1987-2019 Bqa Political Law

FROM Nth Time BAR CHALLENGER TO ATTORNEY
POLITICAL LAW
ARRANGED BAR QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 1987 TO 2019
ARRANGED AND SEQUENCED

BASED ON THE MOST FREQUENTY ASKED TOPICS
1987 - 2019 BAR EXAMINATIONS
POLITICAL LAW
The questions for the 2019 political bar examinations are all modified or
recycled popular topics of the past exams saved two - the condonation doctrine and
curfew. My analyzation for the next bar is that the questions would be the same.
Recycled popular questions plus one or two current events. You would know them,
dahil naka-per topic tayo. Concentrate on the most asked topics. Dig deeper but
never go beyond that topic. Intindihin lang maigi.
After reading all the bar questions, I suggest you get the book of J. Nachura.
Maliit na book lang yan but sik-sik sa jurisprudence pero kulang lang sa international
law. So get a very simple book on PIL, yung manipis lang. Scan only the topics
asked in the bar. Do not overload with information. Concentrate on bar questions
and read current events. I think if may new questions to come up, sa current events
kukunin ng examiner.
I can’t imagine how many 2019 bar students spent as much as P100,000 sa
mga VOLUMINOUS school materials, BIG books and EXPENSIVE review centers.
Ang kailangan lang naman is to familiarize with bqas and a simple book to quick
scan to pass the 2019bar. Kaya, save your money, enjoy while studying smart for
your bar exam.
THIS BAR REVIEW MATERIAL is composed of 295 pages. The sources used are UPLC, PALS, books
with BQAs and other materials that can be found in the internet. I just have the patience to ARRANGE them
based on the most asked topics from 1987 to 2019, and SEQUENCE them by year. Some answers were
paraphrased to suit the ALAC format and some were found to be so informative in lecture type answer and
better left out as they are. We are giving credits to the authors of those materials.
BAR QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 1987-2019

POLITICAL LAW
FIRST EDITION
JULY 10, 2020
MANILA, PHILIPPINES
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
The ARRANGER is a humble partner to succeed in your quest for a law degree and to clinch the evasive “Attorney”
title to your name. He believes that no one has the monopoly of knowledge so you may email him for any correction,
modification and suggestion at barlawfordummies@yahoo.com.ph. Other law subjects will soon be available for
2020 Bar Exams. For orders visit FB Page: Law Reviewers, Books and Bookstand for Sale/OR TEXT 09325293595
POLITICAL LAW
TABLE OF CONTENTS
THE 1987 CONSTITUTION…3

ARTICLE 1: NATIONAL TERRITORY…4
ARTICLE 2: DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES…8
ARTICLE 3: BILL OF RIGHTS…13
ARTICLE 4: CITIZENSHIP…80
ARTICLE 5: SUFFRAGE…-
ARTICLE 6: LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT…90
ARTICLE 7: EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT…113
ARTICLE 8: JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT…134
ARTICLE 9: CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS…154
THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION…155
THE COMMISSION ON ELECTION…162
THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT…182
ARTICLE 10: LOCAL GOVERNMENT…185
ARTICLE 11: ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS…197
ARTICLE 12: NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY…210
ARTICLE 13: SOCIAL JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS…219
ARTICLE 14: EDUCATION, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY…224
ARTICLE 15: THE FAMILY…-
ARTICLE 16: GENERAL PROVISIONS…231
ARTICLE 17: AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS…239
ARTICLE 18: TRANSITORY PROVISIONS…242
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW…243
PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW…249
2019 BAR EXAMINATIONS AND ANSWERS…286
POLITICAL LAW
1987 CONSTITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATURE OF THE CONSTITUTION
(2004) BNN Republic has a defense treaty with EVA Federation. According to the Republic's Secretary of Defense, the treaty
allows temporary basing of friendly foreign troops in case of training exercises for the war on terrorism. The Majority Leader of the Senate
contends that whether temporary or not, the basing of foreign troops however friendly is prohibited by the Constitution of BNN which
provides that, "No foreign military bases shall be allowed in BNN territory."
In case there is indeed an irreconcilable conflict between a provision of the treaty and a provision of the Constitution, in a
jurisdiction and legal system like ours, which should prevail: the provision of the treaty or of the Constitution? Why? Explain with reasons,
briefly. (5%)
In case of conflict between a provision of a treaty and a provision of the Constitution, the provision of the Constitution should
prevail. Section 5(2)(a), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution authorizes the nullification of a treaty when it conflicts with the Constitution.
(Gonzales v. Hechanova, 9 SCRA 230 [1963]).
(2006) 1. a) What is the principal identifying feature of a presidential form of government? Explain. (2.5%)
The principal identifying feature of a presidential form of government is embodied in the separation of powers doctrine. Each
department of government exercises powers granted to it by the Constitution and may not control, interfere with or encroach upon the
acts done within the constitutional competence of the others. However, the Constitution also gives each department certain powers by
which it may definitely restrain the others from improvident action, thereby maintaining a system of checks and balances among them,
thus, preserving the will of the sovereign expressed in the Constitution.
b) What are the essential characteristics of a parliamentary form of government? (2.5%)
The essential characteristics of a parliamentary form of government are: the fusion of the legislative and executive branches
in parliament; the prime minister, who is the head of government, and the members of the cabinet, are chosen from among the members
of parliament and as such are accountable to the latter; and the prime minister may be removed from office by a vote of loss of confidence
of parliament. There may be a head of state who may or may not be elected.
MULTI-PARTY SYSTEM
(1999) No XIV - Discuss the merits and demerits of the multi-party system. (2%)
A multi-party system provides voters with a greater choice of candidates, ideas, and platforms instead of limiting their choice
to two parties, whose ideas may be sterile. It also leaves room for deserving candidates who are not acceptable to those who control the
two dominant parties to seek public office. On the other hand, a multi-party system may make it difficult to obtain a stable and workable
majority, since probably no party will get a majority. Likewise, the opposition will be weakened if there are several minority parties.
POLITICAL LAW
ARTICLE I: NATIONAL TERRITORY

ARCHIPELAGIC DOCTRINE
[2016] A. Define the archipelagic doctrine of national territory, state its rationale; and explain how it is implemented through
the straight baseline method. (2.5%)
B. Section 2 of RA 9522 declared the Kalayaan Island Group (KIG) and Scarborough Shoal as "Regimes of Islands." Professor
Agaton contends that since the law did not enclose said islands, then the Philippines lost its sovereignty and jurisdiction over them. Is his
contention correct? Explain. (2.5%)
A. By the term “archipelagic doctrine of national territory” is meant that the islands and waters of the Philippine archipelago
are unified in sovereignty, together with “all the territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction.
This archipelagic doctrine, so described under Article I of the Constitution, draws its rationale from the status of the whole
archipelago in sovereignty by which under Part IV of the UNCLOS the Philippines is defined as an Achipelagic State in Article 46, thus:
(a) “Archipelagic state” means a state constituted wholly nu one or more archipelagos and may include other islands;
(b) “Archipelago” means group of islands including parts of islands interconnecting waters and other natural features which
are so closely interrelated that such islands waters and other natural features form an intrinsic geographic, economic and political entity,
or which historically have been regarded as such.
As an archipelagic state, the national territory is implemented by drawing its “straight archipelagic baselines” pursuant to
Article 47 of UNCLOS which prescribes among its main elements, as follows:
1. By “joining the outermost points of the outermost islands and drying reefs of the archipelago”, including the main islands
and an area in which the ratio of the area of the water to the land including atolls, is between 1 to 1 and 9 to 1.
2. Mainly, the length of such baselines “shall not exceed 100 nautical miles…”
3. “The drawing of such baselines shall not depart to any appreciable extent from the general configuration of the archipelago.”
B. The contention of Prof. Agaton is not correct at all. “Regime of islands” is a concept provided in Article 121 of the UNCLOS.
It is a definition of the island as “a naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water which is above water at high tide.” On the other
hand, this provision is differentiated from “rocks” which cannot sustain human habitation of their own. The importance of the difference
between a natural island and rock is that an island is provided with territorial sea, exclusive economic zone and continental shelf. This is
the difference by which RA 9522 introduced into the KIG and separately Panatag or Scarborough Shoal is an island. “Regime of Islands”,
has no relevance to acquisition or loss of sovereignty. RA 9522 has the effect of possibility dividing the area in question into island and
rocks, apparently to make clear for each the maritime zones involved in the definition of island or of rocks.
(2013) No.VI. Congress passed Republic Act No. 7711 to comply with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
In a petition filed with the Supreme Court, Anak Ti Ilocos, an association of Ilocano professionals, argued that Republic Act No.
7711discarded the definition of the Philippine territory under the Treaty of Paris and in related treaties; excluded the Kalayaan Islands
and the Scarborough Shoals from the Philippine Archipelagic baselines; and converted internal waters into archipelagic waters. Is the
petition meritorious? (6%)
No, the petition is not meritorious. UNCLOS has nothing to do with the acquisition (or loss) of territory. It merely regulates sea-
use rights over maritime zones, contiguous zones, exclusive economic zones, and continental shelves which it delimits. The Kalayaan
Islands and the Scarborough Shoals are located at an appreciable distance from the nearest shoreline of the Philippine archipelago. A
straight baseline loped around them from the nearest baseline will violate Article 47(3) and Article 47(2) of the United Nations Convention
on the Law of the Sea III. Whether the bodies of water lying landward of the baselines of the Philippines are internal waters or archipelagic
waters, the Philippines retains jurisdiction over them (Magallona vs. Ermita, 655 SCRA 476).
POLITICAL LAW
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER
No, the petition is not meritorious. UNCLOS has nothing to do with the acquisition (or loss) of territory. It is a multilateral treaty
regulating, among others, sea-use rights among maritime zones and continental shelves that UNCLOS III delimits. The court finds RA
No. 7711 constitutional and is consistent with the Philippines’ national interest. Aside from being the vital step in safeguarding the
country’s maritime zones, the law also allows an internationally-recognized delimitation of the breadth of the Philippines’ maritime zones
and continental shelf.
The court also finds that the conversion of internal waters to archipelagic waters will not risk the Philippines as affirmed in the
Article 49 of the UNCLOS III, an archipelagic state has sovereign power that extends to the waters enclosed by the archipelagic baselines,
regardless of their depth or distance from the coast. It is further stated that the regime of archipelagic sea lanes passage will not affect
the status of its archipelagic waters or the exercise of sovereignty over waters and air space, bed and subsoil and the resources therein
(Prof. Merlin Magallona, et al v. Hon. Eduardo Ermita, in his capacity as Executive Secretary, et al, G.R. No. 187167, 16 July 2011)
(2009) No.I. b. Under the archipelago doctrine, the waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago
form part of the territorial sea of the archipelagic state.
FALSE. Under Article I of the Constitution, the waters around, between and connecting the islands of the archipelago form
part of the INTERNAL WATERS. Under Article 49 (1) of the U.N. Convention on the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, these waters
do not form part of the territorial sea but are described as archipelagic waters.
(1989) No. 20: What do you understand by the archipelagic doctrine? Is this reflected in the 1987 Constitution?
The ARCHIPELAGIC DOCTRINE emphasizes the unity of land and waters by defining an archipelago either as a group of
islands surrounded by waters or a body of waters studded with islands. For this purpose, it requires that baselines be drawn by connecting
the appropriate points of the "outermost islands to encircle the islands within the archipelago. The waters on the landward side of the
baselines regardless of breadth or dimensions are merely internal waters.
Yes, the archipelagic doctrine is reflected in the 1987 Constitution. Article I, Section 1 provides that the national territory of the
Philippines includes the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced therein; and the waters around, between, and
connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines.
CONTIGUOUS ZONE VS. EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE
(2004) (2-a-2) Distinguish: The contiguous zone and the exclusive economic zone.
CONTIGUOUS ZONE is a zone contiguous to the territorial sea and extends up to 12 nautical miles from the territorial sea
and over which the coastal state may exercise control necessary to prevent infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary
laws and regulations within its territory or territorial sea. (Article 33 of the Convention on the Law of the Sea.)
The EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE is a zone extending up to 200 nautical miles from the baselines of a state over which
the coastal state has sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the natural resources,
whether living or nonliving, of the waters superjacent to the seabed and of the seabed and subsoil, and with regard to other activities for
the economic exploitation and exploration of the zone. (Articles 56 and 57 of the Convention on the Law of the Sea.)
(1994) No. 11: In the desire to improve the fishing methods of the fishermen, the Bureau of Fisheries, with the approval of the
President, entered into a memorandum of agreement to allow Thai fishermen to fish within 200 miles from the Philippine sea coasts on
the condition that Filipino fishermen be allowed to use Thai fishing equipment and vessels, and to learn modern technology in fishing and
canning. 1) Is the agreement valid?
POLITICAL LAW
1) No. the President cannot authorize the Bureau of Fisheries to enter into a memorandum of agreement allowing Thai
fishermen to fish within the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines, because the Constitution reserves to Filipino citizens the use and
enjoyment of the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines.
Section 2. Article XII of the Constitution provides: “The State shall protect the nation's marine part in its archipelagic waters,
territorial sea, and exclusive economic zone, and reserve its use and enjoyment to Filipino citizens."
Section 7, Article XIII of the Constitution provides: "The State shall protect the rights of subsistence fishermen, especially of
local communities, to the preferential use of the communal marine and fishing resources, both inland and offshore. It shall provide support
to such fishermen through appropriate technology and research, adequate financial, production, and marketing assistance, and other
services. The State shall also protect, develop, and conserve such resources. The protection shall extend to offshore fishing grounds of
subsistence fishermen against foreign intrusion. Fishworkers shall receive a just share from their labor in the utilization of marine and
fishing resources.
(2005) (c) Enumerate the rights of the coastal state in the exclusive economic zone. (3%)
In the EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE, the coastal State has sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting,
conserving and managing the natural resources, whether living or non-living, of the waters superjacent to the seabed and of the seabed
and its subsoil, and with regard to other activities for the economic exploitation and exploration of the zone, such as the production of
energy from the water, currents and winds in an area not extending more than 200 nautical miles beyond the baseline from which the
territorial sea is measured. Other rights include the production of energy from the water, currents and winds, the establishment and use
of artificial islands, installations and structures, marine scientific research and the protection and preservation of the marine environment.
(Art 56,U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
SOVEREIGN RIGHTS — for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the natural resources, whether
living or non-living, of the seabed and subsoil and the superjacent waters, and with regard to other activities such as the production of
energy from the water, currents and winds in an area not extending more than 200 nautical miles beyond the baseline from which the
territorial sea is measured. (See Art. 56, UNCLOS)
Jurisdiction, inter alia, with regard to:
1. the establishment and use of artificial islands, installations and structures;
2. marine scientific research; and
3. the protection and preservation of the marine environment.
TERRITORY & GOVERNMENT
(2015) A bill was introduced in the House of Representatives in order to implement faithfully the provisions of the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) to which the Philippines is a signatory. Congressman Pat Rio Tek questioned the
constitutionality of the bill on the ground that the provisions of UNCLOS are violative of the provisions of the Constitution defining the
Philippine internal waters and territorial sea. Do you agree or not with the said objection? Explain. (3%)
No, the objection is not tenable. UNCLOS has nothing to do with the redefinition of our territory. It merely regulates sea-use
rights over maritime zones, contiguous zones, exclusive economic zones, and continental shelves which it delimits. Whether the bodies
of water lying landward of the baselines of the Philippines are internal waters or archipelagic waters, the Philippines retains jurisdiction
over them (Magallona v. Ermita, GR No. 187167, July 16, 2011, 655 SCRA 476).
POLITICAL LAW
(2015) Describe the following maritime regimes under UNCLOS (4%)

a. Territorial sea
b. Contiguous zone
c. Exclusive economic zone
d. Continental shelf
A. Territorial sea – is the belt of waters adjacent to the coasts of the State, excluding internal waters in bays and gulfs, over
which the state claims sovereignty and jurisdiction and which is 12 nautical miles from the baseline.
B. Contiguous zone – is that belt of waters measured 24 nautical miles from the same baseline used to measure the breadth
of the territorial sea. In this zone, the coastal state may exercise the control necessary to:
1. Prevent infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations within its territory or territorial sea.
2. Punish infringement of the above laws and regulations committed within its territory or territorial sea (Article 53, UNCLOS)
C. Exclusive Economic Zone is an area beyond and adjacent to the territorial sea, over which a state has special rights over
the exploration and utilization of marine resources. It shall not extend beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the
breadth of the territorial sea is measured. In case of archipelagic states, its breadth shall be measured from the archipelagic baseline
(Article 57, 58, 48, UNCLOS)
D. Continental shelf - The continental shelf of a coastal State comprises the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas that
extend beyond its territorial sea throughout the natural prolongation of its land territory to the outer edge of the continental margin, or to
a distance of 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured where the outer edge of the
continental margin does not extend up to that distance (Article 76, UNCLOS).
(2004) Distinguish: The territorial sea and the internal waters of the Philippines.
TERRITORIAL SEA is an adjacent belt of sea with a breadth of 12 nautical miles measured from the baselines of a state and
over which the state has sovereignty. (Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention on the Law of the Sea.) Ship of all states enjoy the right of
innocent passage through the territorial sea. (Article 14 of the Convention on the Law of the Sea.)
Under Section 1, Article I of the 1987 Constitution, the INTERNAL WATERS of the Philippines consist of the waters around, between
and connecting the islands of the Philippine Archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, including the waters in bays, rivers
and lakes. No right of innocent passage for foreign vessels exists in the case of internal waters. (Harris, Cases and Materials on
International Law, 5th ed., 1998, p. 407.) Internal waters are the waters on the landward side of baselines from which the breadth of the
territorial sea is calculated. (Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law, 4th ed., 1990, p. 120.)
(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? Explain.
The law dividing the Philippines into three regions, each constituting an independent state and vesting in a central government
matters of foreign relations, national defense, and national taxation, is unconstitutional.
First, it violates Article I, which guarantees the integrity of the national territory of the Philippines because it divided the
Philippines into three states.
Second, it violates Section 1, Article II of the Constitution, which provides for the establishment of democratic and republic
States by replacing it with three States organized as a confederation.
Third, it violates Section 22, Article II of the Constitution, which, while recognizing and promoting the rights of indigenous
POLITICAL LAW
cultural communities, provides for national unity and development.

Fourth, it violates Section 15, Article X of the Constitution, which, provides for autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and
in the Cordilleras within the framework of national sovereignty as well as territorial integrity of the Republic of the Philippines.
Fifth, it violates the sovereignty of the Republic of the Philippines.
ARTICLE II: DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES

RIGHT TO A BALANCE AND HEALTHFUL ECOLOGY
(2016) Several concerned residents of the areas fronting Manila Bay, among them a group of students who are minors, filed
a suit against the Metro Manila Development · Authority (MMDA), the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), the
Department of Health (DOH), the Department of Agriculture (DA), the Department of Education (DepEd), the Department of Interior and
Local Government (DILG), and a number of other executive agencies, asking the court to order them to perform their duties relating to
the cleanup, rehabilitation and protection of Manila Bay. The complaint alleges that the continued neglect by defendants and their failure
to prevent and abate pollution in Manila Bay constitute a violation of the petitioners' constitutional right to life, health and a balanced
ecology.
A. If the defendants assert that the students/petitioners who are minors do not have locus standi to file the action, is the
assertion correct? Explain your answer. (2.5%)
B. In its decision which attained finality, the Court ordered the defendants to clean up, rehabilitate and sanitize Manila Bay
within eighteen (18) months, and to submit to the Court periodic reports of their accomplishment, so that the Court can monitor and
oversee the activities undertaken by the agencies in compliance with the Court's directives. Subsequently, a resolution was issued
extending the time periods within which the agencies should comply with the directives covered by the final decision. A view was raised
that the Court's continued intervention after the case has been decided violates the doctrine of separation of powers considering that the
government agencies all belong to the Executive Department and are under the control of the President. Is this contention correct? Why
or why not? (2.5%)
A. The assertion that the students/ petitioners who are minors have no locus standi is errorneous. Pursuant to the obligation
of the State under Section 16, Article II if the Constitution to protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful
ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature, minor have standing to sue based on the concept of intergenerational
responsibility (Oposa v. Factoran, 224 SCRA 792 [1993]).
B. The order of the Supreme Court to the defendants to clean up, rehabilitate and sanitize Manila Bay is an exercise of judicial
power, because the execution of its decision is an integral part of its adjudicative function. Since the submission of periodic reports is
needed to fully implement the decision, the Supreme Court can issue writ of mandamus to the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority
until full compliance with its order is shown. (Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay, 643
SCRA 90 [2011])
DEFENSE OF STATE
(2009) No.I.c. A law that makes military service for women merely voluntary is constitutional
FALSE. In the defense of the state, all citizens may be required by law to render personal, military or civil service (Section 4,
Article II of the Constitution). The duty is imposed on all citizens without distinction as to gender.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
TRUE. The prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect the people. The Government may call upon the people to
POLITICAL LAW
defend the State and, in the fulfillment thereof, ALL CITIZENS may be required, under conditions provided by law, to render personal
military or civil service. What is mandatory is the calling out of the people to defend the state. But the citizens including woman may
render personal or military service.
(2003) No I - Article II. Section 3, of the 1987 Constitution expresses, in part, that the "Armed Forces of the Philippines is the
protector of the people and (of) the State." Describe briefly what this provision means. Is the Philippine National Police covered by the
same mandate?
POLITICAL LAW
Article II, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution means that the Armed Forces of the Philippines should not serve the interest of
the President but of the people and should not commit abuses against the people. (Record of the Constitutional Commission, Vol. V, p.
133.) This provision is specifically addressed to the Armed Forces of the Philippines and not to the Philippine National Police, because
the latter is separate and distinct from the former. (Record of the Constitutional Commission, Vol. V, p. 296; Manalo v. Sistoza. 312 SCR
A 239 [1999].)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER
Article II, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution can be interpreted to mean that the Armed Forces of the Philippines can be a
legitimate instrument for the overthrow of the civilian government if it has ceased to be the servant of the people. (Bernas, The 1987
Constitution of the Philippines: A Commentary, 2003 ed., p. 66.) This provision does not apply to the Philippine National Police, because
it is separate and distinct from the Armed Forces of the Philippines. (Record of the Constitutional Commission, Vol. V, p. 296, Manalo v.
Sistoza. 312 SCRA 239 [1999].)
DOCTRINE OF INCORPORATION
(1997) No. 1; What do you understand by the "Doctrine of Incorporation" in Constitutional Law?
The DOCTRINE OF INCORPORATION means that the rules of International law form part of the law of the land and no
legislative action is required to make them applicable to a country. The Philippines follows this doctrine, because Section 2. Article II of
the Constitution states that the Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land.
(2000) No X. The Philippines has become a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and resultantly agreed that it
"shall ensure the conformity of its laws, regulations and administrative procedures with its obligations as provided in the annexed
Agreements." This is assailed as unconstitutional because this undertaking unduly limits, restricts and impairs Philippine sovereignty and
means among others that Congress could not pass legislation that will be good for our national interest and general welfare if such
legislation will not conform with the WTO Agreements. Refute this argument. (5%)
According to Tanada v. Angara, 272 SCRA 18 (1997), the sovereignty of the Philippines is subject to restriction by its
membership in the family of nations and the limitations imposed of treaty limitations. Section 2. Article II of the Constitution adopts the
generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land. One of such principles is pacta sunt servanda. The
Constitution did not envision a hermit-like isolation of the country from the rest of the world.
FREEDOM FROM NUCLEAR WEAPONS
(1988) No. 22: The Secretary of Justice had recently ruled that the President may negotiate for a modification or extension of
military bases agreement with the United States regardless of the "no nukes" provisions in the 1987 Constitution. The President forthwith
announced that she finds the same opinion "acceptable" and will adopt it. The Senators on the other hand, led by the Senate President,
are skeptical, and had even warned that no treaty or international agreement may go into effect without the concurrence of two-thirds of
all members of the Senate.
A former senator had said, "it is completely wrong, if not erroneous," and "is an amendment of the Constitution by
misinterpretation." Some members of the Lower House agree with Secretary Ordonez, while others lament the latter's opinion as
"questionable, unfortunate, and without any basis at all."
Do you or do you not agree with the aforementioned ruling of the Department of Justice? Why?
POLITICAL LAW
No. The Constitution provides that if foreign military bases, troops or facilities are to be allowed after the expiration of the
present Philippine-American Military Bases Agreement in 1991, it must be "under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate and, when the
Congress so requires, ratified by a majority of the votes cast by the people in a national referendum." (Art. XVIII, sec. 25) A mere
agreement, therefore, not a treaty, without the concurrence of at least 2/3 of all the members of the Senate will not be valid (Art. VII, sec.
21, Art. XVIII, sec. 4). With respect to the provision allowing nuclear weapons within the bases, the Constitution appears to ban such
weapons from the Philippine territory. It declares as a state policy that "the Philippines, consistent with the national interest, adopts and
pursues a policy of freedom from nuclear weapons in its territory." (Art, II, sec. 8) However, the deliberations of the Constitutional
Commission would seem to indicate that this provision of the Constitution is "not something absolute nor 100 percent without exception."
It may therefore be that circumstances may justify a provision on nuclear weapons.
PRINCIPLE OF CIVILIAN SUPREMACY
(2006) What Constitutional provisions institutionalize the principle of civilian supremacy? (2.5%)
The following constitutional provisions institutionalize the principle of civilian supremacy:

