I.

Territory & Government (1996)

No. 8: A law was passed dividing the Philippines into three regions (Luzon,
Visayas, and Mindanao), each constituting an independent state except on matters
of foreign relations, national defense and national taxation, which are vested in the
Central government. Is the law valid?(3%) Explain.

II.
State Immunity from Suit (1996)No. 6; The Republic of the Balau (formerly Palau
Islands) opened and operated in Manila an office engaged in trading Balau
products with Philippine products. In one transaction, the local buyer complained
that the Balau goods delivered to him were substandard and he sued the Republic
of Balau, before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig, for damages. a) How can the
Republic of Balau invoke its sovereign immunity? Explain. b) Will such defense of
sovereign immunity prosper?(5%)
Explain.

III.
Delegation of Powers (2002)No XVII. - Suppose that Congress passed a law
creating a Department of Human Habitat and authorizing the Department
Secretary to promulgate implementing rules and regulations. Suppose further that
the law declared that violation of the implementing rules and regulations so issued
would be punishable as a crime and authorized the Department Secretary to
prescribe the penalty for such violation. If the law defines certain acts as violations
of the law and makes them punishable, for example, with imprisonment of three
(3) years or a fine in the amount of P10,000.00, or both such imprisonment and
fine, in the discretion of the court, can it be provided in the implementing rules and
regulations promulgated by the Department Secretary that their violation will also
be subject to the same penalties as those provided in the law itself?
Explain your answer fully. (5%)

IV.
Appointing Power; Ad-Interim Appointments (2010) No. XXIII. A was a career
Ambassador when he accepted an ad interim appointment as Cabinet Member.
The Commission on Appointments bypassed his ad interim appointment, however,
and he was not re-appointed. Can he re-assume his position as career
ambassador?

1
 V.
Three Term Limit; Contest; Substitution (2008) No.IX. Abdul ran and won in the
May 2001, 2004, and 2007 elections for Vice-Governor of Tawi-Tawi. After being
proclaimed Vice-Governor in the 2004 elections, his opponent, Khalil, filed an
election protest before the Commission on Election. Ruling with finality on the
protest, the COMELEC declared khalil as the duly elected Vice-Governor though
the decision was promulgated only in 2007, when Abdul had fully served his 2004-
2007 term and was in fact already on his 2007-2010 term as Vice-Governor. (a)
Abdul now consults you if he can still run for Vice-Governor of Tawi-Tawi in the
forthcoming May 2010 election on the premise that he could not be considered as
having served as Vice-Governor from 2004-2007 because he was not duly elected
to the post, as he assumed office merely as presumptive winner and that
presumption was later overturned when COMELEC decided with finality that had
lost in the May 2004 elections. What will be your advice? (3%).

VI.
Discipline; Preventive Suspension (2009) Maximo, an employee of the
Department of education, is administratively charged with dishonesty and gross
misconduct. During the formal investigation of the charges, the Secretary of
Education preventively suspended him for a period of 60 days. On the 60th day of
the preventive suspension, the Secretary rendered a verdict, finding Maximino
guilty, and ordered his immediate dismissal from the service. Maximino appealed
to the Civil Service Commission which affirmed the Secretary’s decision. Maximo
then elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals. The CA reversed the CSC
decision, exonerating Maximino. The secretary of education then petitions the
Supreme Court for the review of the CA decision. (a) Is the Secretary of Education
a proper party to seek the review of the CA decision exonerating Maximino?
Reasons (2%)

VII.
Enter into Executive Agreement; Treaty Abrogation (2008) No. III. The
President alone without the concurrence of the Senate abrogated a treaty. Assume
that the other country-party to the treaty is agreeable to the abrogation provided it
complies with the Philippine Constitution. If a case involving the validity of the
treaty of the treaty abrogation is brought to the Supreme Court, how should it be
resolved? (6%).

VIII.

