Shiryl Mae G.

Saquing
College of Law
University of Cagayan Valley

Starting on 41 minutes to 1 Hour and 20 minutes transcribed works

1. What is a writ of continuing mandamus?

1.a Can you give us an example where the Supreme Court issued a
writ of continuing mandamus?
2. What do you mean by privilege communication?
2.a It’s a communication between which persons?
2.b Supposed same person goes to a Lawyer to solicit advice
regarding a particular case and in the course of consultation the person
discloses to the lawyer certain documents in confidence and in the
course of consultation, the Lawyer gave advice to that person. Is that
covered by privilege communication?
2.c Suppose after the consultation the person changed his mind and
decides not to hire the Lawyer or the Lawyer changed his mind and
decides not to take the case, there is no retainership agreement and
there is no payment of any retainership, is it still covered by the rule
on privilege communication?
2.d Supposed the client or the person who sought the legal advice has
died after a period of 10 years or the Lawyer who gave the legal
advice has died after a period of 10 years, does the rule on privilege
communication still applies?
3. There is a bill in Congress seeking the revival of mandatory ROTC, if
that bill becomes a law, will that be considered constitutional?
4. What was the basis of the Supreme Court in declaring: The
Commission on Higher Education through a written Memorandum order
Number 20 excluding Filipino- Panitikan as core courses in college, is
that valid?
5. How would you interpret the Constitution, what is your judicial
philosophy? In so far as the interpretation of the Constitution is
concerned.
5.a So you will consult the journals of the constitutional convention to
ascertain the intent of the framers of the Constitution?
5.b The intent of the framers, what about the intent of the people who
ratified the Constitution?
6. What do you understand by the statement, by the view that the
Constitution is a living document? What do you understand by that?
7. The Constitution speaks there is a provision in Congress, a Senator
shall not serve for more than two consecutive terms: If a Senator served
for the first term for six years and a consecutive term of six years, can he
still run and be elected for a third term?
 7.a if he takes a break and do not run for the third term and he runs for
a third term after a break of six years, will it be constitutionally and
legally be permitted to run for the third term?
7.b Why? When the language of the Constitution is clear, it is explicit,
it is categorical, that a Senator shall not serve for more than two
consecutive terms.
7.c Can you look for the break in between the text of the Constitution,
is that what you’re suggesting?
7.d Is there ambiguity because you have mentioned interpreting the
Constitution, if it is clear then you apply the language of the Constitution
and now it is only when there is ambiguity that you resort to strenuous
sources so in the particular case is there an ambiguity?
7.e Justice Delos Santos what is your approach in so far as
interpreting the Constitution?
8. Are you familiar with the case of Cardema Partylist. There is a rule
governing the youth partylist wherein the Representative should not be
less than 25 but not more than 35. If the Representative is more than 35
the maximum, can he still be legally permissible to represent the youth
partylist?
8.a Supposed the Representative is below 25, he is under age, will he
be allowed to represent the youth?
8.b If he is 24 can he be legally and constitutionally permitted to
represent the youth partylist?
8.c Is there ambiguity if it states not more than 35 but not less than
25?
9. If a politician was implicated by the President in an alleged illegal
drug activity and his name was included in the Narco-list and he files for
a petition of a writ of habeas data in Supreme Court and it is assigned to
you, how would you resolve?
9.a What is a writ of habeas data?
10. Under the Rules of Court a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 must
be filed not later than 60 days from notice of judgment of resolution or a
notice of denial of a motion for reconsideration if one was filed,
supposed the petitioner is asking for an extension of time to file the
petition, should the court grant the petition?
9.b Why not?
9.c Is that an absolute rule?
10. What is the case of transcendental importance, give us an example.
11. Notice last 2018, President Duterte signed into law the Philippine ID
System act, creating a Unified and Streamed-Line ID System, personal
data to be collected are: the name, sex, date of birth, place of birth,
address, biometric information, facial image, whole set of fingerprints,
iris scan, other identifiable features. Do you think that is constitutional?
 11.a So what else remains to be private to the citizens with all the
personal details can be disclosed under that law? Are you certain that
there is no violation of privacy?
12. Does the Bureau of Customs and Bureau of Internal Revenue
exercise Police Power?
12.a Are they even authority under the law? Can it be delegated by
Congress?
13. If there is a Legislative franchise even enacted by Congress and by
its failure part of the grantee who would constitute the franchise, he want
to cancel if. What petition should be filed to cancel such franchise?
13.a Can you try a quo warranto petition to cancel a legislative
franchise?
13.b (Based on the answer of Justice Quiros: No your honor, I only
understand quo warranto when a person is the one entitled to that
petition your honor or the latest quo warranto decided by the Supreme
Court when they removed the former Chief, Justice Corona.) Who
removed Justice Corona?
14. What is the difference between Mutuum and Commodatum?

Justice Noel: I will now give the floor to Chief, Justice.

Chief, Justice Lucas P. Bersamin presided:

May I have Dean Villanueva,I have voted for you twice and you have
been recommended twice, do I have to vote for you again?

Dean Villanueva: Yes, please your honor.

So anyway, I would just like to pick your brace a little bit, do you have
heard the phrase “the law of the statute” before?

To all the panel of interviewees, this is to inform you that these are
essential terms that you will have to contend with their meaning, their
deeper understanding, when you shall enjoy the court because most of
the time you are required to go beyond the letter of the statute, the letter
of the Constitution and determine the multiphase in enacting that statute.

15. What about the term “Mischief Rule”?

16. Well the conflict in between the letter usually comes in between the
letter of the law and the spirit of the law, this is still in you Dean
Villanueva, which one should you let prevail, the letter of the law or the
spirit of the law?
17. Most often here in the Philippines, we have decisions that result to
interpretation by our dictionaries, the accepted ones- black or Grolier
dictionaries yet you often find this reference in black and Grolier in
reference in any of our existing laws, including our Constitution, why do
you think we needed to refer to black or Grolier whenever we have doubts
about this terms? The direct meaning or letter there is vagueness that we
discern.
18. Is it possible that we do this because the Supreme Court and any other
courts that does this presumes that the Congress referring to Grolier or Black
or whichever dictionary you prefer that moment when you make decision.
Meaning the Congress was aware of the meaning given by the lexicons to a
specific term or terms?

Chief, Justice: More often than not the Spirit of the Law prevails than the
letters of the law because the spirit of the law is the one that justifies what is
stated in the law, now very often the letter of the law has double meaning
will you accept that?

19. The letter of the law has double meaning will you accept that?

Chief, Justice: Anyway, the law of the statute is actually the spirit behind the
enactment of the law and sometimes, one of you said while ago that the
Supreme Court has referred to the legislative journals for purposes of
discerning the meaning that was intended by the Congress for a particular
term or text, but the problem here is we often have dispute between the
regional meaning- the text as written and the intent of the law and sometimes
we go so far, to cite: the exchanges in one chamber of Congress without
even considering what the other chamber considered to be the meaning that
would be given to that particular language, is that a correct way in doing it?
If you were to become a member of the court, would you agree to that?

Will it not be better to refer instead to the proceedings if there are any
recorded of the Bicam.

Dean Villanueva: Yes it would be but it might just show that the Bicam had
other intention, other than the intention of the other two chambers

20. Chief, Justice: That was the last delivered deliberation held before the
passage of that law, will it indicate the contemporaneous intent of the
Congress, there are many letter of law?

21.Now if you were to become a member of the court will you be allowing
yourself to quote only one exchange that happened only in one chamber, will
you do that or you will not do that because you are aware there is other
chamber that went into the passage of the law?