1. Civilian authority is at all times supreme over the military. [Article II, Section 3]
2. The installation of the President, the highest civilian authority, as the Commander-in-Chief of the military. [Ar- ticle VII,
Section 18]
3. The requirement that members of the AFP swear to uphold and defend the Constitution, which is the fundamental law of
the civil government. [Article XVI, Section 5(1)]
4. The requirement that members of the AFP shall have respect for people's rights in the performance of their duty. [Article
XVI, Section 5(2)]
5. Professionalism in the armed forces. [Article XVI, Section 5(3)]
6. Insulation of the AFP from partisan politics. [Article XVI, Section 5(3)]
7. Prohibition against the appointment of an AFP member in the active service to a civilian position. [Article XVI, Section 5(4)]
8. Compulsory retirement of officers without extension of service. [Article XVI, Section 5(5)]
9. Requirement of proportional recruitment from all provinces and cities, so as to avoid any regional clique from forming within
the AFP. [Article XVI, Section 5(7)]
10. A 3-year limitation on the tour of duty of the Chief of Staff, which although extendible in case of emergency by the President,
depends on Congressional declaration of emergency. [Article XVI, Section 5(6)]
11. The establishment of a police force that is not only civilian in character but also under the local executives. [Article XVI,
Section 5(7)]
STATE PRINCIPLES & POLICIES
(1994) No. 1; What is the state policy on:

A. working women?
B. ecology?
C. the symbols of statehood?
D. cultural minorities?
E. science and technology?
Section 14, Article XIII of the Constitution provides: "The State shall protect WORKING WOMEN by providing safe and
healthful working conditions, taking into account their maternal functions, and such facilities and opportunities that will enhance their
welfare and enable them to realize their full potential in the service of the nation."
Section 16, Article II of the Constitution provides: The State shall protect and advance the right of the people and their posterity
POLITICAL LAW
to a balanced and healthful ECOLOGY in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature."
Section 1, Article XVII of the Constitution provides: "The FLAG OF THE PHILIPPINES shall be red, white, and blue, with a
sun and three stars, as consecrated and honored by the people and recognized by law."
Section 2, Article XVI of the Constitution states: The Congress may by law, adopt a new name for the country, a national
anthem, or a national seal, which shall all be truly reflective and symbolic of the ideals, history, and traditions of the people. Such law
shall take effect only upon its ratification by the people in a national referendum."
Section 22, Article II of the Constitution provides: The State recognizes and promotes the rights of INDIGENOUS CULTURAL
COMMUNITIES within the framework of national unity and development."
Section 5, Article XII of the Constitution reads: The State, subject to the provisions of this Constitution and national
development policies and programs, shall protect the rights of indigenous cultural communities to their ancestral lands to ensure their
economic, social and cultural well-being.
The Congress may provide for the applicability of customary laws governing property rights or relations in determining the
ownership and extent of the ancestral domains."
Section 6, Art. XIII of the Constitution provides: The State shall apply the principles of AGRARIAN REFORM or stewardship,
whenever applicable in accordance with law, in the disposition or utilization of other natural resources, including lands of the public
domain under lease or concession suitable to agriculture, subject to prior rights, homestead rights of small settlers, and the rights of
indigenous communities to their ancestral lands.
The State may resettle landless farmers and farm workers in its own agricultural estates which shall be distributed to them in
the manner provided by law."
Section 17. Article XIV of the Constitution states: "The State shall recognize, respect and protect the rights of indigenous
cultural communities to preserve and develop their cultures, traditions, and institutions. It shall consider these rights in the formulation of
national plans and policies."
Section 17, Article II of the Constitution provides: "The State shall give priority to EDUCATION, SCIENCE and TECHNOLOGY, ARTS,
CULTURE, and SPORTS to foster patriotism and nationalism, accelerate social progress, and promote total human liberation and
development."
Section 14, Article XII of the Constitution reads in part: "The sustained development of a reservoir of NATIONAL TALENTS
consisting of Filipino scientists, entrepreneurs, professionals, managers, high-level technical manpower and skilled workers and
craftsmen shall be promoted by the State, The State shall encourage appropriate technology and regulate Its transfer for the national
benefit.
Sub-section 2, Section 3. Article XIV of the Constitution states: "They (EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS) shall inculcate
patriotism and nationalism, foster love of humanity, respect for human rights, appreciation of the role of national heroes in the historical
development of the country, teach the rights and duties of citizenship, strengthen ethical and spiritual values, develop moral character
and personal discipline, encourage critical and creative thinking, broaden scientific and technological knowledge, and promote vocational
efficiency."
Section 10. Article XIV of the Constitution declares: "SCIENCE and TECHNOLOGY are essential for national development
and progress. The State shall give priority to research and development, invention, innovation, and their utilization; and to science and
technology education, training, services. It shall support indigenous, appropriate, and self- reliant scientific and cultural capabilities, and
their application to the country's productive systems and national life."
Section 11, Article XIV of the Constitution provides: "The Congress may provide for incentives, including TAX DEDUCTIONS,
to encourage private participation in programs of basic and applied scientific research. Scholarships, grants-in-aid or other forms of
Incentives shall be provided to deserving science students, researchers, scientists, investors, technologists, and specially gifted citizens."
Section 12, Article XIV of the Constitution reads: The State shall regulate the transfer and promote the adaptation of technology
from all sources for the national benefit. It shall encourage widest participation of private groups, local governments, and community-
based organizations in the generation and utilization of science and technology."
POLITICAL LAW
NOTE: It is suggested that if an examinee gave a substantive answer without giving the exact provisions of the Constitution,
then he should be given full credit. Further, one provision quoted/discussed by the examinee should be sufficient for him to be given full
credit.
TRANSPARENCY
(2000) No V. State at least three constitutional provisions reflecting the State policy on transparency in matters of
public interest. What is the purpose of said policy? (5%)
The following are the constitutional provisions reflecting the State policy on transparency in matters of public interest:
1. "Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State adopts and Implements a policy of full public disclosure of
all its transactions involving public interest." (Section 28, Article II)
2. The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to
documents, and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis for
policy development, shall be afforded to citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law." (Section 7, Article III)
3. The records and books of accounts of the Congress shall be preserved and be open to the public in accordance with law,
and such books shall be audited by the Commission on Audit which shall publish annually an itemized list of amounts paid to and
expenses incurred for each Member." (Section 20. Article VI)
4. The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following powers, functions, and duties: XXX XXX
5. Publicize matters covered by its investigation when circumstances so warrant and with due prudence," (Section 12, Article
XI)
"A public officer or employee shall, upon assumption of office, and as often as thereafter may be required by law, submit a
declaration under oath of his assets, liabilities, and net worth. In the case of the President, the Vice President, the Members of the
Cabinet, the Congress, the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Commissions and other constitutional offices, and officers of the armed
forces with general or flag rank, the declaration shall be disclosed to the public in the manner provided by law." (Section 17, Article XI)
"Information on foreign loans obtained or guaranteed by the Government shall be made available to the public." (Section 21
Article XII)
As explained In Valmonte v. Belmonte, 170 SCRA 256 (1989), the purpose of the policy is to protect the people from abuse
of governmental power. If access to information of public concern is denied, the postulate "public office is a public trust" would be mere
empty words.
{Note: The examinee should be given full credit if he gives any three of the above-mentioned provisions.}
(1989) No. 3: Does the 1987 Constitution provide for a policy of transparency in matters of public interest? Explain.
Yes, the 1987 Constitution provides for a policy of transparency in matters of public interest. Section 28, Article II of the 1987
Constitution provides:
"Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State adopts and implements a policy of full disclosure of all its transactions
involving public interest,"
Section 7, Article III of the 1987 Constitution states: "The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall
be recognized, Access to official records, and to documents, and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as
to government research data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be
provided by law."
Section 20, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution reads: "The records and books of account of the Congress shall be preserved
and be open to the public in accordance with law, and such books shall be audited by the Commission on Audit which shall publish
annually an itemized list of amounts paid to and expenses incurred for each member."
Under Section 17, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, the sworn statement of assets, liabilities and net worth of the President,
POLITICAL LAW
the Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, the Congress, the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Commission and other
constitutional offices, and officers of the armed forces with general or flag rank filed upon their assumption of office shall be disclosed
to the public in the manner provided by law.
Section 21, Article XII of the Constitution declares: "Information on foreign loans obtained or guaranteed by the government
shall be made available to the public."
As held in Valmonte vs. Belmonte, G.R. No. 74930, Feb. 13, 1989, these provisions on public disclosures are intended to
enhance the role of the citizenry in governmental decision-making as well as in checking abuse in government.
POLITICAL LAW
ARTICLE III: BILL OF RIGHTS