2
Judicial Department; Writ of Amparo (2013) No. IX. Conrad is widely known in
the neighbourhood as a drug addict. He is also suspected of being a member of
the notorious "Akyat-Condo Gang" that has previously broken into and looted
condominium units in the area. Retired Army Colonel Sangre – who is known as
an anti-terrorism fighter who disdained human and constitutional rights and has
been nicknamed "terror of Mindanao" –is now the Head of Security of Capricorn
Land Corporation, the owner and developer of Sagittarius Estates where a series
of robberies has recently taken place. On March l, 2013, Conrad informed his
mother, Vannie, that uniformed security guards had invited him for a talk in their
office but he refused to come. Later that day, however, Conrad appeared to have
relented; he was seen walking into the security office flanked by two security
guards. Nobody saw him leave the office afterwards. Conrad did not go home that
night and was never seen again. The following week and after a week-long search,
Vannie feared the worst because of Col. Sangre's reputation. She thus reported
Conrad's disappearance to the police. When nothing concrete resulted from the
police investigation, Vannie – at the advice of counsel - f1led a petition for a writ of
amparo to compel Col. Sangre and the Sagittarius Security Office to produce
Conrad and to hold them liable and responsible for Conrad's disappearance.

(A) Did Vannie's counsel give the correct legal advice? (6%)

(B) If the petition would prosper, can Col. Sangre be held liable and/or responsible
for Conrad's disappearance? (6%)

IX.
Custodial Investigation; Extrajudicial Confession (2013) No.III. A robbery with
homicide had taken place and Lito, Badong and Rollie were invited for questioning
based on the information furnished by a neighbor that he saw them come out of
the victim's house at about the time of the robbery/killing. The police confronted
the three with this and other information they had gathered, and pointedly accused
them of committing the crime. Lito initially resisted, but eventually broke down and
admitted his participation in the crime. Elated by this break and desirous of
securing a written confession soonest, the police called City Attorney Juan Buan
to serve as the trio's counsel and to advise them about their rights during the
investigation. Badong and Rollie, weakened in spirit by Lito's early admission,
likewise admitted their participation. The trio thus signed a joint extra-judicial
confession which served as the main evidence against them at their trial. They

3
were convicted based on their confession. Should the judgment of conviction be
affirmed or reversed on appeal? (5%)

X.
Appointing Power; Appointments Requiring Confirmation; RA 6975-
Unconstitutional (2002) No V - On December 13, 1990, the President signed into
law Republic Act No. 6975 (subsequently amended by RA No. 8551) creating the
Department of Interior and Local Government. Sections 26 and 31 of the law
provide that senior officers of the Philippine National Police (PNP), from Senior
Superintendent, Chief Superintendent, Deputy Director General to Director
General or Chief of PNP shall, among others, be appointed by the President
subject to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. In 1991 the President
promoted Chief Superintendent Roberto Matapang and Senior Superintendent
Conrado Mahigpit to the positions of Director and Chief Superintendent of the PNP,
respectively. Their appointments were in a permanent capacity. Without
undergoing confirmation by the Commission on Appointments, Matapang and
Mahigpit took their oath of office and assumed their respective positions.
Thereafter, the Department of Budget and Management authorized disbursements
for their salaries and other emoluments. Juan Bantay filed a taxpayer's suit
questioning the legality of the appointments and disbursements made. Bantay
argues that the appointments are invalid inasmuch as the same have not been
confirmed by the Commission on Appointments, as required under Sections 26
and 31 of R.A. No. 6975. Determine with reasons the legality of the appointments
and the disbursements for salaries by discussing the constitutional validity of
Sections 26 and 31 of R.A. No. 6975. (5%)

XI.

What and whose vote is required for the following acts: (2% each)

(a) the repeal of a tax exemption law;

(b) a declaration of the existence of a state of war;

(c) the amendment of a constitutional provision through a constituent

assembly;

(d) the resolution of a tie in a presidential election; and

(e) the extension of the period for the suspension of the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus?