JESSIE H.

DAUG

1. ​Under Section 6 of Article V (on Criminal Jurisdiction) of the Visiting Forces Agreement

(VFA), the custody of a United States (US) personnel who becomes subject to criminal

prosecution before a Philippine court shall be with the US military authorities, if the latter

so requests. The custody shall begin from the commission of the offense until the

completion of all judicial proceedings. However, when requested, the US military

authorities shall make the US personnel available to Philippine authorities for any

investigative or judicial proceeding relating to the offense with which the person has been

charged. In the event that the Philippine judicial proceedings are not completed within

one year, the US shall be relieved of any obligation under Section 6.

The constitutionality of Section 6, Article V of the VFA is challenged on two grounds: (1) it

nullifies the exclusive power of the Supreme Court to adopt rules of procedure for all

courts in the Philippines; and (2) it violates the equal protection clause to the extent that

it allows the transfer of the custody of an accused to a foreign power as providing a

different rule of procedure for that accused. Rule on the challenge. ​(10%)

ANSWER. The challenge is not plausible. The rule in international law is that

foreign armed forces allowed to enter one’s territory are immune from local

jurisdiction, except to the extent agreed upon. In the foregoing, the situation

involved is not one in which the power of the Supreme Court to adopt rules of

procedure is curtailed or violated, rather, it is one in which as is normally

encountered around the world, the laws of one State do not extend or apply to

subjects of another State due to the recognition of extraterritorial immunity given

to such bodies as visiting foreign armed forces.

2. ​May the President validly exercise his power under the 1987 Constitution to transfer funds

from the savings of the Executive Department, and make a cross-border transfer of

₱3,000,000.00 to the COMELEC by way of augmentation? Is your answer the same if the

transfer is treated as aid to the COMELEC? Explain your answer. ​(10%)

ANSWER: The cross-border transfer of Php 3,000,000.00 to the COMELEC by way of

augmentation by the President is not allowed under the Philippine Constitution

even if it is treated as an aid to the COMELEC. The law only allows the utilization of

the budget within the department and not on cross-border transfers.

3. ​Sec. 3, Art. XI of the Constitution states that "[n]o impeachment proceedings shall be

initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year."

What constitutes initiation of impeachment proceedings under the provision? Explain the

ruling in Francisco vs House of Representative ​(15%)

ANSWER: In Francisco v House of Representatives, initiation of impeachment

proceedings starts with the filing of the complaint. The verified complaint for

impeachment commences the impeachment proceedings under Section 3, Article

XI of the Philippine Constitution.

4. ​Senator Fleur De Lis is charged with plunder before the Sandiganbayan. After finding the

existence of probable cause, the court issues a warrant for the Senator's arrest. The

prosecution files a motion to suspend the Senator relying on Section 5 of the Plunder

Law. According to the prosecution, the suspension should last until the termination of the

case. Senator Lis vigorously opposes the motion contending that only the Senate can

discipline its members; and that to allow his suspension by the Court would violate the

principle of separation of powers. Is Senator Lis's contention tenable? Explain. ​(10%)

ANSWER. The Senator’s contention is untenable. Under the Plunder Law, he can be

preventively suspended. Article VI of the Constitution is “distinct” from the

suspension under the Plunder Law, “which is not a penalty but a preliminary,

preventive measure, prescinding from the fact that the latter is not being imposed

on petitioner for misbehavior as a Member of the House of Representatvives.

5. ​Explain the following:

a. the concept of expanded judicial review under the 1987 Constitution? ​(5%)

ANSWER: The 1987 Constitution expanded the concept of judicial power by

granting the courts the power to determine whether there has been a grave

abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of

any branch or instrumentality of the government.

b. the rule-making power or the power of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules

under Section 5, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution vs judicial legislation. ​(5%)

ANSWER: The Supreme Court shall have the power to promulgate rules

concerning pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, and the admission

to the practice of law. Said rules shall be uniform for all courts of the same

grade and shall not diminish, increase or modify substantive rights.

c. ​Expanded jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under the 1987 Constitution. ​(5%)
 ANSWER: ANSWER: The 1987 Constitution expanded the concept of judicial

power by granting the courts the power to determine whether there has been a

grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the

part of any branch or instrumentality of the government.

d. ​The exceptions of actual case of controversy? ​(5%)

ANSWER: ​By constitutional fiat, judicial power operates only when there is an

actual case or controversy.​ ​This is embodied in Section 1, Article VIII of the

1987 Constitution which pertinently states that "judicial power includes the

duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights

which are legally demandable and enforceable.

6. ​Enunciate the best arguments of the petitioner and respondent with regard to the

constitutionality of the Priority Development Assistance Fund. Explain the ruling of the

Supreme Court on the unconstitutionality of the Priority Development Assistance Fund.

(15%)

ANSWER: The Supreme Court ruled on the unconstitutionality of the Priority

Development Assistance Fund or the pork barrel fund on the ground that is both

fails the sufficient standard test inviolation of the principle of non-delegability of

legislative power.

7. ​The President declares martial law in Marawi City. He makes the required report within 48

hours to Congress by sending the Executive Secretary to explain the circumstances

surrounding the declaration. Three weeks elapses and Congress does nothing. There are

even no debates or discussions. The Father Saturnino Human Rights Center wants to go

to the Supreme Court to question the declaration of martial law, and they approach you

for advice. Specifically, they raise three questions:

a. Did the President validly comply with the constitutional reporting requirement by
 only sending his Executive Secretary?

b. Can the Congress validly “not do anything” for three weeks?

c. If the FSHRC does go to the Supreme Court when the Congress has not exercised

its political jurisdiction, is this matter justiciable? Does the FSHRC have standing

to bring this suit?

Please briefly but comprehensively respond to the questions. ​(15%)

ANSWER. Yes, the President validly complied with the constitutional reporting
requirement. In declaration of martial law, the President is allowed to declare so if there is
actual invasion or rebellion and if the public safety requires it.

8. ​Explain exhaustively 2 of the following topics: ​(10%)

a. Residual powers of the President, mention the jurisprudence

ANSWER: The President shall exercise such other powers and functions vested in
the President which are provided for under the laws which are not delegated by the
President in accordance with the law unless the Congress provides otherwise. Thus,
in Lagman v Executive Secretary, the fundamental powers of the Government are
established, limited, and defined.

b. Non delegability of the Legislative power

ANSWER. The Constitution is strict and clear that what has been delegated cannot
be delegated. However, there are cases wherein delegation of powers is allowed
under the law like the power of taxation, etc.

c. Oposa vs Factoran

ANSWER: The case of Oposa v Factoran is a case of great contribution to the

development of international environmental law. Further, it is considered as a
landmark case of the Supreme Court about the doctrine of Intergenerational
Responsibility on the environment.

d. Jurisprudence on executive immunity

ANSWER: ​There is no provision in the Constitution clothing the president with

immunity from suit. However, during his incumbency as the President, he is immune
from suit so as not to disrupt his executive functions and responsibilities. After his
term as President, he can be sued.