BILL OF RIGHTS
(1991) No 1: How is the Bill of Rights strengthened in the 1987 Constitution?
There are several ways in which the Bill of Rights is strengthened in the 1987 Constitution.
1. New rights are given explicit recognition such as, the prohibition against detention by reason of political beliefs and
aspirations. The waiver of Miranda rights is now required to be made in writing with the assistance of counsel. The use of solitary,
incommunicado and secret detention places is prohibited, while the existence of substandard and inadequate penal facilities is made the
concern of legislation.
2. There is also recognition of the right of expression, an express prohibition against the use of torture, a mandate to the State
to provide compensation and rehabilitation for victims of torture and their families.
3. Some rights have been expanded. For instance, free access to courts now includes access to quasi-judicial bodies and to
adequate legal assistance.
4. The requirements for interfering with some rights have been made more strict. For instance, only judges can now issue
search warrants or warrants of arrest. There must be a law authorizing the Executive Department to interfere with the privacy of
communication, the liberty of abode, and the right to travel before these rights may be impaired or curtailed.
5. The Constitution now provides that the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus does not suspend the right
to bail, thus resolving a doctrinal dispute of long standing.
6. The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus and the proclamation of martial law have been limited to sixty
(60) days and are now subject to the power of Congress to revoke. In addition, the Supreme Court is given the jurisdiction, upon the
petition of any citizen to determine the sufficiency of the factual basis of the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus and
the proclamation of martial law.
7. The Supreme Court is empowered to adopt rules for the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights.
8. Art. II. Sec. 11 commits the State to a policy which places value on the dignity of every human person and guarantees full
respect for human rights.
9. A Commission on Human Rights is created.
10. Under Article XVI. Sec. 5(2) the State is mandated to promote respect for the people's rights among the members of the
military in the performance of their duty.
(1987) No. XVIII: The framers of the 1987 Constitution and the people who ratified it made sure that provisions institutionalizing
people power were incorporated in the fundamental law, Briefly discuss at least two such provisions.
Art. VI, Sec. 1, while vesting in Congress the legislative power, nonetheless states that such conferment of power shall be
subject to the reservation made in favor of the people by provisions on initiatives and referendum. For this purpose, Congress is required,
as early as possible, to provide for a system of initiative of referendum whereby the people can directly propose and enact laws or
approve or reject an act or law or part thereof passed by the Congress or the legislative bodies after the registration of a petition therefor,
signed by at least 10% of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least 3% of
the registered voters. (Id., sec. 32) The Constitution also provides that through initiative, upon a petition of at least 12% of the total
numbers of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least 3% of the registered voters therein,
amendments to the Constitution may be directly proposed by the people.
Art, XIII, sec. 15 states that the state shall respect the role of independent people's organization to enable them to pursue and
protect, within the democratic framework, their legitimate and collective interests and aspirations through peaceful lawful means. For this
purpose, the Constitution guarantees to such organizations the right to participate at all levels of social, political and economic decision-
POLITICAL LAW
making and the state is required to validate the establishment of adequate mechanism for this purpose. (Id., sec, 16)
(2000) No IX. Is the concept of People Power recognized in the Constitution? Discuss briefly. (3%)
Yes, the concept of People Power is recognized in the Constitution.
Under Section 32. Article VI of the Constitution, through initiative and referendum, the people can directly propose and enact
laws or approve or reject any act or law or part thereof passed by the Congress or local legislative body after the registration of a petition
therefor signed by at least ten per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented
by at least three per centum of the registered voters thereof.
Under Section 16, Article XIII of the Constitution, the right of the people and their organizations to effective and reasonable
participation at all levels of social, political and economic decision-making shall not be abridged. The State shall, by law facilitate the
establishment of adequate consultation mechanisms.
Under Section 2. Article XVII of the Constitution, the people may directly propose amendments to the Constitution through
initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be
represented by at least three per centum of the registered voters therein.
(2003) Is "people power" recognized by the 1987 Constitution? Explain fully.
"People power" is recognized in the Constitution.
Article III, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution guarantees the right of the people peaceable to assemble and petition the
government for redress of grievances.
Article VI, Section 32 of the 1987 Constitution requires Congress to pass a law allowing the people to directly propose and
enact laws through initiative and to approve or reject any act or law or part of it passed by Congress or a local legislative body.
Article XIII, Section 16 of the 1987 Constitution provides that the right of the people and their organizations to participate at all
levels of social, political, and economic decision-making shall not be abridged and that the State shall, by law, facilitate the establishment
of adequate consultation mechanisms.
Article XVII, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution provides that subject to the enactment of an implementing law, the people may
directly propose amendments to the Constitution through initiative.
ILLEGAL ARREST, SEARCH AND SEIZURE
[2018] Two police teams monitored the payment of ransom in a kidnapping case. The bag containing the ransom money was
placed inside an unlocked trunk of a car which was parked at the Angola Commercial Center in Mandaluyong City.
The first police team, stationed in an area near where the car was parked, witnessed the retrieval by the kidnappers of the
bag from the unlocked trunk. The kidnappers thereafter boarded their car and proceeded towards the direction of Amorsolo St. in Makati
City where the second police team was waiting.
Upon confirmation by the radio report from the first police team that the kidnappers were heading towards their direction, the
second police team proceeded to conduct surveillance on the car of the kidnappers, eventually saw it enter Ayala Commercial Center in
POLITICAL LAW
Makati City, and the police team finally blocked it when it slowed down. The members of the second police team approached the vehicle
and proceeded to arrest the kidnappers.
Is the warrantless arrest of the kidnappers by the second police team lawful? (5%)
The warrantless arrested is lawful. There are two requirements before a warrantless arrest can be effected under Section
5(b), Rule 113, Rules of Court: (1) an offense has just been committed, and (2) the person making the arrest has committed it.
Both requirements are present in the instant case. The first police team present in the Angola Commercial Center was able to
witness the pay-off which effectively consummated the crime of kidnapping. Its team members all saw the kidnappers take the money
from the car trunk. Such knowledge was then relayed to the other police officers comprising the second police team stationed in Amorsolo
St. Where the kidnappers were expected to pass.
It is sufficient for the arresting team that they were monitoring the pay-off for a number of hours long enough for them to be
informed as to who the kidnappers were. This is equivalent to the personal knowledge based on probable cause (People v. Uyboco,
G.R. No. 178039, January 19, 2011).
(2016) Ernesto, a minor, while driving a motor vehicle, was stopped at a mobile checkpoint. Noticing that Ernesto is a minor,
SPOl Jojo asked Ernesto to exhibit his driver's license but Ernesto failed to produce it. SPOI Jojo requested Ernesto to alight from the
vehicle and the latter acceded. Upon observing a bulge in the pants of Ernesto, the policeman frisked him and found an unlicensed .22-
caliber pistol inside Ernesto's right pocket. Ernesto was arrested, detained and charged.
At the trial, Ernesto, through his lawyer, argued that, policemen at mobile checkpoints are empowered to conduct nothing more
than a ''visual search". They cannot order the persons riding the vehicle to alight. They cannot frisk,or conduct a body search of the driver
or the passengers of the vehicle. Ernesto's lawyer thus posited that:
A. The search conducted in violation of the Constitution and established jurisprudence was an illegal search; thus, the gun
which was seized in the course of an illegal search is the "fruit of the poisonous tree" and is inadmissible in evidence. (2.5%)
B. The arrest made as a consequence of the invalid search was likewise illegal, because an unlawful act (the search) cannot
be made the basis of a lawful arrest. (2.5%)
Rule on the correctness of the foregoing arguments, with reasons.
A. The warrantless search of the motor vehicles at checkpoints should be limited to a visual search. Its occupants should not
be subjected to a body search (Aniag, Jr. v. Commission on Elections, 237 SCRA 424 [1994]). The “stop and frisk rule” applies when a
police officer observes suspicious activity or unusual activity which may lead him to believe that a criminal act may be afoot. The “stop
and frisk” is merely a limited protected search of outer clothing for weapons. (Luz v. People, 667 SCRA 421 [2012]).
B. Since there was no valid warrantless search, the warrantless search was also illegal. The unlicensed .22 caliber pistol is
inadmissible in evidence. (Luz v. People, 667 SCRA 421 [2012]).
(2016) Pornographic materials in the form of tabloids, magazines and other printed materials, proliferate and are being sold
openly in the streets of Masaya City. The City Mayor organized a task force which confiscated these materials. He then ordered that the
materials be burned in public. Dominador, publisher of the magazine, "Plaything", filed a suit, raising the following constitutional issues:
(a) the confiscation of the materials constituted an illegal search and seizure, because the same was done without a valid search warrant;
and (b) the confiscation, as well as the proposed destruction of the materials, is a denial of the right to disseminate information, and thus,
POLITICAL LAW
violates the constitutional right to freedom of expression. Is either or both contentions proper? Explain youranswer. (5%)
The confiscation of the materials constituted an illegal search and seizure, because it was done without a valid warrant. It
cannot be justified as a valid warrantless search and seizure, because such search and seizure must have been an incident of a lawful
arrest. There was no lawful arrest (Pita v. Court of Appeals, 178 SCRA 362 [1989]) The argument of Dominador that pornographic
materials are protected by the constitutional right to freedom of expression is erroneous. Obscenity is not a protected expression
(Fernando v. Court of Appeals, 510 SCRA 351 [2006]). Section 2 of Presidential Decree No. 969 requires the forfeiture and destruction
of pornographic materials (Nograles v. People, 660 SCRA 475 [2011]).
(2015) Around 12:00 midnight, a team of police officers was on routine patrol in Barangay Makatarungan when it noticed an
open delivery van neatly covered with banana leaves. Believing that the van was loaded with contraband, the team leader flagged down
the vehicle which was driven by Hades. He inquired from Hades what was loaded on the van. Hades just gave the police officer a blank
stare and started to perspire profusely. The police officers then told Hades that they will look inside the vehicle. Hades did not make any
reply. The police officers then lifted the banana leaves and saw several boxes. They opened the boxes and discovered several kilos of
shabu inside. Hades was charged with illegal possession of illegal drugs. After dueproceedings, he was convicted by the trial court. On
appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction.
In his final bid for exoneration, Hades went to the Supreme Court claiming that his constitutional right against unreasonable
searches and seizures was violated when the police officers searched his vehicle without a warrant; that the shabu confiscated from him
is thus inadmissible in evidence; and that there being no evidence against him, he is entitled to an acquittal.
For its part, the People ofthe Philippines maintains that the case ofHades involved a consented warrantless search which is
legally recognized. The People adverts to the fact that Hades did not offer any protest when the police officers asked him if they could
look inside the vehicle.
Thus, any evidence obtained in the course thereof is admissible in evidence. Whose claim is correct? Explain. (5%)
Hades’ claim is correct. The evidence obtained was illegally seized and is thus inadmissible in evidence. A consented
warrantless search, if it exists or whether it was in fact voluntary is a question of fact to be determined from the totality of all the
circumstances. Hades’ mere silence does not amount to consent. In the absence of such consent, evidence obtained thereof shall be
inadmissible in evidence, in which case precludes conviction and calls for the acquittal of the accused (Ong v. People, GR No. 197788,
Feb. 29, 2012).
(2009) No. VII. Crack agents of the Manila Police Anti-Narcotics unit were on surveillance of a cemetery where the sale and
use of prohibited drugs were rumored to be rampant. The team saw a man with reddish and glassy eyes walking unsteadily towards them,
but he immediately veered away upon seeing the policemen. The team approached the man, introduced themselves as peace officers,
then asked what he had in his clenched fist. Because the man refused to answer, a policeman pried the fist open and saw a plastic sachet
with crystalline substance. The team then took the man into custody and submitted the contents of the sachet to forensic examination.
The Crystalline substance in the sachet turned out to be shabu. The man was accordingly charged in court.
During the trial, the accused: (Decide with reasons)
Challenged the validity of his arrest; (2%)
The arrest is valid. The law enforcer has sufficient reason to accost the accused because of his suspicious actuations, coupled
with the fact that based on reliable information the area was a haven for drug addicts. (Manalili vs. Court of Appeals, 280 SCRA 400
[1997]).
POLITICAL LAW
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The warrantless arrest of the accused was void. There was no overt act or suspicious circumstances that would indicate that
he was committing a crime. The search preceded his arrest (People vs. Tudtud, 412 SCRA 142 [2003]).
Objected to the admission in evidence of the prohibited drug, claiming that it was obtained in an illegal search and seizure.
The objection should be denied. The evidence is admissible because the search and seizure was made incidental to a lawful
warrantless arrest (Manalili vs. Court of Appeals, 280 SCRA 400 [1997]).
(2008) No. V. Having received tips the accused was selling narcotics, two police officers forced open the door of his room.
Finding him sitting party dressed on the side of the bed, the officers spied two capsules on a night stand beside the bed. When
asked, “Are these yours?”, the accused seized the capsules and put them in his mouth. A struggle ensued, in the course of which
the officer pounced on the accused, took him to a hospital where at their direction, a doctor forced an emetic solution though a tube into
the accused’s stomach against his will. This process induced vomiting. In the vomited matter were found two capsules which proved to
contain heroin. In the criminal case, the chief evidence against the accused was the two capsules.
As counsel for the accused, what constitutional rights will you invoke in his defense? (4%)
As counsel for the accused I would invoke the constitutional right to be secured against unreasonable searches and seizures
(Art. III, Sec. 2 of the Constitution) which guarantees: (1) sanctity of the home, (2) inadmissibility of the capsules seized, (3) and
inviolability of the person. A mere tip from a reliable source is not sufficient to justify warrantless arrest or search (Peo vs. Nuevas, G.R.
No. 170233 Feb. 22,2007).
How should the court decide the case? (3%)
The court should declare the search and seizure illegal:

