enjoyment. The Inhabitants of the parcel
of land complained to the Commission on Human Rights urging that the Mayor of Quezon City be
stopped from doing what he has threatened to do. The Commission on Human Rights, after
conducting an investigation and finding that the shanties of petitioners were already being
demolished by then, ordered the Quezon City Mayor and persons implementing his order to cease
and desist from demolishing petitioners shanties under pain of contempt.
What have you to say on the validity of the actuation of the Commission on Human Rights in
relation to that of the Quezon City Mayor?
Question No. 9:
Due to over-crowding In the public market in Paco, Manila, the City Council passed an ordinance
allowing the lease to vendors of parts of the streets where the public market is located, provided
that the lessees pay to the city government a fee of P50.00 per square meter of the area occupied
by the lessees. The residents in the area complained to the Mayor that the lease of the public
streets would cause serious traffic problems to them. The Mayor cancelled the lease and ordered
the removal of the stalls constructed on the streets.
Was the act of the Mayor legal?
Question No. 10:
A, while on board a passenger jeep one night, was held up by a group of three teenagers who
forcibly divested her of her watch, necklace and wallet containing P100.00. That done, the trio
jumped off the passenger jeep and fled. B, the jeep driver, and A complained to the police to whom
they gave description of the culprits. According to the jeep driver, he would be able to identify the
culprits If presented to him. Next morning A and B were summoned to the police station where five
persons were lined up before them for identification A and B positively identified C and D as the
culprits. After preliminary investigation. C and D and one John Doe were charged with robbery in an
Information flied against them in court. C and D set up, in defense, the illegality of their
apprehension, arrest and confinement based on the Identification made of them by A and B at a
police line-up at which they were not assisted by counsel.
How would you resolve the Issues raised by C and D?
Question No. 11:
During a period of national emergency, Congress may grant emergency powers to the President.
State the conditions under which such a vesture is allowed.
Question No. 12:
Section 28, Title VI, Chapter 9, of the Administrative Code of 1987 requires all educational
institutions to observe a simple and dignified flag ceremony, including the playing or singing of the
Philippine National Anthem, pursuant to rules to be promulgated by the Secretary of Education,
Culture and Sports. The refusal of a teacher, student or pupil to attend or participate in the flag
ceremony is a ground for dismissal after due investigation. The Secretary of Education, Culture and
Sports issued a memorandum implementing said provision of law. As ordered, the flag ceremony
would be held on Mondays at 7:30 am. during class days. A group of teachers, students and pupils
requested the Secretary that they be exempted from attending the flag ceremony on the ground
that attendance thereto was against their religious belief. The Secretary denied the request. The
teachers, students and pupils concerned went to Court to have the memorandum circular declared
null and void. Decide the case.
Question No. 13:

Upon complaint of the incumbent President of the Republic. A was charged with libel before the
Regional Trial Court. "A" moved to dismiss the information on the ground that the Court had no
Jurisdiction over the offense charged because the President, being Immune from suit, should also be
disqualified from filing a case against A in court.
Resolve the motion.
Question No. 14:
(a) When may the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus be suspended?
(b) If validly declared, what would be the full consequences of such suspension?
Question No. 15:
Governor A was charged administratively with oppression and was placed under preventive
suspension from office during the pendency of his case. Found guilty of the charge. the President
suspended him from office for ninety days. Later, the President granted him clemency by reducing
the period of his suspension to the period he has already served. The Vice Governor questioned
thevalidity of the exercise of executive clemency on the ground that it could be granted only in
criminal, not administrative, cases.
How should the question be resolved?
Question No. 16:
A. while serving imprisonment for estafa, upon recommendation of the Board of Pardons and Parole,
was granted pardon by the President on condition that he should not again violate any penal law of
the land. Later, the Board of Pardons and Parole recommended to the President the cancellation of
the pardon granted him because A had been charged with estafa on 20 counts and was convicted
of the offense charged although he took an appeal therefrom which was still pending. As
recommended, the President canceled the pardon he had granted to A. A was thus arrested and
imprisoned to serve the balance of his sentence in the first case. A claimed in his petition for
habeas corpus filed in court that his detention was Illegal because he had not yet been convicted
by final judgment and was not given a chance to be heard before he was recommitted to prison.
Is As argument valid?
Question No. 17:
State how (a) pre-proclamation controversies, on the one hand, and (b) election protests, on the
other, are initiated, heard and finally resolved.
Question No. 18:
A, while an incumbent Governor of his province, was invited by the Government of Cambodia as Its
official guest. While there, the sovereign king awarded Governor A with a decoration of honor and
gifted him with a gold ring of insignificant monetary value, both of which he accepted.
Was Governor As acceptance of the decoration and gift violative of the Constitution?
Question No. 19:
X, a Secretary and Consul in the American Embassy in Manila, bought from B a diamond ring in the
amount of P50,000.00 which he later gave as a birthday present to his Filipino girlfriend. The
purchase price was paid in check drawn upon the Citibank. Upon presentment for payment, the
check was dishonored for insufficiency of funds. Because of X's failure to make good the dishonored
check, B filed a complaint against X In the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila for violation of
Batas Pambansa Big. 22. After preliminary investigation, the information was filed against X in the
City Court of Manila. X filed a motion to dismiss the case against him on the ground that he is a
Secretary and Consul in the American Embassy enjoying diplomatic Immunity from criminal
prosecution in the Philippines.

If you were the Judge, how would you resolve the motion to dismiss?
Question No. 20:
State the various modes of, and steps in. revising or amending the Philippine Constitution.