San Beda College

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF LAW

Comprehensive Examination for the Degree Master of Laws
(LLM)

All questions are to be answered with the following key criteria:

a. Grasp of the Subject

b. Thoroughness of Analysis
c. Clarity and Logic of Exposition
d. Breadth of Legal and Juridical Insight

I. Differentiate between “constitutionalism” in common law

jurisdictions and in civil law jurisdictions.

II. In an age thoroughly marked by pluralism when recourse to

common norms, or even to a transcendental norm such as “natural
law” is neither plausible nor practicable, what provides the basis for
legitimacy?

III. Republic Act No. 8800, the Safeguards Act, authorizes the
Secretary of Trade and Industry to increase tariffs as “safeguard
measures” to protect domestic industries. The law states that the
safeguard measures shall be imposed if the following elements are
present: substantial increase of imports, injury to the domestic
industry, and proof that the injury was caused by the increased
imports. The Philippines, however, is also a party to the WTO
Agreements that require two additional requirements for a country to
impose safeguard measures: that the import increase arose from
unforeseen developments, and due to a WTO obligation. France, a
WTO member and an exporter to the Philippines, has objected to the
Safeguards Act claiming that the law requires only three elements out
of the five required by the WTO Agreements. Thus, according to
France, the Philippine legislation is contrary to its treaty commitment.

1. Did the Philippines violate its treaty commitment?

2. Assume that France follows the “doctrine of transformation”,
assume further that the French Parliament has not legislated
on or “transformed” the WTO Agreements. Is that treaty in
effect insofar as France is concerned vis-à-vis the other
countries party to that treaty? Discuss by distinguishing the
effects of the doctrine of transformation versus the doctrine of
incorporation.
IV. What is the concept of sustainable development under
international law, and how is that reflected in the 1987 Constitution
and in Philippine environmental laws and our local jurisprudence?

V. Jurisprudence claims to contribute to the enhancement of a

common life, and to the proper ordering of public spaces. How can we
then see that as a challenge to work on ourselves so we over come the
infantilizing, flattening desire merely to dominate others, and instead
to serve them and their true needs? How do we diffuse jurisprudence
so that it conduces to a common good instead of merely collapsing
before the threat of violent demagoguery and ultimately of population
versus population annihilations as has already transpired and
continues to do so?

VI. What are the legal implications on validity and enforceability

under Philippine law of a commercial contract that stipulates New York
Law as the governing law, if the contracting parties are a Philippine-
based manufacturing company and a Singapore-based retail company?
The Philippines and Singapore are both members of the ASEAN
Economic Community.

VII. Under our present rules, the judge is a neutral umpire who
merely awaits the evidence adduced by each side to a dispute. This is
predominantly the ethos of the adversarial system. In civil law
jurisdictions, however, the inquisitorial system assigns to the judge a
more active role in determining what evidence he needs in order to
arrive at what he considers a sound verdict. Examine the contrast
between these two models of adjudication against the backdrop of
proposals to amend our rules of procedure.