1. The entry into the accused’s home was not a permissible warrantless action because the police had no personal
knowledge that any crime was taking place.
2. Due to the invalid entry whatever evidence the police gathered would be inadmissible.
3. The arrest of the accused was already invalid and causing him to vomit while under custody was an unreasonable invasion
of personal privacy (U.S. vs. Montoya, 473 US 531 [1985])
(2010) No. XII. A witnessed two hooded men with baseball bats enter the house of their next door neighbor B. after a few
seconds, he heard B shouting, “Huwag Pilo babayaran kita agad.” Then A saw the two hooded men hitting B until the latter fell
lifeless. The assailants escaped using a yellow motorcycle with a fireball sticker on it toward the direction of an exclusive village nearby.
A reported the incident to PO1 Nuval. The following day, PO1 Nuval saw the motorcycle parked in the garage of a house at
Sta. Ines Street inside the exclusive village. He inquired with the caretaker as to who owned the motorcycle. The caretaker named the
brothers Pilo and Ramon Maradona who were then outside the country. PO1 Nuval insisted on getting inside the garage. Out of fear, the
caretaker allowed him. PO1 Nuval took 2 ski masks and 2 bats beside the motorcycle. Was the search valid? What about the seizure?
Decide with reasons. (4%)
The warrantless search and seizure was not valid. It was not made as an incident to a lawful warrantless arrest. (People vs.
Baula, 344 SCRA 663 [2000]). The caretaker had no authority to waive the right of the brothers Pilo and Ramon Maradona to
waive their right against unreasonable search and seizure. (People vs. Damaso, 212 SCRA 547 [1992].) the warrantless seizure of the
POLITICAL LAW
ski masks and bats cannot be justified under the plain view doctrine, because they were seized after invalid intrusion in to the house.
(People vs. Bolasa, 321 SCRA 459 [1999]).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
No. the search and the seizure are invalid because there was no search warrant and it cannot be said to be a search incidental
to a lawful arrest. It is the right of all individual to be secured against unreasonable searches and seizure by the government.
(2005) (2) Emilio had long suspected that Alvin, his employee, had been passing trade secrets to his competitor, Randy, but
he had noproof. 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%)
As held in People v. Marti (G.R. No. 81561, January 18, 1991), the constitution, in laying down the principles of the government
and fundamental liberties of the people, does not govern relationships between individuals. Thus, if the search is made at the behest or
initiative of the proprietor of a private establishment for its own and private purposes and without the intervention of police authorities, the
right against unreasonable search and seizure cannot be invoked for only the act of private individuals, not the law enforcers, is involved.
In sum, the protection against unreasonable searches and seizures cannot be extended to acts committed by PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS
so as to bring it within the ambit of alleged unlawful intrusion by the government. Accordingly, the letter and check are admissible in
evidence. (Waterous Drug Corp. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 113271, October 16, 1997)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER
The letter is inadmissible in evidence. The constitutional injunction declaring the privacy of communication and
correspondence to be inviolable is no less applicable simply because it is the employer who is the party against whom the constitutional
provision is to be enforced. The only exception to the prohibition in the Constitution is if there is a lawful order from the court or when
public safety or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law. Any violation of this provision renders the evidence obtained inadmissible
for any purpose in any proceeding. (Zulueta v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107383, February 20, 1996)
(2001) No IV - A is an alien. State whether, in the Philippines, he: Is entitled to the right against illegal searches and seizures
and against illegal arrests. (2%)
Aliens are entitled to the right against illegal searches and seizures and illegal arrests. As applied in People v. Chua Ho San,
307 SCRA 432 (1999), these rights are available to all persons, including aliens.
(1992) No, 3; Congress is considering a law against drunken driving. Under the legislation, police authorities may ask any
driver to take a "breathalyzer test", wherein the driver exhales several times into a device which can determine whether he has been
driving under the influence of alcohol. The results of the test can be used, in any legal proceeding against him. Furthermore, declaring
that the issuance of a driver's license gives rise only to a privilege to drive motor vehicles on public roads, the law provides that a driver
who refuses to take the test shall be automatically subject to a 90-day suspension of his driver's license. Cite two [2] possible constitutional
objections to this law. Resolve the objections and explain whether any such infirmities can be cured.
Possible objections to the law are that requiring a driver to take the breathalyzer test will violate his right against self-
incrimination, that providing for the suspension of his driver's license without any hearing violates due process, and that the proposed
law will violate the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, because it allows police authorities to require a driver to take the
breathalyzer test even if there is no probable cause.
POLITICAL LAW
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER
Requiring a driver to take a breathalyzer test does not violate his right against self- incrimination, because he is not being
compelled to give testimonial evidence. He is merely being asked to submit to a physical test. This is not covered by the constitutional
guarantee against self-incrimination. Thus, in South Dakota vs. Neville, 459 U.S. 553, it was held for this reason that requiring a driver to
take a blood-alcohol test is valid.
As held in Mackey vs. Afontrya 443 U.S. 1, because of compelling government interest in safety along the streets, the license
of a driver who refuses to take the breathalyzer test may be suspended immediately pending a post- suspension hearing, but there must
be a provision for a post-suspension hearing. Thus, to save the proposed law from unconstitutionally on the ground of denial of due
process, it should provide for an immediate hearing upon suspension of the driver's license. The proposed law violates the right against
unreasonable searches and seizures. It will authorize police authorities to stop any driver and ask him to take the breathalyzer test even
in the absence of a probable cause.
(1987) No. III: "X" a Constabulary Officer, was arrested pursuant to a lawful court order in Baguio City for murder. He was
brought to Manila where a warrantless search was conducted in his official quarters at Camp Crame, The search team found and seized
the murder weapon in a drawer of "X". Can "X" claim that the search and seizure were illegal and move for exclusion from evidence of
the weapon seized? Explain.
Yes, "X" can do so. The warrantless search cannot be justified as an incident of a valid arrest, because considerable time had
elapsed after his arrest in Baguio before the search of his quarters in Camp Crame, Quezon City was made, and because the distance
between the place of arrest and the place of search negates any claim that the place searched is within his "immediate control" so as to
justify the apprehension that he might destroy or conceal evidence of crime before a warrant can be obtained. (Chimel v. California, 395
U.S. 752 (1969) ) in Nolasco v. Cruz Pano, 147 SCRA 509 (1987), the Supreme Court reconsidered its previous decision holding that a
warrantless search, made after 30 minutes from the time of arrest, and, in a place several blocks away from the place of arrest, was valid.
It held that a warrantless search is limited to the search of the person of the arrestee at the time and incident to his arrest and for
dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the offense. A contrary rule would justify the police in procuring a warrant
of arrest and, by virtue thereof, not only arrest the person but also search his dwelling. A warrant requires that all facts as to the condition
of the property and its surroundings and its improvements and capabilities must be considered, and this can only be done in a judicial
proceeding.
(1990) No. 9; Some police operatives, acting under a lawfully issued warrant for the purpose of searching for firearms in the
House of X located at No. 10 Shaw Boulevard, Pasig, Metro Manila, found, instead of firearms, ten kilograms of cocaine.
May the said police operatives lawfully seize the cocaine? Explain your answer.
May X successfully challenge the legality of the search on the ground that the peace officers did not inform him about his right
to remain silent and his right to counsel? Explain your answer.
Suppose the peace officers were able to find unlicensed firearms in the house in an adjacent lot, that is. No, 12 Shaw
Boulevard, which is also owned by X. May they lawfully seize the said unlicensed firearms? Explain your answer.
Yes, the police operatives may lawfully seize the cocaine, because it is an item whose possession is prohibited by law, it was
in plain view and it was only inadvertently discovered in the course of a lawful search. The possession of cocaine is prohibited by Section
8 of the Dangerous Drugs Act. As held in Magoncia v. Palacio, 80 Phil. 770, an article whose possession is prohibited by law may be
seized without the need of any search warrant if it was discovered during a lawful search. The additional requirement laid down in Roan
v. Gonzales, 145 SCRA 687 that the discovery of the article must have been made inadvertently was also satisfied in this case.
POLITICAL LAW
No, X cannot successfully challenge the legality of the search simply because the peace officers did not inform him about his
right to remain silent and his right to counsel. Section 12(1), Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides: "Any person under investigation
for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent
counsel preferably of his own choice." As held in People v. Dy, 158 SCRA 111. for this provision to apply, a suspect must be under
investigation. There was no investigation involved in this case.
The unlicensed firearms stored at 12 Shaw Boulevard may lawfully be seized since their possession is illegal. As held in
Magoncia a Palacio, 80 Phil. 770, when an individual possesses contraband (unlicensed firearms belong to this category), he is
committing a crime and he can be arrested without a warrant and the contraband can be seized.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER
In accordance with the rulings in Uy Keytin v, Villareal, 42 Phil. 886 and People v. Sy Juco, 64 Phil. 667, the unlicensed
firearms found in the house at 12 Shaw Boulevard may not be lawfully seized, since they were not included in the description of the
articles to be seized by virtue of the search warrant. The search warrant described the articles to be seized as firearms in the house of X
located at 10 Shaw Boulevard.
(2001) No XI - Armed with a search and seizure warrant, a team of policemen led by Inspector Trias entered a compound
and searched the house described therein as No. 17 Speaker Perez St., Sta. Mesa Heights, Quezon City, owned by Mr. Ernani Pelets,
for a reported cache of firearms and ammunition. However, upon thorough search of the house, the police found nothing.
Then, acting on a hunch, the policemen proceeded to a smaller house inside the same compound with address at No. 17-A
Speaker Perez St., entered it, and conducted a search therein over the objection of Mr. Pelets who happened to be the same owner of
the first house. There, the police found the unlicensed firearms and ammunition they were looking for. As a result, Mr. Ernani Pelets was
criminally charged in court with Illegal possession of firearms and ammunition as penalized under P.D. 1866, as amended by RA. 8294.
At the trial, he vehemently objected to the presentation of the evidence against him for being inadmissible. Is Mr. Emani Pelet's contention
valid or not? Why? (5%)
The contention of Ernani Pelet is valid. As held in People vs. Court of Appeals, 291SCRA 400 (1993), if the place searched is
different from that stated in the search warrant, the evidence seized is inadmissible. The policeman cannot modify the place to be
searched as set out in the search warrant.
(1993) No. 4: Larry was an overnight guest in a motel. After he checked out the following day, the chambermaid found an
attache case which she surmised was left behind by Larry. She turned it over to the manager who, to determine the name and address
of the owner, opened the attache case and saw packages which had a peculiar smell and upon squeezing felt like dried leaves. His
curiosity aroused, the manager made an opening on one of the packages and took several grams of the contents thereof. He took the
packages to the NBI, and in the presence of agents, opened the packages, the contents of which upon laboratory examination, turned
out to be marijuana flowering tops, Larry was subsequently found, brought to the NBI Office where he admitted ownership of the attache
case and the packages. He was made to sign a receipt for the packages. Larry was charged in court for possession of prohibited drugs.
He was convicted. On appeal, he now poses the following issues:
The packages are inadmissible in evidence being the product of an illegal search and seizure;
Neither is the receipt he signed admissible, his rights under custodial investigation not having been observed. Decide.
On the assumption that the issues were timely raised the answers are as follows:
POLITICAL LAW
1. The packages are admissible in evidence. The one who opened the packages was the manager of the motel without any
interference of the agents of the National Bureau of Investigation. As held in People vs. Marti, 193 SCRA 57, the constitutional right
against unreasonable searches and seizures refers to unwarranted intrusion by the government and does not operate as a restraint upon
private individuals.
2. The receipt is not admissible in evidence. ...
(2002) No VIII. One day a passenger bus conductor found a man's handbag left in the bus. When the conductor opened the
bag, he found inside a catling card with the owner's name (Dante Galang) and address, a few hundred peso bills, and a small plastic bag
containing a white powdery substance. He brought the powdery substance to the National Bureau of Investigation for laboratory
examination and it was determined to be methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a prohibited drug. Dante Galang was subsequently
traced and found and brought to the NBI Office where he admitted ownership of the handbag and its contents. In the course of the
interrogation by NBI agents, and without the presence and assistance of counsel, Galang was made to sign a receipt for the plastic bag
and its shabu contents. Galang was charged with illegal possession of prohibited drugs and was convicted.
On appeal he contends that -
The plastic bag and its contents are inadmissible in evidence being the product of an illegal search and seizure; (3%) and
The receipt he signed is also inadmissible as his rights under custodial investigation were not observed. (2%)
Decide the case with reasons.
The plastic bag and its contents are admissible in evidence, since it was not the National Bureau of Investigation but the bus
conductor who opened the bag and brought it to the National Bureau of Investigation. As held in People v. Marti, 193 SCRA 57 (1991),
the constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure is a restraint upon the government. It does not apply so as to require
exclusion of evidence which came into the possession of the Government through a search made by a private citizen.
It is inadmissible....
(2000) A. Crack officers of the Anti-Narcotics Unit were assigned on surveillance of the environs of a cemetery where the
sale and use of dangerous drugs are rampant. A man with reddish and glassy eyes was walking unsteadily moving towards them but
veered away when he sensed the presence of policemen. They approached him, introduced themselves as police officers and asked
him what he had clenched in his hand. As he kept mum, the policemen pried his hand open and found a sachet of shabu, a dangerous
drug. Accordingly charged in court, the accused objected to the admission in evidence of the dangerous drug because it was the result
of an illegal search and seizure. Rule on the objection. (3%) What are the instances when warrantless searches may be effected? (2%)
The objection is not tenable. In accordance with Manalili v. Court of Appeals, 280 SCRA 400 (1997). since the accused had red
eyes and was walking unsteadily and the place is a known hang-out of drug addicts, the police officers had sufficient reason to stop the
accused and to frisk him. Since shabu was actually found during the investigation, it could be seized without the need for a search
warrant.
A warrantless search may be effected in the following cases:

1. Searches incidental to a lawful arrest:
2. Searches of moving vehicles;
3. Searches of prohibited articles in plain view:
4. Enforcement of customs law;
5. Consented searches;
6. Stop and frisk (People v. Monaco, 285 SCRA 703 [1998]);
POLITICAL LAW
7. Routine searches at borders and ports of entry (United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606 [1977]); and
8. Searches of businesses in the exercise of visitorial powers to enforce police regulations (New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691
(1987]).
(1992) No. 5: During the recent elections, checkpoints were set up to enforce the election period ban on firearms.
During one such routine search one night, while looking through an open window with a flashlight, the police saw firearms at the backseat
of a car partially covered by papers and clothes. Antonio, owner and driver of the car in question, was charged for violation of the firearms
ban. Are the firearms admissible in evidence against him? Explain.
If, upon further inspection by the police, prohibited drugs were found inside the various compartments of Antonio's car, can
the drugs be used in evidence against Antonio if he is prosecuted for possession of prohibited drugs? Explain.
Yes, the firearms are admissible in evidence, because they were validly seized. In Valmonte vs. De Villa, 178 SCRA 211 and
185 SCRA 665, the Supreme Court held that checkpoints may be set up to maintain peace and order for the benefit of the public and
checkpoints are a security measure against unauthorized firearms. Since the search which resulted in the discovery of the firearms was
limited to a visual search of the car, it was reasonable. Because of the ban on firearms, the possession of the firearms was prohibited.
Since they were found in plain view in the course of a lawful search, in accordance with the decision in Magancia vs. Palacio, 80 Phil.
770, they are admissible in evidence.
No, the drugs cannot be used in evidence against Antonio if he is prosecuted for possession of prohibited drugs. The drugs
were found after a more extensive search of the various compartments of the car. As held in Valmonte vs. De Villa, 185 SCRA 665, for
such a search to be valid, there must be a probable cause. In this case, there was no probable cause, as there was nothing to indicate
that Antonio had prohibited drugs inside the compartments of his car.
(1989) No. 7: Pursuing reports that great quantities of prohibited drugs are being smuggled at nighttime through the shores
of Cavite, the Southern Luzon Command set up checkpoints at the end of the Cavite coastal road to search passing motor vehicles. A
19-year old boy, who finished fifth grade, while driving, was stopped by the authorities at the checkpoint. Without any objection from him,
his car was inspected, and the search yielded marijuana leaves hidden in the trunk compartment of the car. The prohibited drug was
promptly seized, and the boy was brought to the police station for questioning. Was the search without warrant legal?
No, the search was not valid, because there was no probable cause for conducting the search. As held in Almeda Sanchez
vs. United States, 413 U.S. 266, while a moving vehicle can be searched without a warrant, there must still be probable cause. In the
case in question, there was nothing to indicate that marijuana leaves were hidden in the trunk of the car. The mere fact that the boy did
not object to the inspection of the car does not constitute consent to the search. As ruled in People vs. Burgos, 144 SCRA 1, the failure
to object to a warrantless search does not constitute consent, especially in the light of the fact.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes. The requirement of probable cause differs from case to case. In this one, since the police agents are confronted with
large-scale smuggling of prohibited drugs, existence of which is of public knowledge, they can set up checkpoints at strategic places, in
the same way that of in a neighborhood a child is kidnapped, it is lawful to search cars and vehicles leaving the neighborhood or village:
This situation is also similar to warrantless searches of moving vehicles in customs area, which searches have been upheld. (Papa vs.
Mago, 22 SCRA 857 (1968). The rule is based on practical necessity.
(1993) No. 9: Johann learned that the police were looking for him in connection with the rape of an 18-year old girl, a neighbor.
He went to the police station a week later and presented himself to the desk sergeant. Coincidentally. the rape victim was in the premises
executing an extrajudicial statement. Johann, along with six (6) other suspects, were placed in a police line-up and the girl pointed to him
POLITICAL LAW
as the rapist. Johann was arrested and locked up in a cell. Johann was charged with rape in court but prior to arraignment invoked his
right to preliminary investigation. This was denied by the judge, and thus, trial proceeded. After the prosecution presented several
witnesses, Johann through counsel, invoked the right to bail and filed a motion therefor, which was denied outright by the Judge. Johann
now files a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals arguing that: His arrest was not in accordance with law. Decide.
Yes, the warrantless arrest of Johann was not in accordance with law. As held in Go v. Court of Appeals, 206 SCRA 138, his
case does not fall under the instances in Rule 113, sec. 5 (a) of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure authorizing warrantless arrests. It
cannot be considered a valid warrantless arrest because Johann did not commit a crime in the presence of the police officers, since they
were not present when Johann had allegedly raped his neighbor. Neither can It be considered an arrest under Rule 113 sec. 5 (b) which
allows an arrest without a warrant to be made when a crime has in fact just been committed and the person making the arrest has
personal knowledge offsets indicating that the person to be arrested committed it. Since Johann was arrested a week after the alleged
rape, it cannot be deemed to be a crime which "has just been committed". Nor did the police officers who arrested him have personal
knowledge of facts indicating that Johann raped his neighbor.
(1991) No. 8: On the basis of a verified report and confidential information that various electronic equipment, which were
illegally imported into the Philippines, were found in the bodega of the Tikasan Corporation located at 1002 Binakayan St., Cebu City,
the Collector of Customs of Cebu issued, in the morning of 2 January 1988, a Warrant of Seizure and Detention against the corporation
for the seizure of the electronic equipment. The warrant particularly describes the electronic equipment and specifies the provisions of
the Tariff and Customs Code which were violated by the importation.
The warrant was served and implemented in the afternoon of 2 January 1988 by Customs policemen who then seized the
described equipment. The inventory of the seized articles was signed by the Secretary of the Tikasan Corporation. The following day, a
hearing officer in the Office of the Collector of Customs conducted a hearing on the confiscation of the equipment.
Two days thereafter, the corporation filed with the Supreme Court a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus to set
aside the warrant, enjoin the Collector and his agents from further proceeding with the forfeiture hearing and to secure the return of the
confiscated equipment, alleging therein that the warrant issued is null and void for the reason that, pursuant to Section 2 of Article III of
the 1987 Constitution, only a judge may issue a search warrant. In his comment to the petition, the Collector of Customs, through the
Office of the Solicitor General, contends that he is authorized under the Tariff and Custom Code to order the seizure of the equipment
whose duties and taxes were not paid and that the corporation did not exhaust administrative remedies. Should the petition be granted?
Decide.
The petition should not be granted. Under Secs. 2205 and 2208 of the Tariff and Customs Code, customs officials are
authorized to enter any warehouse, not used as dwelling, for the purpose of seizing any article which is subject to forfeiture. For this
purpose, they need no warrant issued by a court. As stated in Viduya vs. Berdiago, 73 SCRA 553. for centuries the seizure of goods by
customs officials to enforce the customs laws without need of a search warrant has been recognized.
RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
[2018] The police served a warrant of arrest on Ariston who was suspected of raping and killing a female high school student.
While on the way to the police station, one of the officers who served the warrant asked Ariston in the local dialect if he really raped and
killed the student, and Ariston nodded and said, “Opo”.
Upon arriving at the police station, Ariston saw the City Mayor, whom he approached and asked if they could talk privately.
The Mayor led Ariston to his office and, while there in conversation with the Mayor, Ariston broke down and admitted that he raped and
killed the student. The Mayor thereafter opened the door of the room to let the public and media representatives witness Ariston’s
confession . In the presence of the Mayor, the police and the media., and in response to questions asked by some members of the media,
Ariston sorrowfully confessed his guilt and sought forgiveness for his actions.
POLITICAL LAW
Which of these extrajudicial confessions, if any, would you consider as admissible in evidence against Ariston? (5%)
Ariston was already under custodial investigation when he confessed to the police. It is admitted that the police failed to inform
him of his constitutional rights when he was investigated and interrogated. His confession to the police is therefore inadmissible in
evidence.
His confession before the mayor, however is admissible. While it may be true that a mayor has “operational supervision and
control” over the local police and may arguably be deemed a law enforcement officer for purposes of applying Section 12(1) and (3) of
Article III of the Constitution, Ariston’s confession to the mayor, as described in the problem, was not made in response to any
interrogation by the latter. In fact, the mayor did not appear as having questioned Ariston at all. No police authority ordered Ariston to talk
to the mayor. It was he himself who spontaneously, free and voluntarily sought the mayor for a private meeting. The mayor did not know
that he was going to confess his guilt to him. When he talked with the mayor as a confidant and not as a law enforcement officer, his
uncounselled confession to the Mayor did not violate his constitutional rights.
His confession to the media can likewise be properly admitted. The confessions were made in response to questions by news
reporters, not by the police or any other investigating officer. Statements spontaneously made by suspects to news reporters during
televised interviews are deemed voluntary and are admissible in evidence (People v. Andan, G.R. No. 116437, March 3, 1997).
[2018] Five foreign nationals arrived at NAIA from Hong Kong. After retrieving their check-in luggage, they placed all their
bags in one pushcart and proceeded to Express Lane 5. They were instructed to place their luggage on the examiner’s table for inspection.
The examiner found brown-colored boxes, similar in size to powdered milk boxes, underneath the clothes inside the foreigners’ bags.
The examiner discovered white crystaline substance inside the boxes that he inspected and proceeded to bundle all of the boxes by
putting masking tape around them. He thereafter handed the boxes over to Bureau of Customs agents. The agents called out the names
of the foreigner one by one and ordered them to sign their names on the masking tapes placed on the boxes recovered from their
respective bags. The contents of the boxes were thereafter subjected to tests which confirmed that the substance was shabu. Can the
shabu found inside the boxes be admitted in evidence against the five foreigners from the charge of illegal possession of drugs in violation
of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002? (2.5%)
Yes, shabu obtained in ordinary customs searches such as those done in an airport, which are a valid warrantless search,
are admissible in evidence. (Dela Cruz v. People G.R. 209387, January 11, 2016).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER
No, those boxes containing the shabu are inadmissible in eveidence against them. The signature of the accused on the boxes
consitute a tacit admission of the crime charged and are tantamount to an uncounselled extra-judicial confession which is sanctioned by
the Bill of Rights (Section 12[1] and [3], Article III, 1987 Constitution). They are therefore, inadmissible as evidence for any admission
wrung from them in violation of their constitutional rights is admissible against them. The fact that all accused were foreign nationals does
not preclude application of the exclusionary rule because the constitutional guarantees embodied in the Bill of Rights are given and
extend to all persons, both aliens and citizens (People v. Wong Chuen Ming, G.R. Nos. 112801-11, April 12, 1996).
[2018] Amoroso was charged with treason before a military court martial. He was acquitted. He was later charged with the
same offense before a Regional Trial Court. He asks that the information be quashed on the ground of double jeopardy, The prosecution
objects, contending that for purposes of double jeopardy, the military court martial cannot be considered as a “competent court”. Should
the Regional Trial Court grant Amoroso’s motion to quash on the ground of double jeopardy? (2.5%)
Yes, the Motion to Dismiss should be granted. A defendant, having been acquitted of a crime by a court martial of competent
jurisdiction proceeding under lawful authority, cannot be subsequently tried for the same offense in a civil court. It appearing that the
offense charged in the Court Martial and in the Regional Trial Court is the same, that the military court had jurisdiction to try the case and
that both courts derive their powers from one sovereignty, the acquittal by the military court should be a bar to Amoroso’s further
POLITICAL LAW
prosecution for the same offense in the Regional Trial Court (Crisologo v. People, (G.R. No. L-6277, February 26, 1954); Marcos v. Chief
of Staff (G.R. No. L-4663, May 30, 1951); Garcia v. Executive Secretary (G.R. 198554, July 30, 2012).
[2018] PO1 Adrian Andal is known to have taken bribes from apprehended motorist who have violated traffic rules. The
National Bureau of Investigation conducted an entrapment operation where PO1 Adrian was caught red-handed demanding an taking
PhP500 from a motorist who supposedly beat a red light. After he was apprehended, PO1 Adrian was required to submit a sample of his
urine. The drug test showed that he was positive for dangerous drugs. Hence, PO1 Adrian was charged with violation of Section 15,
Article II of R.A No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. PO1 Adrian argues against the admissibility of the urine
test results and seeks its exclusion. He claims that the mandatory drug test under R.A No. 9165 is a violation of the accused’s right to
privacy and right against self-incrimination. Are PO1 Adrian’s contentions correct? (2.5%)
PO1 Adrian is correct that his rights to privacy and against self-incrimination have been violated. The results of the
“confirmatory” urine test should therefore be rejected as evidence against him. It should be noted that RA 9165 allows the conduct of
urine tests only for persons arrested for acts prohibited under said law, such as, among others, the manufacturing, sale, use or possession
of illegal drugs, and not for any unlawful act, like extortion, for which PO1 Adrain was arrested (De La Cruz v. People, G.R. No. 200748,
July 23, 2014).
(2016) Paragraphs c, d and f of Section 36 of Republic Act No. 9165 provide: "Sec. 36. Authorized drug testing. xx x The
following shall be subjected to undergo drug testing: xx x c. Students of secondary and tertiary schools x x x; d. Officers and employees
of public and private offices x x x; f. All persons charged before the prosecutor's office with a criminal offense having an imposable
imprisonment of not less than 6 years and 1 day;" Petitioners contend that the assailed portions of Sec. 36 are unconstitutional for violating
the right to privacy, the right against unreasonable searches and seizures and the equal protection clause. Decide if the assailed
provisions are unconstitutional. (5%)
The drug testing of students of secondary and tertiary schools is valid. Deterring their use of drugs by random drug testing is
as important as enhancing efficient enforcement. Random drug testing of officers and employees of public and private is justifiable. Their
expectation of privacy in office is reduced. The drug tests and results are kept confidential. Random drug testing is an effective way of
deterring drug use and is reasonable. Public officials and employees are required by the Constitution to be accountable at all times to
the people and to serve them with utmost responsibility and efficiency. The mandatory testing of all persons charged before the
prosecutor’s office of a criminal offense punishable with imprisonment of at least six years and one day is void. They are not randomly
picked and are not beyond suspicions. They do not consent to the procedure or waive their right to privacy. (Social Justice Society v.
Dangerous Drugs Board, 570 SCRA 410 [2008])
(2016) The contents of the vault of ABC company consisting of cash and documents were stolen. Paulyn, the treasurer of
ABC, was invited by the Makati City Police Department to shed light on the amount of cash stolen and the details of the missing
documents. Paulyn obliged and volunteered the information asked. Later, Paulyn was charged with qualified theft together with other
suspects. Paulyn claims her rights under the Constitution and pertinent laws were blatantly violated. The police explained that they were
just gathering evidence when Paulyn was invited for a conference and she was not a suspect at that time. Rule on her defense. (5%)
No, the defense of Paulyn is not valid. When she was invited for questioning by the Makati City Police Department and she
volunteered information, she was not yet a suspect. Her constitutional rights of a person under investigation for the commission of an
offense under Section 12(1), Article III of the Constitution begins to operate when the investigation ceases to be a general inquiry upon
an unsolved crime and begins to be aimed upon a particular suspect who has been taken into custody and the questions tend to elicit
incriminating statements. (People v. Marra, 236 SCRA 565 [1994]).
(2014) The police got a report about a shooting incident during a town fiesta. One person was killed. The police immediately
POLITICAL LAW
went to the scene and started asking the people about what they witnessed. In due time, they were pointed to Edward Gunman, a security
guard, as the possible malefactor. Edward was then having refreshment in one of the eateries when the police approached him. They
asked him if he had a gun to which question he answered yes. Then they asked if he had seen anybody shot in the vicinity just a few
minutes earlier and this time he said he did not know about it. After a few more questions, one of the policemen asked Edward if he was
the shooter. He said no, but then the policeman who asked him told him that several witnesses pointed to hi m as the shooter. Whereupon
Edward broke down and started explaining that it was a matter of self-defense. Edwardwas eventually charged with murder. During his
trial, the statements he made to the police were introduced as evidence against him. He obj ected claiming that they were inadmissible
since he was not given his Miranda rights. On the other hand, the prosecution countered that there was no need for such rights to be
given since he was not yet arrested at the time of the questioning.
If you were the judge, how would you rule on the issue? (4%)
If I were the judge, I would rule that the confession is inadmissible. First, the rights under investigation in Section 12, Article
III of the Constitution are applicable to any person under investigation for the commission of an offense. The investigation began when a
policeman told Edward that several witnesses pointed to him as the shooter, because it started to focus on him as a suspect (People vs
Bariquit, 341 SCRA 600 (2000). Second, under Section 2 of RA 7438, for a confession to be admissible, it must be in writing (People vs
Labtan, 320 SCRA 140 (1999))
(2014) Alienmae is a foreign tourist. She was asked certain questions in regard to a complaint that was filed against her by
someone who claimed to have been defrauded by her. Alienmae answered all the questions asked, except in regard to some matters in
which she invoked her right against self-incrimination. When she was pressed to elucidate, she said that the questions being asked might
tend to elicit incriminating answers insofar as her home state is concerned. Could Alienmae invoke the right against self-incrimination if
the fear of incrimination is in regard to her foreign law? (4%)
Alienmäe can invoke her right against self-incrimination even if it is in regard to her foreign law, if her home is a party to the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Article 14(3)(g) of the said Covenant provides: “ In the determination of any criminal
charge against him, everyone shall be entitled to the following minimum guarantees, in full equality: (g) Not to be compelled to testify
against himself or to confess guilt.
(2009) No.XII. William, a private American Citizen, a university graduate and frequent visitor to the Philippines, was inside the
US embassy when he got into a heated argument with a private Filipino citizen. Then, in front of many shocked witnesses, he killed the
person he was arguing with. The police came, and brought him to the nearest police station. Upon reaching the station, the police
investigator, in halting English, informed William of his Miranda rights, and assigned him an independent local counsel. William refused
the services of the lawyer, and insisted that he be assisted by a Filipino lawyer currently based in the US. The request was denied, and
the counsel assigned by the police stayed for the duration of the investigation. William protested his arrest.
He also claimed that his Miranda Rights were violated because he was not given the lawyer of his choice; that being an
American, he should have been informed of his rights in proper English; and that he should have been informed of his rights as soon as
he was taken into custody, not when he was already at the police station. Was William denied his Miranda rights? Why or why not?
William was not denied with his Miranda rights. True that he has the right to counsel preferably of his choice. But if he cannot
afford the services of a counsel, he should be provided with one. Moreover, the Miranda rights are available only during custodial
investigation that is, from the moment the investigating officer begins to ask questions for the purpose of eliciting admissions, confessions
or any information from the accused. therefore, it is proper that he was only informed of his right at the police station.
ALTENATIVE ANSWER:
The fact that the police officer gave him the Miranda warning in halting English does not detract from its validity. Under Section
POLITICAL LAW
2(b) of Republic Act No. 7438, it is sufficient that the language used was known to and understood by him. William need not be given the
Miranda warning before the investigation started. William was not denied his Miranda rights. It is not practical to require the police officer
to provide a lawyer of his own choice from the United States (Gamboa vs. Cruz, 162 SCAR 642, [1998]).
If William applies for bail, claiming that he is entitled thereto under the international standard of justice and that he comes from
a US State that has outlawed capital punishment, should William be granted bail as a matter of right? Reasons.
William is not entitled to bail as a matter of right. His contention is not tenable. Observing the territorial jurisdiction of
commission of the offense, the applicable law in the case is Philippine laws not the law of the country to where he is a national (Section
13, Art. III of the Constitution). Under our law, bail is not a matter of right if the felony or offense committed has an imposable penalty of
reclusion perpetua or higher and the evidence of guilt is strong.
(2008) No. VII. JC, a major in the Armed Forces of the Philippine, is facing prosecution before the Regional Trial Court of
Quezon City for the murder of his neighbor whom he suspected to have molested his (JC’s) 15 year-old daughter.
Is JC entitled to bail? Why or why not? (3%)
As a general rule, bail is not a matter of right when the offense charged carries with an imposable penalty of reclusion perpetua
or higher. In the present case, JC is charged with murder which has a penalty of reclusion perpetua, hence he cannot be allowed bail.
However, should the evidence of guilt be found weak after hearing, the court may in its discretion, fix bail for temporary liberty.
Assume that upon being arraigned, JC entered a plea of guilty and was allowed to present evidence to prove mitigating
circumstances. JC then testified to the effect that he stabbed the deceased in self- defense because the latter was strangling him and
that he voluntarily surrendered to the authorities. Subsequently, the trial court rendered a decision of acquittal. If the prosecution were to
appeal the decision, would it violate JC’s right against double jeopardy? Why or why not? (3%)
Double jeopardy sets in when the first jeopardy has attached. There is already first jeopardy when the accused has validly
entered his plea before the appropriate court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and his person and that he has been convicted
or acquitted or that the case against him has been terminated without his express consent.
In the present case, JC validly entered his plea of guilty but during the presentation of evidence he submits evidence of self-
defense. the consequence thereof is for the court to withdraw the plea of guilty and enter a plea of not guilty. The validity of entering his
plea is not affected. Therefore, his acquittal shall bar any similar indictment that may be filed against him because of double jeopardy.
(2012) No. III. Mr. Brown, a cigarette vendor, was invited by PO1 White to a nearby police station. Upon arriving at the police
station, Brown was asked to stand side-by-side with five (5) other cigarette vendors in a police line-up. PO1 White informed them that
they were looking for a certain cigarette vendor who snatched the purse of a passer-by and the line-up was to allow the victim to point at
the vendor who snatched her purse. No questions were to be asked from the vendors.
Brown, afraid of a "set up" against him, demanded that he be allowed to secure his lawyer and for him to be present during the
police line-up. Is Brown entitled to counsel? Explain (5%)
Brown is not entitled to counsel during the police line-up. He was not yet being asked to answer for a criminal offense. (Gamboa
vs. Cruz, 162 SCRA 642.)
Would the answer in (a.) be the same if Brown was specifically invited by White because an eyewitness to the crime identified
him as the perpetrator? Explain. (3%)
POLITICAL LAW
Brown would be entitled to the assistance of a lawyer. He was already considered as a suspect and was therefore entitled to
the rights under custodial investigation. (People vs. Legaspi, 331 SCRA 95.)
IV. Briefly enumerate the so-called "Miranda Rights". (2%)
The Miranda warning means that a person in custody who will be interrogated must be informed of the following:
1. He has the right to remain silent;
2. Anything said can be used as evidenced against him;
3. He has the right to have counsel during the investigation; and
4. He must be informed that if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him. (Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436.)
(2013) No.VII. As he was entering a bar, Arnold - who was holding an unlit cigarette in his right hand -was handed a match
box by someone standing near the doorway. Arnold unthinkingly opened the matchbox to light his cigarette and as he did so, a sprinkle
of dried leaves fell out, which the guard noticed. The guard immediately frisked Arnold, grabbed the matchbox, and sniffed its contents.
After confirming that the matchbox contained marijuana, he immediately arrested Arnold and called in the police.
At the police station, the guard narrated to the police that he personally caught Arnold in possession of dried marijuana leaves.
Arnold did not contest the guard's statement; he steadfastly remained silent and refused to give any written statement. Later in court, the
guard testified and narrated the statements he gave the police over Arnold's counsel's objections. While Arnold presented his own
witnesses to prove that his possession and apprehension had been set-up, he himself did not testify.
The court convicted Arnold, relying largely on his admission of the charge by silence at the police investigation and during
trial. From the constitutional law perspective, was the court correct in its ruling? (6%)
The court was wrong in relying on the silence of Arnold during the police investigation and during the trial. Under Article III,
Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution, he had the right to remain silent. His silence cannot be taken as a tacit admission, otherwise, his
right to remain silent would be rendered nugatory. Considering that his right against self-incrimination protects his right to remain silent,
he cannot be penalized for exercising it (People vs. Galvez, 519 SCRA 521).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
No, the court has erred in its ruling of convicting Arnold relying solely on his admission of the charge by silence at the police
investigation and during trial. The duty of the lawyer includes ensuring that the suspect under custodial investigation is aware that the
right of an accused to remain silent may be invoked at any time (People v. Sayaboc, G.R. No. 147201, January 15, 2004).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The court correctly convicted Arnold. There is no showing that the evidence for the prosecution was insufficient. When Arnold
remained silent, he run the risk of an inference of guilt from non- production of evidence in his behalf (People vs. Solis, 128 SCRA 217).
(2010) No. X. A, the wife of an alleged victim of enforced disappearance, applied for the issuance of a writ of amparo before
a Regional Trial Court in Tarlac. Upon motion of A, the court issued inspection and production orders addressed to the AFP chief of Staff
to allow entry at Camp Aquino and permit the copying of relevant documents, including the list of detainees, if any. Accompanied by
court-designated Commission on Human Rights (CHR) lawyers, A took photographs of a suspected isolation cell where her husband
was allegedly seen being held for three days and tortured before he finally disappeared. The CHR lawyers requested one Lt. Valdez for a
photocopy of the master plan of Camp Aquino and to confirm in writing that he had custody of the master plan. Lt. Valdez objected on the
ground that it may violate his right against self-incrimination. Decide with reasons. (4%).
POLITICAL LAW
The objection of Lt. Valdez is not valid. The right against self-incrimination refers to testimonial evidence and does not apply
to the production of a photocopy of the master plan of Camp Aquino, because it is a public record. He cannot object to the request for
him to confirm his custody of the master plan, because he is the public officer who had custody of it. (Almonte vs. Vasquez, 244 SCRA
286 [1995]).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The objection is without merit. Right against self-incrimination is not violated because the right is simply against testimonial
compulsion. But the prohibition also extends to the compulsion for the production of documents, papers and chattels that may be used
as evidence against the witness, except where the State has a right to inspect the same such as in this case. Pursuant to the production
order issued by the court, there can be compulsion for the production of documents sought in the order.
(2005) 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%)
The NBI was not correct in dismissing Atty. Santos and appointing Atty. Barroso in his stead. Article III, Section 12(1) of the
1987 Constitution requires that a person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have no less than "competent and
independent counsel preferably of his own choice " This is meant to stress the primacy accorded to the voluntariness of the choice under
the uniquely stressful conditions of a custodial investigation' Thus, the lawyer called to be present during such investigation should be as
far as reasonably possible, the choice of the individual undergoing questioning. The appointment of Atty. Barroso is questionable because
he was visiting a relative working in the NBI and thus his independence is doubtful. Lawyers engaged by the police, whatever testimonials
are given as proof of their probity and supposed independence, are generally suspect, as in many areas, the relationship between lawyers
and law enforcement authorities can be symbiotic. Considering that Mariano was deprived of counsel of his own choice, the statement is
inadmissible in evidence. (People v. Januario, G.R. No. 98252, February 7, 1997)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER
The NBI was correct in dismissing Atty. Santos as he was incompetent. The 1987 Constitution requires counsel to be
competent and independent. Atty. Barroso, being a bar topnotcher ably assisted Mariano and there is no showing that his having a
relative in the NBI affected his independence. Moreover, the accused has the final choice of counsel as he may reject the one chosen
for him and ask for another. A lawyer provided by the investigators is deemed engaged by the accused where he raises no objection
against the lawyer during the course of the investigation, and the accused thereafter subscribes to the truth of his statement before the
swearing officer. Thus, once the prosecution shows there was compliance with the constitutional requirement on pre-interrogation
advisories, a confession is presumed to be voluntary and the declarant bears the burden of proving that his confession is involuntary and
untrue. A confession is admissible until the accused successfully proves that it was given as a result of violence, intimidation, threat or
promise of reward or leniency which are not present in this case. Accordingly, the statement is admissible. (People v. Jerez, G.R. No.
114385, January 29, 1998)
(2004) (5-b) OZ lost five head of cattle which he reported to the police as stolen from his barn. He requested several neighbors,
including RR, for help in looking for the missing animals. After an extensive search, the police found two head in RR's farm. RR could
not explain to the police how they got hidden in a remote area of his farm. Insisting on his innocence, RR consulted a lawyer who told
him he has a right to be presumed innocent under the Bill of Rights. But there is another presumption of theft arising from his unexplained
possession of stolen cattle— under the penal law.
POLITICAL LAW
Are the two presumptions capable of reconciliation In this case? If so, how can they be reconciled? If not, which should prevail?
(5%)
The two presumptions can be reconciled. The presumption of innocence stands until the contrary is proved. It may be
overcome by a contrary presumption founded upon human experience. The presumption that RR is the one who stole the cattle of OZ is
logical, since he was found in possession of the stolen cattle. RR can prove his innocence by presenting evidence to rebut the
presumption. The burden of evidence is shifted to RR, because how he came into possession of the cattle is peculiarly within his
knowledge. (Dizon-Pamintuan v. People, 234 SCRA 63 (1994)).
(1993) No. 9: Johann learned that the police were looking for him in connection with the rape of an 18-year old girl, a neighbor.
He went to the police station a week later and presented himself to the desk sergeant. Coincidentally. the rape victim was in the premises
executing an extrajudicial statement. Johann, along with six (6) other suspects, were placed in a police line- up and the girl pointed to
him as the rapist. Johann was arrested and locked up in a cell.
Johann was charged with rape in court but prior to arraignment invoked his right to preliminary investigation. This was denied
by the judge, and thus, trial proceeded. After the prosecution presented several witnesses, Johann through counsel, invoked the right to
ball and filed a motion therefor, which was denied outright by the Judge. Johann now files a petition for certiorari before the Court of
Appeals arguing that he is entitled to bail as a matter of right, thus the Judge should not have denied his motion to fix ball outright. Decide.
In accordance with Art. III. sec. 13 of the Constitution, Johann may be denied bail if the evidence of his guilt is strong
considering that the crime with which he is charged is punishable by reclusion perpetua. It is thus not a matter of right for him to be
released on bail in such case. The court must first make a determination of the strength of the evidence on the basis of evidence already
presented by the prosecution, unless it desires to present some more, and give the accused the opportunity to present countervailing
evidence. If having done this the court finds the evidence not to be strong, then it becomes the right of Johann to be admitted to bail. The
error of the trial court lies in outrightly denying the motion for bail of Johann.
(2006) State whether or not the law is constitutional. Explain briefly. A law denying persons charged with crimes punishable
by reclusion perpetua or death the right to bail. (2%)
The law is invalid as it contravenes Section 13, Article III of the 1987 Constitution which provides that "all persons, except
those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by
sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law." The accused may not be deprived of his constitutional
right to bail even if charged with a capital offense where the evidence of guilt is not strong.
(1989) No. 15: May an alien invoke the constitutional right to bail during the pendency of deportation proceedings?
No. an alien may not invoke the constitutional right to bail during the pendency of deportation proceedings. In Harvey vs
Santiago, 162 SCRA 840, it was held that the constitutional guarantee to bail may not be invoked in deportation proceedings, because
they do not partake of the nature of a criminal action.
(2005) State with reason(s) whether bail is a matter of right or a matter of discretion in the following cases:
1. The imposable penalty for the crime charged is reclusion perpetua and the accused is a minor.
If the accused is a minor where the imposable penalty for the crime charged is reclusion perpetua, bail would be a matter of
right. Under Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code, when the offender is a minor under eighteen years of age, he is entitled to a penalty,
depending on his age, lower by one or two degrees than that prescribed by law for the crime committed. The Constitution withholds the
POLITICAL LAW
guaranty of bail from one who is accused of a capital offense where the evidence of guilt is strong. The obvious reason is that one who
faces a probable death sentence has a particularly strong temptation to flee. This reason does not hold where the accused has been
established without objection to be a minor who by law cannot be sentenced to death. (Bravo v. Borja, G.R. No. L-65228, February 18,
1985)
2. The imposable penalty for the crime charged is life imprisonment and the accused is a minor.
If the accused is a minor and the imposable penalty for the crime charged is life imprisonment, bail would not be a matter of
right. In the instant case, assuming that evidence of guilt strong, bail shall be denied as the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority
is not available for violation of special laws penalized by life imprisonment.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Although the Constitution mentions only reclusion perpetua, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court adds life imprisonment, and
therefore, applying the PRO REO DOCTRINE, bail would still be a matter of right, since it is favorable to the accused.
3. 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.
If the accused has been convicted of homicide on a charge of murder and sentenced to suffer imprisonment of from 8 to 12
years, bail is a matter of discretion. Under Rule 114, Sec. 5, par. 1 of the Rules of Court, if the decision of the trial court convicting the
accused changed the nature of the offense from non-bailable to bailable, the application for bail may be filed and acted upon by the
appellate court. Admission to bail is discretionary.
(2000) No XV. Charged by Francisco with libel, Pablo was arraigned on January 3, 2000, Pre-trial was dispensed with and
continuous trial was set for March 7, 8 and 9, 2000. On the first setting, the prosecution moved for its postponement and cancellation of
the other settings because its principal and probably only witness, the private complainant Francisco, suddenly had to go abroad to fulfill
a professional commitment. The judge instead dismissed the case for failure to prosecute.
Would the grant of the motion for postponement have violated the accused's right to speedy trial? (2%)
The grant of the motion for postponement would not have violated the right of the accused to speedy trial. As held In
People v. Leviste, 255 SCRA 238 (1996). since the motion for postponement was the first one requested, the need for the offended
party to attend to a professional commitment is a valid reason, no substantial right of the accused would be prejudiced, and the
prosecution should be afforded a fair opportunity to prosecute its case, the motion should be granted.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Since continuous trial of cases is required and since the date of the initial hearing was set upon agreement of all parties,
including the private complainant, the judge properly dismissed the case for failure to prosecute.
(1988) No. 3: Dr. Juan Sto. Tomas is a practicing dentist in Marikina, Metro Manila. He was charged with immorality before
the Board of Dentistry by a lady patient, who claims that Dr. Sto. Tomas took liberties with her person and kissed her while she was under
the treatment at the latter's clinic.
At the initial hearing of the administrative complaint, the complainant's counsel called the respondent as his first witness. The
respondent through counsel, objected vigorously, claiming his constitutional right to be exempt from being a witness against himself.
The Board

1987-2019 Bqa Political Law

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1987-2019 Bqa Political Law

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FROM Nth Time BAR CHALLENGER TO ATTORNEY

ARRANGED AND SEQUENCED

BAR QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 1987-2019

THE 1987 CONSTITUTION…3

1987 CONSTITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES

b) What are the essential characteristics of a parliamentary form of government? (2.5%)

ARTICLE I: NATIONAL TERRITORY

CONTIGUOUS ZONE VS. EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE

TERRITORY & GOVERNMENT

(2015) Describe the following maritime regimes under UNCLOS (4%)

cultural communities, provides for national unity and development.

ARTICLE II: DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES

FREEDOM FROM NUCLEAR WEAPONS

PRINCIPLE OF CIVILIAN SUPREMACY

The following constitutional provisions institutionalize the principle of civilian supremacy:

STATE PRINCIPLES & POLICIES

(1994) No. 1; What is the state policy on:

ARTICLE III: BILL OF RIGHTS

(1991) No 1: How is the Bill of Rights strengthened in the 1987 Constitution?

Yes, the concept of People Power is recognized in the Constitution.

(2003) Is "people power" recognized by the 1987 Constitution? Explain fully.

"People power" is recognized in the Constitution.

ILLEGAL ARREST, SEARCH AND SEIZURE

Rule on the correctness of the foregoing arguments, with reasons.

Challenged the validity of his arrest; (2%)

How should the court decide the case? (3%)

The court should declare the search and seizure illegal:

2. The receipt is not admissible in evidence. ...

On appeal he contends that -

A warrantless search may be effected in the following cases:

RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED

IV. Briefly enumerate the so-called "Miranda Rights". (2%)

You might also like